- Last post
- 14 Responses
I think the problem with GMO is that it's lumped into one single argument, when there are good and bad aspects.
People feel that splicing plant stalks to disrupt and alter a species for the benefit of humans is more natural then splicing genes directly. Is it though?
For hundreds of years we've already worked to create tastier, juicier and hardier food with grafting and other techniques. So were those techniques morally superior? Guaranteed better for the body? They technically aren't 'natural' in the sense that nature intended them.
I honestly don't have a solid opinion yet. Signal to noise is such a problem. But with population and climate change, GMO is the inevitable future, regardless of popular opinion. Look at California's environmental landscape for the last 5+ years.
- Aye, I'm much more comfortable with gene swapping between, say, 'within plants' than I am of 'plants and jellyfish'.detritus
- ^ Or dinosaurs and frogs.ETM
- ESPECIALLY dinosaurs and frogs.detritus
- There are good and bad aspects. But genetically modify things in a laboratory is far different from cross breeding.formed
- It has nothing to do with 'what nature intended' and everything to do with what is safe (and beneficial).formed
- Life...uh...finds a wayyuekit
- "For hundreds of years we've already worked to create tastier, juicier and hardier food with grafting and other techniques."
quite the opposite actuallyimbecile