When GMOs genetically modified organisms were first promoted back in the early nineties, it sounded like the world would soon be saved from famine.
Pro There is so much wrong with the world at this point in time, disease, environmental destruction, agricultural problems etc. And many of these ills could be combated with the new field of biotechnology or bioengineering.
I understand that the field carries with it potential risk, but there is the potential for huge reward.
Scientists predict that the fungus, combined with deforestation, will cause a mass extinction in the frog population. But, biotechnology has the possibility to halt this extinction. Agricultural output has decreased over the years, proportionate to the amount of land used for farming.
This needs to change, and biotechnology has shown that it can alleviate the problem by making crops more disease and drought resistant: The crops can also be made more nutritious so that we have to plant less.
I can understand why this can be scary. Big corporations have monopolized this new technology: The challenges are many, but the rewards are even greater.
I have taken this debate up for debates sake it does not reflect my actual views. The problems of the world aside, we need to acknowledge a modern technological track record, that while modern technology has alleviated many problems, it has also unlocked more destructive capabillity than ever imagined.
Even the benign aspects of our global economy and our modern society has put in place unsustainable systems see factory farming and oil based economy this has allowed human beings to evolve far beyond enviromental carrying capacity. The only pitfall is we have built our society ontop of unsustainable systems and every technological advance brings more and more destructive weapons.
This ergo means we either have to effictively let modern society fall or redesign society or move up another tier in destructive power. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields.
Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. If we are going to make strides in genetics where it is possible to realize this plentiful food and disease free utopia, then the machinery will have to be abundant and cheap, making gene manipulation available to any government or terrorist group that sees fit to it.
Gene technology will most likely be more abundant,easier to use, and with more professionals capable of using it, than nuclear technology, making it even more dangerous.
Imagine them with the genetic abillity to reengineer it to perfect contamination and lethality. We could easily expect casualties of over million deaths if not possibly a billion against awidely unvaccinated society. Also, one of our leanest and most plentiful forms of meat fish are killed off because of fertillizers and pesticides used to prop factory farming up http: I await your response.
Pro Thank you for entering this discussion. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.
Your argument focuses on historical evidence which shows us that technology can be extremely destructive to the environment and humanity, particularly if used in the form of weaponry.
Technology certainly has caused much problems in the world, but one would be deceitful if they claimed that it also did not alleviate many of the ills of the world.
Without technology we would still have a world decimated by diseases such as small pox, malaria, TB, and yellow fever. Thanks to new fields of research, like biotechnology, we have managed to combat disease and in some cases, largely eradicate it. I will use a metaphor to conclude this point.
Just because a new technology has the possibility to be used in a way that is harmful does not mean that the technology itself is harmful.
For example, a hammer is a tool which can be used to kill and destroy, yet it is a tool which can also be used to build and create. Does that mean that we should stop producing hammers? Biotechnology can be used to combat the pressures we have placed on the environment.
Erosion of topsoil can be cut by more than 70 per cent when farmers use no-till techniques to remove weeds and crop residues before planting.
Biotechnology can help control weeds to reduce the need for tilling.Argument Against Biotechnology. Legalize It! Many feel today we are losing the war on drugs. On one side of the debate, we have people in favor placing restrictions on guns, while, on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have people fighting the regulation of guns.
Arguments in Favour of Genetically-Modified Crops. Harvard Website Ben Miflin. Genetic modification (GM) of crops, like any other new technology, should be viewed in the light of what has gone before. Mankind has been manipulating the genetics of crops for around 10, years.
Arguments in Favour of Genetically-Modified Crops. Harvard Website Ben Miflin. Genetic modification (GM) of crops, like any other new technology, should be viewed in the light of what has gone before.
Mankind has been manipulating the genetics of crops for around 10, years. Wheat, the world's major crop, is a hybrid of different species.
Transcript of Arguments for and against the use of Biotechnology in food production. The Lantern is more swayed by the socioeconomic argument against genetically modified crops. For example, many people are deeply uncomfortable with the fact that a handful of massive corporations. The Lantern is more swayed by the socioeconomic argument against genetically modified crops.
For example, many people are deeply uncomfortable with the fact that a handful of massive corporations.