This is relavent: http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/02/21/gmos-are-unnatural-but-so-is-everything-else-that-you-eat/

I'm going to attempt to narrow this down:

Your issue with GMO's are: 1) GMO's could cross polinate into other plants and kill genetic diversity.

2) Modern agriculture is depleting and making our soils less healthy in the long run

3)By using too many GM crops, we are killing biodiversity and opening up vectors into disease.

I'll respond to the "contradictions" later in this post.

The first issue is a non-issue. There isn't anything inherent to GMO crops that makes them superior to natural crops in terms of spreading and taking over everything else. Cross pollination increases diversity, it doesn't lower it, and GMO crops are not unhealthy by nature of being GMO. The only possible issue here is if a company claimed that these plants that got cross pollinated are now owned by them, which gets into a legal grey area I cannot really comment on without knowing more about the subject.

The second issue just isn't true. If it were, farms would see less crop growth every year. Instead, we see more output from the same amount of land as we improve techniques.

The third issue is true,and I agree that we should be attempting to ensure we have diversity in the crops we plant. Heck, even monsanto agrees and apparently tells the people buying their seeds to do so.

___

You said before that people are not stupid and you're now calling people who don't follow your way of thinking "stupid crazes".

Do you agree that the massive focus on gluten free foods being healthy has any bearing in reality? Do you agree that the focus on organic crops holds any bearing on reality? Do you think that any of these things are actually making people healthier, or are they just things companies slap on their products to sell things.

A craze is the movement itself in culture. I am not calling the people following the crazes "Stupid crazes". I may be calling them idiots, however.

Can you please explain how can you have more information without labelling?

A label being required to be given is different than a label being requested and given. GMO crops do not need a label because GMO is just another one of those terms that means little in the long run. They aren't directly unhealthy, and it's not misleading to leave crops not labeled as GMO, especially when the modern day assumption is that they are.

The current system, you assume GMO unless stated otherwise. It works just as well as a label saying a crop is GMO. Forcing companies to slap GMO on products as if they are somehow hazardous is misleading and pointless.

If you mean military science, then I'd wholly agree. War zone is the most accurate metaphor to describe mono-cultures where everything else is killed but the crop for human consumption.

What does my background matter for? Are you looking for reasons to personally attack me because you're running out of arguments?

It matters because you are stating clearly false things that border on conspiracy without any apparent context of farms.

Also, when I said farms, I did not mean having a garden in your backyard, or having a little 100 acre farm. I am talking about the real, industral, farms that feed the nations today. Have you ever talked to people who work, who maintain the fields, who manage the crops, etc? Do you understand the reasons for fertilizers?

I am asking if you are ignorant, because you appear to be.

Even current organic agriculture is a step up from chemical agriculture.

No.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-yields-and-feeding-the-world-under-climate-change/

Imagine farms suddenly having to use up to 25% more land to provide the same amount of food, along with a decent loss in ability to mass produce crops due to organic farming not being nearly as automated as industrial farming is.

Honestly, the best thing to do in a situation like this is to create taxes and put the prices of fixing economic damages back onto the farms which use fertilizer. Once that happens, pollution is factored into the equation of "Is it worth it to do this" and farmers will compensate and change appropriately.

The fact is that organic vs regular farming is situational. organic is useful in some areas, while regular is useful in others.

You truly live in a bubble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_issues

On a list that includes things like light pollution, I wouldn't call that a list of serious or a list of catastrophic environmental issues.

Imagine how much further ahead we could be if all those billions biotech if swimming in were invested in researching truly sustainable tech.

Impossible to determine without lots of study. What we have now is the result that modern farming techniques are the only things that allow our current populations to be a large as they are. We know that industrialization and centralization of farming has resulted in humanity being able to produce much more food than not.

We do not know if similar investment in alternate methods would have produced the same results. Invest as much money as you want into the hunter-gather method, it won't outproduce farming.

"Control it" is the key here isn't it? The arrogance of controlling nature to fit human needs at the expense of everything else

I bet you are sitting in a climate controlled room, that has access to a modern power grid, near a modern road, etc right now. All examples our mankinds arrogant controlling of nature.

That is hypocrisy speaking.

Humans do go above all. Humans are more important than the environment, and the environment is only important when harming it hurts humans in some form as well. I don't care about the species that go extinct at our expense, unless those species could have benefited mankind somehow had we discovered them, or if the loss of those species prevents us from farming and feeding our people.

The dinosaurs didn't go extinct due to the stupidity of their own doing.

They went extinct because they were animals. They lived along with nature for however many years until the day came that nature changed on them.

Do or die. Humanity either grasps control of the world around us, or it grasps control of us, and kills us without mercy. (seeing that it has no mind, that isn't say much)

You're confusing sanitized with pristine.

I will pick tap water over river water every day of the week, month, year, and century. Minus when there are boil-water orders out.

Pretty natural water can kill incredibly quickly, even if it is generally safe.

and on the other you have the guts to blame nature for our own fuck up, which you wholly support.

Nature killing us because we caused global warming is not what I am talking about. If humankind lived in harmony with nature, we would still be like the old indians. Hunting nomads, with little technology, low populations, and regular disasters wiping out areas of the population.

It is our abandonment of the environment, the adoption of controlling the world around us, that enables us to grow to massive sizes, have huge numbers of minds thinking and inventing, eventually leading us away from this planet, and away from the ability for a single meteor to leave us all dead.