Ahmed wrote:Ideology liberal, you ask:What should have been done? What would you have done if you had power at that time?
The human species has trouble regulating itself according to the environment (as many other animals do) since in it cultural factors are predominant and Malthus preached in the desert his nauseating theories. Once the link between science and power was established, determinisms were expressed, despite strong opposition from the public (but power was no longer on their side).
The advantages that you cite tend to evolve towards their opposite due to threshold effects and contradictions, mainly economic, which are growing, especially in the industrial countries, which motivates the interest carried towards the impoverished countries (and not survival of these famous 3 billion people whose companies don't care). By linking them even more closely to our fate, we very surely condemn them. Indeed, all civilization ends up disappearing, but the experience of the past teaches us that other societies survive and that this is hardly problematic ... Except that the almost universal expansion of ours announces an upheaval of a any other scale and helping the development of autonomous agricultural practices (which already exist) would constitute infinitely more precious aid than the pavement of the bear of GMOs.
Contrary to what you innocently claim, GMOs are not a trivial commodity, but concern an area on which life depends.
You also say that technique is only part of the problem and the solution, but I don't see any other aspect touched on in your comments ...
The question you are reporting was "What would you have done? What would you have done if you had had power back then?"
I find nothing concrete in your answer.
=> GMOs are not a trivial commodity, but concern an area on which life depends.
Bad ...
- The manipulations to create new natural varieties of plant (na-tu-relles!) Are also an area on which life depends. Do you have the same rejection of these natural varieties that you have of GMOs?
Because the new so-called natural varieties are no longer obtained by simple natural crosses between consenting adults of cousin varieties; most of the useful genes that can be easily imported in this way have already been exploited. We must now look for genes of interest outside the immediate family, by marrying the variety to be improved with wild, genetically distant, non-interbreeding varieties. These are arranged marriages, between partners without mutual attraction, and when the time comes, the spouses refuse the conjugal duty. The wedding night is not spent happily in the moonlit fields, but in the laboratory in test tubes, under the watchful eye of the selectors, the matchmakers-chemists in white coats. To obtain these crosses between non-consenting adults, matchmakers-chemists do not use erotic devices, they violate nature with a DNA hammer: attacks by toxic chemicals, exposure to X-rays, surrogacy.
These new varieties are still said to be natural, for the only reason that they were obtained by crossing, no matter the unnatural acrobatics that were necessary, which are far beyond what any Kama-sutra could have imagined.
Renan wheat was obtained by these acrobatics so unnatural that "Renan can be considered a GMO" (André Gallais, Professor Emeritus of AgroParisTech, member of the Academy of Agriculture).
However, Renan wheat is, with its descendants, the champion of organic wheat!
Organic wheat would be GMO!
New so-called natural and GMO varieties: what are the differences?
- Medicines, antibiotics, painkillers, against diabetes, overvoltage, etc., are also the domain on which life depends. So, do we ban them?
- Surgery, cancer, cardiac, etc. is also the domain on which life depends. Is it forbidden?
- I finish with the drugs produced by bacteria or GMO animals. Do you reject them?
=>You also say that technique is only part of the problem and the solution, but I don't see any other aspect touched on in your comments..
Let's first establish the facts: do Bt GMOs or not reduce the use of pesticides, do they have better yields? It is disputed here, but without reference.
Then we will see what else can be done, given what men are, since it seems to me that this is what is in your question. I quickly approached the question by asking how we could change men's behavior. I do not remember if you answered.
