For those who are not familiar with genetically modified food, you guys should read this link "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food"
It provides the basics about genetically modified food. I just wanted to start a interesting discussion where there would be for and against the genetically modifying our food. There are both good and bad reasons why we should or not genetically modify our food.
Personally, I think that genetically modified food is a bad thing. Its going against the laws of nature and eventually it would result in a hazardous environment to live in.
A Formal Goodbye to the Foodies Blogs
14 years ago
While it does go against the laws of nature it is the only plausible solution ive seen that could end world hunger
ReplyDeleteI concur with Alec as much as it'll be a painful process to get to the final outcome of ending world hunger. =\ Like a rose, sacrifices are made to make the "most optimal/best" rose of the crop. (well something like that)
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, we technically are already going against nature by trying to prolong the inevitable -- death with our technology as well as taking care of people that are not able to care of themselves. =\ Man the truth hurts.
I do believe the laws of nature are not being violated too much. Yes, it's strange, but its doing what humans have been doing the entire time. It is breeding animals and plants to get certain traits except we are only using technology to target specific traits. Besides, wouldn't a fish crossed with a chicken look and taste strange?
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind,genetically modified foods are more tolerant of colder seasons, more resistance against herbicides,are stronger against pests, and have a higher survivability in drought conditions. Genetically modified foods help keep the price of food low by keep crops available all year around under many conditions.
ReplyDeleteI am in the middle on this one. This could provide a good solution for world hunger. Breeds of crops resilient to all weather types and resistant to pests that produce in abundance sound ideal. However, at least according Pollan's research, breeding and engineering our food sources has resulted in their loss of nutritional value. While they seem to be engineering plants and animals to be healthier and to produce more of different vitamins, fats, etc., it seems to come to a nutritionist and reductionist point of view, which as Michael introduced to us, is not a very good of a path to take.
ReplyDeleteOveerall, I would say it is somewhat unnatural, but possibly a sort of ugly and yet scientifically amazing means to get to helpful goal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a good solution to world hunger. What's more, I don't think against the laws of nature is a serious problem, because when an existing balance is broken, a new balance will always be formed soon. Just like Le Chatelier's Principle in chemistry.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you guys read WIRED magazine, but in their December Issue they have an article about gentically altered plants. It talks about a new company (not named) that has a full assembly line of machines that plants, grows, waters, analyzes and even takes pictures of the plants automously. They do this entire thing to speed up mutations to try to find stronger plants. I found this very interesting, not only because having stronger plants could mean larger yields, but because our technology has advanced so far that we can have machines evolve and plant our food for us. So if you happen to be in the library or happen to be in a bookstore with spare change in your pocket check out WIRED magazine and read up on their article on genetic foods.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the argument in that it goes against the laws of nature. Why are people so resistant to change? For example: If a plant is genetically superior to another, in that if can grow with little to no water (or even soil), then it will outlive the less superior plant.
ReplyDelete