Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't think it's particularly great because it causes more problems then we gain, but it's not a complete disaster. I mainly think that it's just kind of pointless...

Wait, I did a whole essay on this for humanities! I will post it! Not my best work though...

Genetic Modification and Engineering

Genetic modification is the mutation of plant and animal genes, for food. The reason that this is a moral issue is that some people believe that GM is immoral and some believe that it is perfectly morally sound.

The reasons that people think GM and GE are immoral are:
• We have no right to interfere with another species DNA.
• We do not know the full implications on our diet.
• GE can pollute a species.
• There is enough food without GE to feed our population.
• Most third world countries have food surplus’s not deficits.
• Even if a species is improved, it is to better our position, not theirs.

The reasons that people support GM and GE are:
• The crop yield is often much higher.
• We have an obligation to feed ourselves.
• Corporations are run on supplying GM, the banning of which would loose many jobs.
• Can solve food deficits in third world countries.
• Our population is expanding at an incredible rate. We need to set up a food system to accommodate these new people.
• We are helping the species in making them immune to diseases, and strengthening them.

Genetic Modification and Engineering is something that is and will affect us all. It is a very moral and emotional issue.

The first, and possibly most profound argument against GM, is that we have no right to interfere with another species DNA. This is because those who are anti GM say that another species DNA is their business, and interfering in that is playing God with another species.

An argument to this is that we are aiding the other species in making them immune to diseases and strengthening their species as a whole.

The “Anti’s” rebuttal against this is that this is a purely selfish act, and anything done to “improve” them, is only done in our own interests. Also, if a GM plant is able to “escape” controlled conditions, it can pollute the original species.

Despite this, it is irrefutable that GM crops usually produce higher yields. This is because they are genetically “improved” to resist certain damaging aspects of their life (Cold weather, Diseases).

It is said that the full implications of GM on our diets is unknown. It may be toxic to us in the long term. However, some scientists say that there is no proof whatsoever that it is damaging to us.

“Pros” also say that GM foods can sort out food deficits in third world countries. They say that world hunger can be ended by the higher crop yields produced by GM. They also say that we have an obligation to feed our species, and this should be prioritised above everything else.

But economists say that most third world countries have food surplus’ rather than food deficits. The reason starvation is happening, is not because of a lack of food, but because of the large, western multinationals who dominate the markets. It is these capitalist companies that are mainly developing GM, and it is unlikely that a company fuelled by profits will show the compassion to act selflessly, without acting in their own interests. They also say that prioritising ourselves by mutating other species is selfish.

Two more points made by GM corporations are that our population is expanding rapidly, so we must make surpluses as to prepare, the second point is that GM employs thousands of people. If GM is banned, then they will all be out of work.

The “Antis” rally and say that it is proven that without GM there is still enough food to feed everyone. They also say that the world could support a much higher population, especially if we cut down on meat eating.

My Conclusion

My conclusion is that GM is an immoral system and totally unnecessary. It represents a selfish capitalist world community. The human population can survive without altering other species for our gain. It is based on “The ends justify the means”, which is a totally untrue statement. The higher yield is a small bonus for pillaging nature in such a horrendous way.

Oh thank you. It was terrible, but thank you!

Well I'm all for keeping going old English varietys of fruit. But I support preserving our remaining orchards and also growing more orchards rather than genetically modifying one variety of apple into another. Characteristics can be changed over time with selective breeding anyway if people want - no need to meddle with their genetic makeup.
Quinces, Mulberrys and Mazzards are three old varietys of fruit which used to be common in England a long time ago but have gone out of popularity with the consumers. They're not extinct - just rare and would be more commonplace if people wanted to grow them commercially again and if people would buy them.

I've never heard of the apple that tastes like an orange. xd

i'm not trying to sound mean, but if you want any information on GM, go to www.wikipedia.org it's a great place and i even used it for my genetics essay.

Yes, but you are also meddling with another species.

Do you mean specific breeding?