It's also ridiculous to just hand wave away crop productivity improvements with "but we already have enough food." We aren't going to revolutionize global food distribution any time soon, but we can do things that have concrete impact right now. We're also losing land to agriculture far too fast, particularly in the amazon. We need to be decreasing the amount of land used by agriculture, and GMOs are a very powerful tool in that interest.
GMOs need to be regulated, and I think the IP regime that Monsanto is protected by should be struct down (not that I expect that any time soon). But please don't wave away the entire discussion with strawman arguments.
What strawman argument? I was responding specifically to the point I quoted that feeding more people is important. And I made a couple of points specifically against that position. So where's the straw?
That seems like an odd thing to point out to me.
More people is not an obviously positive thing for us or the planet. And we have enough food and wealth for everyone as it is. If feeding more people were the priority, it could be addressed in other ways. I think the primary motive behind GMO is increased control and profit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there's a whitewashed motive as well.