Okay, coffee ingested.
Goooood Day #qoto and #mastodon !
I hope you'll have a wonderful day today. It's another lovely day in Tel Aviv- the heat is finally starting to bleed off and it's super comfortable outside today. I'm feeling good, always a bonus.
So, #RandomQuestion for you find peoples today: Genetically Modified Organisms- specifically crop plants: What's your opinion?
🇳🇱
@Surasanji I am a huge GMO supporter for all the good it has brought to starving people. The only legitimate risk I can see is if those species escape to the wild and out-compete native species. With that said for crops it is a non-issue since they rarely grow well in the wild.
I more or less agree... I mean, GMOs could be a pretty good tool, but they have often been used in combination with fertilizers and pesticides which are harming the soil and making it a desert quite quick. Other issues seen have been that GMOs have been heavily implemented, leading to the loss of biodiversity, and at the same time a more frail crop.
But this are problems with the implementation, not with gmos themselves, which so far haven't shown a single health or ecological hazard, AFAIK. So i agree, just wanted to toss couple of consideration more =)
glyphosate is not related to GMOs by themselves, I think this is getting a bit out of track.
As I stated before, main problem for me is soil degradation and loss. There is no GMO right now that helps the soil, and that means that is not sustainable or regenerative in any way, so I'd look elsewhere for solution, ATM. But excluding as a matter of principle a technology is something I wouldn't do.
Where do you see technological salvation in this exchange of ideas?
That is why I said "by themselves". It is a matter of a certain kind of GMOs right now present, it's not how GMO has to be, it's just an example of it.
There are reports of GMOs giving better crops, there are reports of GMOs giving worse crops. It highly depends on what the person doing the report considers "good", what data s/he has and how it is evaluated. There is no consensus on what is the "right" way of doing it, just saying "gmo is better" or "worse" doesn't say much.
Why toss the workerless farms in the conversation? Isn't it difficult and big enough as it is? =D
The solution to these difficult problems may be orthogonal to the direction we're headed in now.
Sorry, I don't understand what you just wrote... what do you mean by "decouple time"? And by "orthogonal to the direction"?
I'm not native English, or I just may be too ignorant on the matter to understand you =)
@js290 @freemo @Surasanji I agree on the soil part, that is my main personal interest, but I think my training in math is too low to understand you...
I appreciate that you have taken to the time to explain your opinion to me nonetheless, it's clearly something you thought a lot about =)
Understanding and observing the soil is the root/radical solution. Our health is coupled to the health of the Earth/soil. GMO is technological salvation, a faith based proposition.