The same accusation of shallowness can be leveled at the opposite camp. Including your comment.

Yes, GMO is a refinement of crop modification techniques humans have employed throughout history. So the argument is that since those were "good", this can't be otherwise. But it's not that simple, a lot of the consequences of these modifications are at a closer inspection not that beningn. For example, the transition from hunter-gatherer cultures to agricultural ones came with severe detrimental impact on the health of those populations.

There is such a thing as something being more or less natural, that's why we have this concept. It's just that it's not easy at all to formalize. Maybe even impossible. But it won't go away, because it actually correlates to an essential aspect of reality.

>GMO is about transplanting genes, so any gene used has already "broken loose" before it is ever transplanted into any GMO crop

you can however transplant genes across species, which just doesn't happen in nature. The fear that these improved crops would outcompete native grasses outside the farm wouldn't be unjustified if it weren't for Monsanto doing everything they can to prevent farmers from replanting their harvest.

Gene transplantation across species does occur in nature (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfers). Apparently our genome contains traces of viral DNA, and species of bacteria can swap genes using plasmids.

While that's correct, it doesn't alleviate any of the fears. Virus->Something transfer isn't relevant unless Anything->Virus transfer is also common (which doesn't appear to be the case?). Plant->Plant or Bacteria->Plant transfer are really the ones relevant to GMOs, and neither seem to be common. So we really can't say that genetic modification is just like what nature does, except for uncommon edge cases.

I'm no expert here but from what I've read bacteria can be used as vectors in genetic engineering. I think this is an important point to mention since GMOs are sometimes seen as playing god, while I'm not sure if they are really so different from traditional selective breeding techniques. In the end, we should evaluate these techniques based on how safe they are, rather than thinking about "naturalness".

Whilst this is recent enough knowledge to not be included in what most people here would have learned in high school, we have found many genes that have been transplanted laterally. We are technically not sure this was by viruses (perhaps it was by bacteria or even somehow directly).

Genes do spread without procreation. This is a certainty at this point.

This is the sort of scientific illiteracy and ignorance masquerading as "reasoned response" that makes this whole exercise futile. Literally NOTHING in your comment was true. Not one single bit of it.

You are correct, but the way you wrote that deserves the downvotes you are getting.