I think the most exciting benefit of genetically engineered foods is the possibility of using DNA recombinant technology to introduce vaccines into plants. Down the road, vaccines probably will be developed that will prevent obesity, heart disease, diabetes, pregnancy, and tooth decay. Drugs will be able to be delivered that decrease addictions (cocaine & nicotine) or prevent allergies. An apple a day will keep the doctor away!
so, basically, we’ll be able to live haphazardly and contrary to our bodies needs, and then engineer frankenfood to try and make up for our reckless disregard for what we need.
heart disease, obesity- I know some is genetic (I had a heart attack at 18 so I’m sympathetic to this situation) but a hell of a lot is how we live. Fast food this. Double meat double cheese that. Processed. High sodium. Low Folic Acid.
diabetes- again, some is genetic (but don’t we already have insulin for this) but a lot is just people with no self-control eating the shit out of candy and cake…
tooth decay, pregnancy, drug addiction- for god’s sake, take care of yourself! groom! safe sex!
I have nothing against vices, but take responsibility for that. (Read some Sartre if you need instructions on this respect). I’m an alcoholic, but if liver failure comes around I will blame nobody but myself. I will not try to take away a transplant from someone with genetic liver defects. If I kill myself because of my addiction, I kill myself. I don’t think I’ll ever let it get that bad though.
I see this very much akin to the situation in our modern psychiatric field. subscribe this, subscribe that. prozac, blah blah blah. fix the symptoms, but don’t fix the cause. don’t get to the root of ones discontent. don’t help the patient find meaning in his or her life, or find comfort in certain things… nah, just fill the prescription with all the bad side effects and all the addictiveness and all the money for the pharmaceutical industry.
what happens when the vaccines no longer work? what are the side effects that may happen with overuse (example: I like green peppers. Green peppers now have a shitload of flouride to combat tooth decay. I eat the shit out of them and it actually causes tooth decay! Flouride is good in moderate quantities, but too much will have the opposite effect)
What would the point even be in putting all sorts of vaccines into vegetables? What is wrong with having pills for that (for people that find such medication necessary)? Why put it into food, as food is supposed to serve one major purpose: nourishing our bodies.
Vegetables are already nutrient-rich. Jalapenos have an insane amount of Vitamin C. Leafy vegetables have all sorts of folic acid and calcium. The weird thing is, eating jalapenos (for example) is a much more efficient way of getting Vitamin C than taking a pill, because the other nutrients in jalapenos complement the vitamin c and allow the body to digest it. Veggies are very complex. Will putting vaccines into vegetables offset the natural properties of vegetables?
Why even go there?
Now I guess I won’t sleep well,
should have logged off when I had the chance.
colin
Did I ever say that? No. What I said is that objecting to GMOs on the grounds that a better system could exist if the world’s agriculture were changed radically (and according to your personal munchkin – even if I share it) is unrealistic and illogical, just as it is illogical and unrealistic for fundamentalists to rally against AIDS research because, in their ideal world, nobody has premarital sex or uses illegal intraveneous drugs.
The point is that GMOs can help with world hunger, as well as decreased pesticide use, greater yields, and a variety of other economic, social, health, and environmental issues. Could we solve these problems another way? Perhaps yes. That’s not a good argument to use against GMOs, though.
**
Of course. Yet, this would turn the culture and economy of the world on its heel. Wouldn’t it be more constructive to come up with ideas that have applications without expecting the entire world to change its daily life in a radical way? This is called realism. I know I may be in the minority among some environmentalist groups for calling for it, but I would much rather work on ways to improve the environment and could actually be implemented rather than pie-in-the-sky ideas which are a hundred times more effective.
**
Sure. Killing off 99% of the world’s population and have the rest of us live in agricultural communes would also be an alternative. Yet, having alternatives is not enough for two reasons. First, I see no reason why there cannot be GMOs as well as the things that you suggest, and second, your alternative is not implementable within a reasonable sense of the word.
**
I feel strongly about vegetarianism as well. Yet, it’s just not relevant here, and I object to your tone that I do not realize vegetarian issues. I do. I simply don’t see how being anti-GMO has a whit to do with vegetarianism, nor does being a vegan give you a reason to disagree with GMOs without supporting your argument.
Tell me why, exactly, you are against GMOs – not because there are better alternatives, not because there are bigger issues, but why, specifically, you are con on this issue. Then, I believe, we can get to the heart of this issue.
You bring up organic vegetables, without realizing that GMOs are being designed in order to be grown organically – yet there are a large number of people who object to GMOs being labeled organic. Why? Isn’t having a plant that, by its very nature, does not need pesticide a good thing? Isn’t this just an extension of selective breeding?
**
No, they don’t. They certainly do survive better and produce more when insects are not present.
Irrigation is used to give more water, yes. This is not only to allow the plants to survive but for them to thrive. Pesticides and fertilizers, as well as selective breeding, do the same thing. How is it bad logic to associate these?
Plants often do have natural pesticides. GMOs can, for example, take that trait and add it to other plants that do not have it. This produces a plant that is naturally pest-resistant. So what’s the problem? Describe how this is negative.
**
So what? It isn’t necessary to have agriculture at all – food bearing plants occur in the wild. How is lack of necessity relevant?
**
Only if you go by the assumption that we’d have the same amount of farms producing food crops.
**
Are you a farmer or do you have a background in agriculture? Because we’re suddenly not going to have a huge surplus of food crops if we stopped eating meat.
**
GM crops aren’t about growing more food as we’ve already got all the food we need. GM is about growing better crops and at the same time lowering the cost of production for farming. So the amount of food we have really has nothing to do with the topic of GM crops.
I ask again are you a farmer or do you have an agriculture background? For thousands of years of farming we’ve had over 80% of the population farming. Now thanks to the miracle of machinery, fertilizer, and pesticides we have less than 2% of the population involved in farming. If you want to produce enough food to sustain a large population the most economical way to do it is with pesticides and fertilizer. If you want a demonstration please come on down to Arkansas. I can show you the fields that did not use enough herbicide and are being overrun with weeds and cotton fields destroyed by boll weevils.
Marc