Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Over 100 Nobel laureates urge Greenpeace to stop opposing GMOs

Scroll to see replies

I've never even closely suggested a ban on GMO's, so I dont know where you're getting this from.

I concede I worded that badly, but I think your proposed restrictions are far too, well, restricting. The technology needs room to breathe.

Original post by Galaxie501

"Applies equally to conventional farming methods."
Not to the same degree.

So GMOs shouldn't be used to the same degree, that's fine. But the risk of toxicity is nowhere near high enough to justify minimising usage to just what's "absolutely necessary".

Original post by Galaxie501

If you read my first post you'd remember that I said GMO's should be used to prevent starvation in certain areas of the world.

This isn't just about fixing certain parts of the world though, it's creating the breadbasket of the future. Population is growing, resources and land are not. Caution is important, but it mustn't be allowed to stand in the way of safe, scientific progress.

Reply 21

Galaxie501

Original post by Dez

Caution is important, but it mustn't be allowed to stand in the way of safe, scientific progress.

Precisely. Not even the most hardcore GMO protestors should want the scientific research on them to be minimuzed or halted. We wouldnt have visited the moon with that attitude.

I imagine this is a similiar rhetorical debate as with nuclear energy. I understand that nuclear plants are very safe these and that their energy is often cleaner than that of coal or oil plants (would have to double check), but if something would go wrong the consequences would be absolutely dangerous, as we have seen numerous times.

Im not making any judgement here, but do the long term benefits outweigh the potential of a catastrophe?

You decide.

Reply 22

Galaxie501