Diabetes is one of the oldest diseases described in written form (circa 1500 BCE in Egypt). Just how long have these "scientists" wanted us to eat "shit food"?
What do you eat then? Not being funny, but practically all food stuffs are GMO. Over centuries, farmers have selected the "best" crops (whether that be for hardiness, fast-growing, large fruit bearing, etc).
"Artificial selection" (which is just a terrible name for coevolution with humans) is different. It happens in a longer time period of time so the rest of the eco-system (including humans) gets to coevolve with it.
I know there is a lot of propaganda that goes into it, mostly to paint the opposition as uneducated irrational village idiots so you can dismiss anyone who brings this up... or you feel the urge to educate them about the basics, so let me frame it another way which may be easier to understand:
Are you familiar with the problem of invasive species (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species)? It's when certain species of plants or animals are introduced into a different eco-system that hasn't evolved with that particular animal or plant... and the whole eco-system goes out of whack. All GMOs are potential invasive species to all eco-systems. This problem does not exist (or is negligible) with artificial selection.
Which GMO species are invasive? And how do you know which genetic coercion methods pose a greater danger of mutating a non-invasive species into an invasive one?
Specifically - it is impossible to know until they play out in particular eco-systems, just like with any other species. There is a reason why many organizations worldwide are working to forbid transporting certain species in and out of different habitats.
Potentially - all of them.
>And how do you know which genetic coercion methods pose a greater danger of mutating a non-invasive species into an invasive one?
Most mutations are deadly to the organism... and even among those that are not, it is possible that something similar has happened before and the eco-system has dealt with it (by rendering the mutations harmful to the ecosystems ineffective)... and the range of what is produced, even with mutations is limited. Sometimes, the mutations are dangerous and effective... but they are much rarer to the point that we can ignore it. GMOs are combination of already "effective" traits by design a lot of these combinations would not have occurred before.
If taking a species to a different island where it is not native to is bad enough, creating specific ones which have never existed anywhere ever is a major ecological disaster waiting to happen. This should not even be a discussion... but it's a thing only because the organizations that are working to fix the problem of invasive species are not even close to powerful as those who want to push GMOs for profit... and therefore there is a lot of pro-GMO PR in the media.
This would apply to artificial selection as well - perhaps even more so since you've no real control over what mutations are happening. Every new evolutionary competition edge a species receives is followed by an "invasion" phase where their newfound superpower allows them to take over for a few hundred thousand generations.
> If taking a species to a different island where it is not native to is bad enough, creating specific ones which have never existed anywhere ever is a major ecological disaster waiting to happen. This should not even be a discussion...
Actually, it should be a discussion, because the above argument is a false analogy. Invasive species are problematic because the surrounding ecosystem cannot curb their spread and out-competition of preexisting species. Modern crops don't have the capability of surviving outside of a human cultivated environment. Left to their own, they'd be choked out by weeds and changing soil conditions. Now if someone were to attempt to make a weed-proof AND bug-proof crop that can ALSO survive and thrive in non-cultivated terrain, THEN I'd be worried.
"Now if someone were to attempt to make a weed-proof AND bug-proof crop that can ALSO survive and thrive in non-cultivated terrain, THEN I'd be worried"
Me too, but most industrial farmers would probably celebrate.
But I doubt this can happen any time soon. Ecology is complex.
We are way, way past the point where anything that you're talking about has any relevance to the real world. How would you feed 10 billion people without these tools and GMOs? Are there any alternatives?
We can feel cool and eat grass-finished beef or whatever we fancy, but the reality is we can't feed the whole planet on it.
