https://io9.gizmodo.com/you-can-thank-genetic-engineering-fo...
Sure, baby cows aren't being (literally) gutted for the lining of their stomachs, but that's hardly the extent of the misery we inflict upon dairy animals.
EDIT: not directed at you. Just entertained at the semantic hoops people will set up and then jump through.
I am a predator. Predators kill prey animals, including (and sometimes especially) the babies. Cheese is delicious. Im anti-GMO and have been killing animals for food since I was 3.
GMO and monsanto practices are health issues. The pesticides are a problem in terms of chemical pollution.
As for gene editing, it's a question of polluting the gene pool of a life system. Releasing Gene-mod into a complex dynamic self-regulating self-propagating system is like modifying diseases them and releasing them into human society. It may not be a problem, but we can't know if it will be a problem till it's done, and once it's done, it's done. You can't remove or erase your mistakes.
We cant know what any particular gene-mod will do in the wild, if it will be harmful or not, but we do know that monsanto and their cronies at the FDA and EPA don't give a flying fuck about systemic consequences of new technologies.
We do know that the technology is potentially catastrophic, and there are a lot of disincentives to be responsible baked into the system of those holding the keys to this tech.
You mean like life had been doing since its inception?
You can gripe about the speed and power with which we're performing genetic modification (and things like gene drives are powerful), but I can't agree with the "It's something that's never been done before!" angle.
We're just doing so intelligently. With incomplete knowledge, but a hell of a lot more intelligently than random mutation.
> Of course if you take two fields and plant each with a monocrop, then the one without pesticides will do worse than the one with, but that isn’t really what organic farming is.
> It is true that the old, control-based methods of agriculture are nearing the peak of their productive potential. Further investments in this kind of technology are bringing diminishing marginal returns – witness the proliferation of Roundup-resistant weeds and the “necessity” of new kinds of herbicides to deal with them.
http://charleseisenstein.net/permaculture-and-the-myth-of-sc...
> Conventional agriculture doesn’t seek to maximize yield per acre; it seeks to maximize yield per unit of labor. If we had 10% of the population engaged in agriculture rather than the current 1%, we could easily feed the country without petrochemicals or pesticides.
Interestingly, it may be that with coming automation we may be better served by reallocating 9% of our population back to agriculture...
Also, in a similar vein to permaculture, I found this article fascinating if you haven't come across it yet. https://medium.com/invironment/an-army-of-ocean-farmers-on-t...
Yes, one example of that political problem would be food prices being driven up by creating political barriers to more resource efficient crop technologies.
Imho, arguing that politics are resulting in people starving is a bit like saying that gravity is too strong.
But. That's not to say I'll defend all their practices (like this one) or will not admit the anti-GMO crowd has some very valid points.