I'm not posting this because I'm pro-GMO. Just curious to see how people respond/debunk.

[www.technologyreview.com]

That was quite a long article, and I didn't read it word for word, but skimmed the whole thing.

This is my takeaway -

It looks like the premise of the article is that because of "climate change" and "growing global population", we need more GMO crops.

Every paragraph or so they spout off about how great GMO crops are and how we need them either because of climate change or an exploding global population.

From the article:

"With the global population expected to reach more than nine billion by 2050, however, the world might soon be hungry for such varieties.

At the current level of agricultural production, there’s enough food to feed the world, says Eduardo Blumwald, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis. But “when the population reaches nine billion?” he says. “No way, José.”

My comment on the population problem is -

I think we read somewhere and posted on here that actually the global population is decreasing, not increasing, so we don't need more GMO crops for that non-event.

*********************

From the article:

"Climate change will make it increasingly difficult to feed the world. GMOs could help."

The climate has always been 'changing' and a challenge for growing crops, and it always will be. So that is not a new situation that calls for the answer of more GMO Crops.

So their arguments are based on false assumptions and projections. They are promoting their GMO solution to non-existent problems.

Where do funds for graduate school come? where does the money come from? If they spoke bad about GMOS they would lose projects. It is BS science. They will also tell us we need drugs from pharmas in order to survive in a fup planet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2013 12:17PM by Panchito.

But, but...a venerable institution like MIT could never corrupted by cash! Blasphemy!