It's not correct that we would sacrifice GMO just for political expediency.
There are plenty of arguments against them; of course they can't be absolute truths, btu they still stand.
In the big picture, I think GMOs would work on the symptoms and not on the cause. There are plenty of political causes for situation of underdeveloped countries to be such.
I definitely don't think that dealing with the symptoms would not be useful; it would possibly save lives, but I think it diverts attention and resources from the real causes.
In the smaller picture, there are plenty of corruption problems connected to GMOs and Momcorps. I reasonably expect plenty of manufactured doubt, general misinformation, and legal violence and racketing to flourish.
I think that more than "killing a technology because it can be abused", it would be "killing a technology whose first use is the abuse".
Regardless, killing it's a strong word; they won't be killed, banned, or significantly restricted anyway.
There are plenty of arguments against them; of course they can't be absolute truths, btu they still stand.
In the big picture, I think GMOs would work on the symptoms and not on the cause. There are plenty of political causes for situation of underdeveloped countries to be such.
I definitely don't think that dealing with the symptoms would not be useful; it would possibly save lives, but I think it diverts attention and resources from the real causes.
In the smaller picture, there are plenty of corruption problems connected to GMOs and Momcorps. I reasonably expect plenty of manufactured doubt, general misinformation, and legal violence and racketing to flourish.
I think that more than "killing a technology because it can be abused", it would be "killing a technology whose first use is the abuse".
Regardless, killing it's a strong word; they won't be killed, banned, or significantly restricted anyway.