Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

theupwing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#31

Post by defrost »

moi2388 wrote: post #6

GMOs are under patent and increase prices, they do not keep the poor hungry, they are simply resistant to more pesticides. And pesticides like Roundup have been linked to neurological problems like Parkinson. If you’d want to save the poor, you’d teach them about greenhouses and irrigation and soil enrichment, which are actually the biggest issues in these poor countries

Roundup is a broad-spectrum glyphosate-based herbicide.

A weed|plant-killer (not a pesticide) that grain crops are modified to be resistant to.

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#32

Post by xboxnolifes »

grumbelbart2 wrote: post #14
danpalmer wrote: post #4

Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…

> We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet That, too, is debatable. Google "Do we have enough food" - we could feed 10B people with what we produce. Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place. > namely the lack of pesticides, of which some may be dangerous (but often regulated) There is also overfertilizati…

> Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place.

Yes, but if food can become X% more abundant do to increased yield or survivability in previously unsurvivable climates, distribution and costs can become that much less of an issue.

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#33

Post by reducesuffering »

refactor_master wrote: post #28
reducesuffering wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale You could say the same thing about grass grazing cows and free range chickens. But anyone who’s had fresh home grown eggs, milk, or a 1/4 cow out in the country knows how much of a difference there is. Just because something is maximally efficient, doesn’t mean it’s healthier. Just like Coca Cola isn’t healthier than Kefir.

That’s a strawman’s argument though. You can produce healthy kefir and cabbage at scale, which is healthier than any organic craft soda. The reality is that free range animals take up an incredible amount of resources for a small percentage of the population who can afford such luxury.

Of course you can produce healthy kefir and cabbage at scale, just as you can organic produce.

But you can’t produce as much as Coca Cola and non-organic.

Which is why I’m specifically refuting

> organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale

Because it’s still true that no matter how much scale your Kefir has, those properties apply to it more than Coke.

So let’s not talk about purely that you can make more non-organic, but about the tradeoff and what get from organic when you’re not making quite as much.

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#34

Post by kadkads »

dvh wrote: post #9
asterix_pano wrote: post #5

We have more than enough food for everyone. Actually, we waste most of agricultural land to grow crops to feed animals that we eat later on, which is extremely inefficient, like a 10 to 1 calorie conversion rate. It's also cruel, bad for the environment, etc.

But humans cannot eat grass, there are animals that only eat grass (sheep, geese, cows, goats) that are perfectly edible for humans.

That would only be true if they eat a pure grass diet. They do not. They are fed soy, which is perfectly edible for humans.

https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation

>More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh. The idea that foods often promoted as substitutes for meat and dairy – such as tofu and soy milk – are driving deforestation is a common misconception.

If we stop that, we free up a lot of calories for human consumption. I'd say the total amount of pure grass fed animals would be way lower, which would be better for the environment of course, and meat would be much more expensive. Actually, I like that. Good idea!

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#35

Post by kadkads »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…

>In reality, organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale, in many ways making them worse for the environment than (responsible) pesticide usage.

The issue I refer to as "conventional organic" involves attempting to farm like a conventional farm but without using pesticides. This approach is naturally problematic. However, there are alternative farming methods that can significantly boost productivity while also valuing biodiversity. For instance, permaculture is an excellent option for small farms in developing countries, and agroforestry enhances climate resilience. And crop mixing, such as planting wheat with broad beans, can increase yields by 16%. This method also improves soil fertility by fixing nitrogen and reduces the risk of pest infestations and diseases.

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#36

Post by II2II »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…

In addition to corporate control, I believe that consumer consent is a major issue. Sure, labelling something as a GMO is going to have a short term impact. Yet it is a fairly safe bet that the vast majority of people simply won't care whether a given product contains GMOs or not within a decade. And those who do care would have been choosing things like organic produce anyway.

Instead we have a situation where people feel compelled to lobby governments to place more stringent regulations on the industry simply because they are left with no meaningful choice in what they buy. Worse yet, it breeds suspicion not only of corporate motivation but of product safety. The latter of which is of greater concern over the long term viability of GMOs.

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#37

Post by jareklupinski »

> Over the next 25 years, the development, and successful use of genetic engineering in the production of agricultural crops, will play a vital role in the support of human flourishing and save and enrich the lives of millions. This will, however, only be possible if we support the research, development, and use of GE technologies in a rational manner.

seeing the side-by-side comparisons of how much wheat has increased in yield from radiation-gardening made me realize that all we're really doing is speeding evolution / domestication using technology, and this was over 50 years ago! https://youtu.be/LPZqVSu_fu4?t=549

the most democratizing step would probably be distributing CRISPR kits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing) to farmers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening was close but I guess we can't have errant atoms running amok ("The Atomic Gardening Society utilized an early form of crowd-sourcing, in which members received irradiated seeds, planted them in their gardens, and sent reports back to Howorth detailing the results.")

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#38

Post by moi2388 »

Kuinox wrote: post #22
moi2388 wrote: post #6

GMOs are under patent and increase prices, they do not keep the poor hungry, they are simply resistant to more pesticides. And pesticides like Roundup have been linked to neurological problems like Parkinson. If you’d want to save the poor, you’d teach them about greenhouses and irrigation and soil enrichment, which are actually the biggest issues in these poor countries

What do you have against GMO like the golden rice ? None of what you listed applies to it, yet your statements harms GMO like golden rice.

Yes, general statements never (almost never? :p) deal with all edge cases.

Did you know they don’t need a patent on the crop? They can file patents on variations of the genes in question, meaning even other variations can be protected under patent laws.

I guess it would be more honest to say I think there are other, more pressing matters in agriculture than GMOs, and that I have serious problems with patents on basic needs like medicine and food sources.

But the topic was about GMOs, so I phrased my response in this context. Do with it as you like.

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#39

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…

Completely anecdotal but still legit question: why the organic version of a product is usually more tasty?

Re: Rejecting GMOs hinders human progress and keeps the poor hungry

#40

Post by Karrot_Kream »

Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #39
danpalmer wrote: post #4

Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…

Completely anecdotal but still legit question: why the organic version of a product is usually more tasty?

This is a purely anecdotal response so I don't think anyone should draw big conclusions from my answer. In my experience, the farms and outlets that adhere to organic labeling tend to care more about the quality of the product. Obviously in theory, being organic is orthogonal to being tasty. But if you're going for "air-chilled, organic, free range chicken breast" you're probably just shopping for a tastier product than regular chicken breast. Do be careful about which organic labeling is on the product as there's subtle differences to different organic labels.
Post reply on HN