/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10842480
Holly fucking sake, how did we survived last 10 000 years without GMO?

I'm not saying it's bad, but... You know, one protein up down in GMO is okey even thou it can ruin body, but smoking meth is fucking illegal so I can't get it at pharmacy or meth bar?

You're fucking retarded.

>>10842492
>how did we survived last 10 000 years without GMO?
I said "in the future" you illiterate pajeet.
Reading your post nearly gave me a stroke.

>>10842480
>how will we survive in the future without it?
GMOs only exist for companies to make money. You can tell just be realizing the GMOs are not for better nutrition or better flavor, but instead for disease resistance and pesticide resistance. GMOs are not for consumers, they are for businessmen. Which is why golden rice isn't grown in any significance. It was just a PR vehicle.

>>10842492
By having an exceptionally stable climate on which our farming is based. Which is now coming to an end.

>>10843238
Do you realize that all of our crops and farm animals have been genetically modified by natural selection, right? Everything you eat is a GMO. Monsanto (and now by extension Bayer) are just in it as a cash grab, but that doesn't mean that's all GMO foods are.

>>10843238
>You can tell just be realizing the GMOs are not for better nutrition or better flavor, but instead for disease resistance and pesticide resistance.
So they gives us more food for cheaper and help reduce pesticide usage for the environment. How is that bad?

>>10842492
>how did we survived last 10 000 years without GMO?
We didn't. People have been breeding plants for specific traits since the beginning of agriculture. Doing it in a lab just accelerates the process.
As OP said, the problem isn't GMOs in concept, it's idiotic big agra and their protectionist practices.

>>10843688
Selective breeding isn't GM.