General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Problem with G.M.O. Labels [View all]frazzled
(18,402 posts)Your post is quite shocking to me.
You seem to be implying that, given the world's increased population, you think people should be allowed to perhaps starve in order to save the world so that ... I don't know, people like YOU can continue to eat what you like? Is it your belief that some impoverished person in Sri Lanka should have less right to existence than you? And isn't this an argument for eugenics of a sort? Is that a liberal position?
There are other reasons to oppose GMOs than safety (ecological ones, for instance, or even political ones) ... but it is also undeniable that rates of famine have decreased in the wake of biogentic engineering. So if we are going to rail against it, we really need to come up with some solution to address poverty, agriculture, and development. We can't small-organic farm our way out of this with precious heirloom tomatoes. So I'm fine if people want to argue against GMOs (though they will certainly be arguing against the vast consensus of scientific opinion, much like climate deniers) ... but if you do, you'd better come up with a better answer for addressing the issues of hunger and health than some sort of "let them eat nothing" attitude.