I’d question, is it a net win for the environment and workers?
The general concept is that tilling/plowing is used to mow over weeds, and killing weeds with chemicals is an alternative.
Your question is a good one. I don't know the answer. The articles listed above describe the environmental and health downsides.
A distinct problem - also described in these articles - that may spell doom for Roundup-Ready crops is the emergence of resistant weeds.
There are alternatives to industrial-scale weed control outside of tilling and herbicides. One way is to grow cover crops in the "off season", then cut them and leave them in a thick mat that starves weeds of sun while also gradually rotting and fertilizing the soil, then cut little holes in this mat where you plant seeds. The USDA NRCS promotes methods like this largely through educational programs. Farmers adopt them because they ultimately save costs on herbicides and fertilizer.
Who knows maybe in a few decades we'll produce all food through some industrial process resembling hydroponics, with energy from Nuclear Fusion replacing sunlight, and weeds will be a distant memory.
Those GMO seeds are covered by Intellectual Property Law and that power lets the company controls every aspect of how that seed is used by the farmer.
And when the farmer resists it end up in court.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetical...
Upwards of 90% of all major crops (corn, soy, cotton, beets) have BT, HT or both. Other GMO crops and traits are dwarfed by scale of this mass cultivation.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/47649/alltables.x...
Notice that traits like drought resistance don’t come up at all.
If we are using existing reactor technology then basically these nuclear plants would basically have to built thousands of feet below ground in some sort of solid rock area and then waste areas would need to be created such that it can contain the waste for hundreds of thousands of years. If an absolute disaster were to occur then the entire underground facility would need to basically be completely sealed off permanently before radioactive dust or materials are leaked. The facility would also need to be designed such that even if a disaster occurs that an underground nuclear explosion does not occur and if it does occur that it is not so massive that it somehow bursts out to the surface or creates fissures.
Currently I am anti-nuclear based on the existing way things are run but if nuclear is implemented correctly, with safety as the most important priority, then I would support it. If I recall correctly, there is a company funded by Bill Gates that is creating micro reactors. That might have potential in the underground nuclear facility I have.
The first assumption is scientifically incorrect. GMO is just another tool for altering organisms. Whether those alterations are good or bad depends on how the tool is used. It does allow a wider range of alterations than traditional techniques, and is faster, so enlarged both the set of good alterations possible and the set of bad alterations possible.
History, or a trip to the grocery store, suggests that the second assumption is questionable.
As Uncle Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility. GMO is great power, but will the people who wield that power do so responsibly? That is not a science question.