I’m usually on the side of the “environmentalists”, but in this instance I can’t see the downside. Gene-modifying crops in ways that allow us to produce more nutritious of higher quantities of crops on less farmland would be such a game changer for our emissions and biodiversity.

But I’m very curious to learn more, so what would the detractors for this kind of research say is the danger?

Unfortunately the public debate on this topic has been dominated by advocacy groups with a very poor or even backwards understanding of the technology involved, and in the other side, large multinational corporations that are seeking to use overly strict IP laws to dominate and extract wealth from farmers and the agricultural industry.

In my view, neither group is advocating for laws that will be in the best interest of the general public. I would like to see more work by universities and ngos to create new strains for the public benefit rather than private industry. But the current regulatory structure makes this difficult.

I think, everyone should focus on recovering and creating more firests than 🧬 editing… Firests can feed all the creatures, not just man kind…

Liberals will hate anything that can solve world hunger, as they need it to exert influence.