[nancyminusone]

I like to bring this up in regards to livestock. "If we shouldn't eat chickens, then why are they food shaped?" Well, they are food shaped! Most of the animals we eat are designed to be eaten, born and bred over thousands of years to achieve that goal. A chicken is a most unnatural animal. No other bird has any reason to lay 300 eggs per year.

Livestock is as GMO as they come, just on a longer scale.

[sophacles]

What a strange response to "monocropping is bad, we should probably follow the science and farm in a way that keeps pollinators around and soil healthy". They didn't say anything about not having chickens or cows.... in fact most regenerative farming practices need chickens and cows (and pigs and goats) to make the soil healthier and keep pollinators healthy.

[humblebeekeeper]

FWIW, I do object to the industrial raising of animals for food as well.

Have a few pigs rummaging around your food forest? Some sheep to keep grasses and weeds in check? Some poultry to remove pests and aerate the soil? Sure! Love that, it's using behaviors in complementary ways to create a healthier system.

Cram thousands of animals into cubes and process them with machinery? Truly awful in my view.

[datameta]

This reads as a kneejerk reaction to the mention of GMO as if the person you responded to has an agenda. I think their point is that we need to be aware of what is natural (aka tested to equilibrium over huge periods of time) and what is artificial (propped up by human practices on the relatively short timescale of centuries and millenia).

It seems the baseline drifts and we could stand to take certain environmental cycles and/or livestock lifecycles for granted as though they exist purely through evolution or untouched ecological processes.

[triceratops]

The comment you responded to didn't say anything about GMO

[datameta]

The comment GP responded to was talking about how we have modified the environments of farms - talking about GMO livestock is a stone's toss away.

[humblebeekeeper]

FWIW, I am not opposed to GMOs broadly. But I am opposed to GMOs for the purpose of enabling more industrialization in agriculture. I don't see, e.g., red grapefruits as bad, even though they used an early form of genetic engineering (seeds were exposed to radiation in hopes of creating random mutations.)

[datameta]

I think I see your viewpoint and agree with it. It isn't a matter of "do we modify or not" but rather "how, when, and for what purpose? who benefits? does this damage the land or species lineage? etc"