GMO's bother me

Consider the fact us humans have been dealing with GMOs since we first started farming.

Farming was mistake.
That's where destruction of biodiversity began.

If it spreads it means the GMO is superior to the original organism, thus it's a good thing.

>any time a creature succeeds over another it's a good thing
youtube.com/watch?v=ORpBAIB9j64

Genes jump between species all the time
You have viral and bacterial DNA mixed in with yours
So do plants

If the genetic change is beneficial for human then yes.
Ofc if you create aids infected and aids resistant mosquitoes that don't die when infected but spread it like wildfire, if this GMO spread then it's a bad thing.

My only problem with GMOs is that organisms evolved to fit an environment made up of other organisms doing the same.

There's a homeostasis.

When you start fucking with that, then the homeostasis get's rekt.

Nature breeds freak fruit ... good
Man breeds SAME freak fruit... bad

Get over your idea that nature made is "good", man made is "bad"

GMOs are made to provide good tasting, nutritious food as economically as possible.

Read up on genetics.
GMO's are very trivial nowadays.

How's the homeostasis doing in a non-GMO wheat field for example...

Ever heard of pesticides and herbicides?

>mostly because of the spreading of genes to other plants that aren't supposed to have them.

And WHY does that bother you.

Also, "supposed to:" according to whom?

>There are classical crop breeding programs which try to make better varieties of crops through classical hybridizing, but this is just too slow (20 years).

And much less tested than genetically engineered products, while not in any sense controlling what other changes might be made in the genes of the crop species.

>They need more long term and comprehensive studies done on each and every change made prior to release outside of lab conditions.

Then you need to do the same for crops which have their genes altered by any other method. Other methods include cross-breeding, selecting for a new trait, or irradiation to induce mutations, as examples.

These other methods of changing an organism's genes are not (cannot be) as precisely targeted as a gene inserted through engineering.

There's nothing in genetic modification that makes it any bit more dangerous than traditional breeding.

The technology matters not. Only the end product does.

You can bang rocks together to make stone tools or you can use a diamond cutter to save time. Either way it doesn't matter. A sharp rock is a sharp rock and a dull rock is a dull rock.

There's no quality control in nature anyway. A gene taken from a potato and put into a tomato is not more likely to be harmful to humans than if some tomato gets random mutations naturally. Every single fruit you buy has a different genetic makeup than the one bought earlier and no one knows how it will affect you. Cause it probably won't.

The problem with GMO is not how harmful to humans they are, because so far there's just no proof that they're either good or bad. They're ordinary food. What they represent, however, is a possible and indeed very real threat to the genetic diversity of wild and/or cultivated plant varieties. GMOs are also resistant to pesticides, which means they are used in much larger quantities, though I read that there are also parasite resistant GMO varieties that do not need heavy pesticide use.

Fuck off Monsanto.

The evolution of agricultural products is not at all homeostatic. They are heavily artificially selected and designed for farming, not living in harmony with other species.

>What they represent, however, is a possible and indeed very real threat to the genetic diversity of wild and/or cultivated plant varieties.
That applies to any agricultural cultivar. The only relevant difference is that GMOs have regulatory oversight in that regard while cultivars don't.

Organisms evolve precisely because the world is not homeostatic
Both the environmental conditions and the predator, prey and competitor species of a given organism are in constant flux across geological time

>because so far there's just no proof that they're either good or bad
No, there is utterly overwhelming proof that they're perfectly safe to eat
By what mechanism could they even possibly not be?

Sorry, I did not explain myself well. I meant in comparison with regular food.

Yes, but we've observed traditional cultivars for millennia and GMOs have been around for very little time. I'm not saying that cultivars are not a threat, I'm saying that GMOs are as well. And companies like monsanto that purposefully contaminate regular cultivar stock with their GMO varieties so they can later claim in court it was their own are dangerous. They obviously disregard regulations.

>... They obviously disregard regulations.

I think this is the most important part, and I completely agree with you. A lot of the problems of the modern world are attributable to the Tragedy of the Commons, in which people forego the benefit of the many in order to obtain immediate, personal profit. It's this exact same way with regards to pollutant politics, although with a lot less focus in the media.

Do you know much about this topic? I'm very interested in a lot of the places where law and science overlap.

GMOs are terrific, and will definitely be the way of the future
but there should be monitoring and oversight to ensure no fuckmuppets put nasty shit into the crops, similar to what vaccines get

>Yes, but we've observed traditional cultivars for millennia and GMOs have been around for very little time.
So you agree that new cultivars are just as "dangerous"?

>And companies like monsanto that purposefully contaminate regular cultivar stock with their GMO varieties so they can later claim in court it was their own are dangerous. They obviously disregard regulations.
LOL sounds like a bullshit conspiracy theory. Citation needed.