Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"Actual problems" is a weasel phrase, I don't really know what to do with it. How are you defining "actual problems"?

And can we please separate Monsanto from GMOs? They're two entirely separate things.

It reminds me a bit of creationists who claim they don't accept evolution, when in reality what they don't accept is abiogenesis. Natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, are not really on their minds.

It may be easier to say "GMOs don't solve actual problems", but it's just not true (bananas are supposed to have seeds, for example -- are you saying bananas aren't useful?), and bleeds your argument dry of rationality, over the course of the conversation, because it pulls focus away from the actual issue, and that's the fucked up way Monsanto is using GMOs to bully people out of their livelihood (and in some cases, their lives).



Actual problems... hunger and malnutrition. Obesity and diabetes. Food deserts. Increasing concentration of the food supply in the hands of powerful megacorporations. Loss of biodiversity. Farmers trapped in cycles of crippling debt. Dislocated workers. Desertification. Governments largely under control of financial interests.

That's a start.

(ps: Bananas are not GMO. Seedless bananas and other fruits are the result of selective breeding, not laboratory alteration. Also, look up the history of the once-dominant Gros Michael banana for what happens when you rely on uniform planting of genetic clones.)


Selective breeding is GMO, and why does GMO have to solve any of those problems?

That's like saying we shouldn't have professional sports because they don't solve obesity.

What I'm generally getting at is the hate for GMO is unfounded. It's like hating a screwgun or hammer when your contractor messes up building your kitchen.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: