| >dangers of monocropping Nothing to do with biotechnology or genome editing. In fact both technologies can and will be used to make crops more diverse. >turning plants into intellectual property There are specific plant breeds that are already closely guarded IP. Not to mention, this is like being against software because software patents exist. >whatever the hell happened to pugs Selective breeding? That's what is responsible for every vegetable you have ever eaten, ever, without exception. >Now I'm just gonna come out and say it: fucking with genes worries me. It only takes one unforeseen toxic externality for the whole thing to turn out very poorly "Fucking with genes" is what enabled the agricultural revolution, the green revolution, and is responsible for all of the food we eat today. Now we have the biotechnology and understanding to edit genes in ways that are inherently safer, more targeted, and less random. Are you not concerned that your conclusion (biotechnology is too scary to ever use) is not held by the overwhelminh majority of plant scientists and geneticists? Is there anything you and I can talk about that would convince you of not being anti-biotechnology? |
Sure. I'm not strongly anti-biotechnology.
On reflection, the two points that really bother me.
a) genetic modifications are usually for stuff like "keeping potatoes from bruising because people don't like the look of bruised potatoes." Or "keeping tomatoes flavorful so people can keep mindlessly buying them out of season." They're always fixes that allow the consumer to remain as passive as possible.
b) I've never hear a single scientist make a good argument against GMOs. What, like you can't come up with a single possible downside? I think what finally convinced me to vote for Hillary was seeing the best arguments against her, by people who really hated her guts (like, really, the worst you have are dark insinuations?) I want to hear someone creative/knowledgeable come up with their best argument against GMOs. Like, they got hired to find the worst case scenarios. I just feel like I've never heard that argument articulated well.
Anyway, there are two possibilities: a) this issue is so amazingly stupid that no informed person would ever be bothered by these practices. b) there are real--if unlikely--toxic externalities to genetic modification, but no informed person wants to share them because they don't want to feed the fire of ignorance.
And, yeah, the dismissive tone of scientists I've talked to, coupled with their apparent ignorance, has not reassured me that this conversation is being had in good faith.