Is genetically engineering and tailoring our very own DNA the future of humankind Veeky Forums?
>faggots be calling it unnatural and dangerous
>there is no scientific evidence that eating GMO is dangerous
>there is nothing unnatural with organisms adjusting to their environment
>we've been doing it for millennia with pets and food crops
I know I'm right Veeky Forums
Yes, but only if the cucks get out of the way. You can see them already bitching about it, "THIS IS HIGHLY UNETHICAL, HOW DARE YOU", invariable it's some numale screaming this with spittle flying out his mouth.
Regardless the Chinese won't be stopped, they are the future if the US/EU decide to be cucks forever.
>faggots
Why the homophobia?
True. We'll just let natural selection rule out the weak ones who fear improvement.
>there is no scientific evidence that eating GMO is dangerous
I wonder if this anything to do with the studies on this question being funded by the companies that produce GMO foods
Nothing is as scary as gay people. One time one of them almost ate me, they trigger my PTSD.
personally, id rather not fuck with my DNA directly, ill just take easily engineered siRNAs to lower gene expression. I'm pretty happy with my genes but being able to downregulate certain stuff could be beneficial when i inevitably get lung cancer
They're only genes tho.
>TMW genes are everywhere in all food
>TMW you're made out of genes
>How is eating genes dangerous?
Are you one of those cummunists???
as someone who makes transgenic shit all the time, why don't you just look up what genes are being inserted into your food before thinking it's bad? Also by the actual definition of the term GMO, most modern crops are GMOs, unless you thought seedless watermelons are actually a thing in nature.
If you think about it an attack dog is technically a genetically engineered bioweapon
Drano is made out of atoms
>atoms are everywhere in your food
>you're made of atoms
>how can eating atoms be dangerous?
>make revolutionary gmo technology
>have lots of outside pressure from people to prove your food is safe
>do it
>oh well you're biased
actually I guess they could just get a third party, but who
my plant bio prof said the worst they found was a miniscule possibility that some proteins could be allergenic to some people (in which case it's a them problem for being allergic)
People have been eating GMO for decades now and they are fine.
Of more concern is hormonal byproducts accumulating in the drinking water. Genetically modifying livestock so they don't require hormones would be the fix to this, but you have to get the cucks out of the way first.
Atoms are quarks
>elementary particles are everywhere in your food
>you're made out of elementary particles
>how can eating elementary particles be dangerous?
its a fair point though
Then again what is exactly in GMO that causes health issues? As long as you're not adding any genes that produce dangerous proteins
It's the duty of companies and authorities to ensure these products do not contain things like that, as is the case with any other food source of any origin.
The truth is it is very dangerous. This is because we aren't very good at it. Three people have died from gene therapy trials. Even the recent CRISPR human gene editing wasn't very good, they were only able to copy a gene the embryo already had. They failed to put outside genes in. It may be the future, but it's a bit far off.
>invariable it's some numale
It's usually christcucks
Your real concern should be modern farming which is unsustainable and will eventually and ironically turn the farmland into a desert.
This made me laugh, thanks, user.
This guy is on the money.
GMOs don't magically enrich the soil. Even if we develop plants that generate produce 5 times the mass of current crops; you can't plant it in the Sahara desert. The amount of usable carbohydrates in the soil itself is limited, no matter how apt a GMO would be at extracting it from the soil.
So, we need extensive soil-enrichment a lot more than we need crop GMOs. Which is why we should invest more in ecological studies and short-term terraforming in which microscopic GMOs can prove instrumental.
As for modifying animals and humans. Well, we've already been doing that in much cruder ways. I'm sure in a few decades we might have some reliable methods to do it with safely.
The ethics question is a bit irrelevant. Someone, somewhere, will do it.
>The amount of usable carbohydrates in the soil
user, you know how photosynthesis work... do you?
Gmo can help this problem as well. Adding legumic nodes to crops to increase nitrogen in soil. Weaken the cellulose so that the dropped leaves can decompose quicker. There's a lot of stuff that we aren't doing with gmo that can benefit a farm ecosystem.
If it were that easy then irrigation and soil-fertilizer would be unnecessary. Photosynthesis alone may suffice to sustain natural climates, but not farmlands.
However, I hadn't immediately considered that perhaps we can somehow change the mechanisms of photosynthesis in GMOs to be more suitable for intensive farming. And as points out, we could hypothetically add legumic nodes to crops to sustain the nitrogen cycles, too.
Taken both of those into consideration, yes, GMOs stand to provide much more than I had initially suggested. Thanks, Veeky Forums.
they literally teach you in bio 1 the basics of how gmo works and how its not any more dangerous than eating natural chromosome/genelet foods.
pumping hormones/pesticides in food and unhygienic factory farms are the real culprits of "dangerous" foods
>If it were that easy then irrigation and soil-fertilizer would be unnecessary
You are right in this, but that doesn't make your statement about photosynthesis any more right.
user, plants do not take carbohydrates from the floor, they produce them out of sunolight, thats the whole point of it in the first place; they are the primary producers of matter and energy in ecosystems.
What they take from the soil are the NPS(CHO is taken from the atmospfehere and S to some extent, N indirectly), which are the ones you have to add, and you can make the plpants modify the pH of the soild to increase their absortion with GMO or make them precipitate toxic compounds and create fertile soils where there weren't any.
And efore you go with:
>Increased resource resource absortion will increase resource depletion.
Which is right by definition, but not really, GMO can solve that through artificial symbiosis with N2 fixing bacteria, and Sulfur is abundant and not that much neccesary for plant growth , phosphate is maybe the real problem here and can be solved through even more genetic modification.
I would rather my corn naturally produce a chemical like caffeine(which is a natural pesticide look it up) than have it sprayed with some poison because the bugs wont stop destroying crops.
>dna talioring
>proper BCI and real electronic advacements like hands or liver
WHEN?
WHY IT TAKES SO FUCKING LONG
Do you really want to give subject to the trannies and their degenerate delusions, OP?