• deikoepfiges_dreirad
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Sure, let’s release organisms with precisely engineered advantages into our ecosystems, nothing could go wrong.

    • Dschingis_Pelikan@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      This implication has two problems:

      1. This handling of new technology’s has always been like that. The first nuclear reactor was build bevor they knew if it even works. No body thought twice about the danger. The difference here is that it benefits poor people more than rich so most people don’t care really.

      2. In the case of most non-competitive mutations we know exactly what happens. Because this argument is so old, we now have detailed study’s on gene mobility like vitamin A enzymes. Because the plant can’t use that much of it, the gene is silenced very quickly. That means that your crops will yield yellow and white seeds. The farmers have to plant only yellow ones ore the genes can hardly be found on his field after a few generations.

      • deikoepfiges_dreirad
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        No technology inherently benefits poor or rich people. If this is used commercially, it will cause ecological harm, because the people using it make no money from caring about ecological impact.

        Also I’m mainly annoyed at the idea that more precise genetical engineering = less danger.