Also, this proves that this dude really isn't educated at all about biology. The extinction rate is astronomical right now. For many reasons, GMO definitely being one, we are killing species with reckless abandon.Fear of unforeseen consequences. One common claim is that crop blights would do more damage resulting from lack of genetic diversity (the claim is often made that GMO crops will all be the same so they might all get killed off at once if the right disease hits). This one is particularly misguided in my mind because GMO is creating genetic diversity faster than we've ever had it before...
GMOs have been linked detrimentally to a handful of species. I view this as preventable, but I'm no expert. I hope it is, but if it comes to weighing human starvation against bees (which it hasn't yet, certainly, but someday might) I'm not picking bees, sad as that makes the environmentalist in me. In any case, logging and deforestation kill thousands of species a year. This reminds me of Mitt Romney's well-popularized statement that he was going to cut funding to NPR to fix the deficit.
The entire agricultural sector is reliant on bees and other pollinators. It is not 'save bees vs prevent human starvation'. It is 'save bees to prevent human starvation'. However, one of the biggest potential benefits of GMO will be to reduce pesticides which will help protect bees.
The point of Roundup ready crops is to eliminate all other plants. That results in the loss of biodiversity. It's not just the loss of competing plants, but the fauna (and fungi and microbes) that depend upon them. Even your classic corn field had a much higher biodiversity. I'll dig up an article.
I'm open to any and all articles, as usual. But the decreasing biodiversity of a cornfield has very little to do with the extremely high extinction rates, I suspect. We've already ruined the land that we farm on -- I live about three minutes from the only remaining real prairie grass stand in all of Oklahoma -- and whatever ecology that remains is a self-created one at this point. This is mostly conjecture, but I don't feel that the previously converted ag land we're talking about is worth saving at this point. If we could walk back the clock and preserve the great plains, that would be great, but I'm not sure what we'd eat. Same argument seems to hold today.
That's not what I'm suggesting. Biodiversity of the expanse of cornfields in the US could have significance for non-farmland, which could mean the spread of certain parasites, diseases, or a change in the susceptibility of them. I'm not much persuaded by saying that it's already ruined, because things can always be improved or made worse. The point is, we just don't know what the effects are and will be. They might be worth the increased yield, but that remains to be seen as we don't yet know the costs. GMO can be powerful, and I don't have a strong opinion on all aspects of it. But, because of the unknowns, IMO it should be carefully studied, and regulated. People are right to be skeptical. We used to use X-rays in shoe stores. Mistakes in the application of new technologies have been made. I am sure we are making some now.But the decreasing biodiversity of a cornfield has very little to do with the extremely high extinction rates, I suspect.
Okay, i can see where you're coming from. It bothers me when people hate on modified corn and wheat and so on, because the technology they're talking about has saved tons of lives in third world countries. But I do get your point about caution. At the same time, apparently the vast majority of scientists have said there are no health risks. So I wonder if it really is a case of fearing change for its own sake, or if the experts are missing something.
You titled your post in a way that implies this user knows wtf he's talking about. He does not, based on this silly, factually incorrect argument. As I said, there are many reasons biodiversity is decreasing. Dumping untold volumes of Roundup onto farmland has obliterated many insects in the heartland. It's not just a drop in the bucket as your inept Mitt Romney analogy wants so badly to imply. For one who seems to care about arguing from a science perspective, you're not doing a very good job.
I expect GM crops would likely encourage monoculture in some instances, which impacts ecological health, reduces genetic diversity and increase the risk of total crop failure. However, GM could help prevent against crop failure, reduce fertiliser/pesticide requirement and improve ecological health in monoculture systems. Depends on the delivery.