@paulfree14 @Ashrand I work in a produce department at a grocery store and regularly hear people say “that’s not real food” or “I don’t eat things created in a lab.” That’s what I’m speaking about here: the perception that anything that might be transgenic is ScAaAaRyYY. It’s the same gripe as when people screech about “chemicals!!!”

@Ethancdavenport
@paulfree14
The thing is not that they should get over it, it's that the argument 'for' transgenics is weak.
Before you can give people crap for bad reasoning you need to see why it exists. If people don't trust what they are told about food it's because they are lied to about it when they are even given the choice to be informed. "if companies say GMO is safe, but hide when something is a gmo, I shouldn't trust that" is a good heuristic.

@Ashrand @paulfree14 that’s fair, although I disagree about pro-transgenic arguments being weak. Norman Borlaug won a Nobel prize for his dwarf wheat strains and increased food security in places that had little before. Improving quality of life for vast swathes of people is a pretty strong argument imo. I’m very receptive to anti-corporate arguments though. Profit, as always, is not a wholesome motivator.

@Ethancdavenport
@paulfree14
My issue is that dependance on monocultures do not engender food security, Borlaug, if you want to bring him up, understood this very well which is why his work on dwarf cultivars involved so much cross-breeding, more genetic diversity means more expression of disease resistant genes.
Even then Borlaug's work on dwarfing didn't demand transgenics so to already suspicious people it looks like you are trying to confuse the issue.

@Ashrand @paulfree14 I think I definitely need to do more research on this topic. Totally with you on monoculture.

@Ethancdavenport
@paulfree14
That I can agree with for everyone to be honest, It's such a politisized topic that it's hard to get reliable information. Which is exactly why people without the knowledge or access to learning saying "i don't get it but i'm clearly getting a hard sell so yeah maybe not" is a stance I support.

@floatoverblow
The issue I have (and thank you, this is at least a possible use case for the technology) is that higher-yield crops (for example) are not going to lead to less land use (which is not in the interests of farmers to do) but more production, the problems with agriculture are not that the current methods and space are required constantly, it's that crops are grown in ways destructive to ecology and then wasted in massive amounts, often before they are sold.

@floatoverblow
We have more than an abundance right now, at any given time we have enough food to feed everyone the world over and then some, so then why are we seeking more? Land use? We already use so much we don't need and the least efficient uses aren't going anywhere (I'll of course look at anything you know about transgenic grazing land).
There are real problems environmentally speaking with how food is produced, I don't think it's the crops fault for that however.

@Ashrand We heavily subsidize farming, the largest industrial farms would already sell at a loss if we didn't. It's a problem with how we're spending, we can cap subsidies to acreage and put money into rewilding grants. And yeah, that requires the political will to understand how devastating suburban sprawl is so that it doesn't just go to housing, and It's a lot of problems coming together at once, but my point is, these are tools that environmentalists can leverage as well.

@floatoverblow And my point is that the method you describe can happen without the "using transgenic" part and it's still a viable plan that requires political will, but can reach it's stated goals.
If it's not a key part of that plan, and instead an add-on that might help (and also has unstated risks to ecology more generally) then i end up asking the same question again: "what is the use case?" What problem does it solve that means there isn't time for anything else?

@Ashrand Reduced pesticide use from intrinsic resistance to pests and viruses that affect crops, mainly. Other areas are drought resistance which could decrease water usage, and outside of food/agriculture, the possible application of heavy metal sequestration (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975009001384). Land use is just one area GM technology can impact, though, a really big one that could make a lot of environmentalist's careers is green chemistry - lots of catalysts are expensive, enzymes are not.

@floatoverblow To honestly look at what your saying you then need to look at what drought resistance is useful for (it's for when water isn't available during limited periods. in that context it's a way to favor certain types of crop more than it is a way to deal with harsh conditions)
But the discussion of transgenics outside of food is a different one and one with a more clearly defined use case at that, which only really shows the transgenic food argument is a weak one.