260
submitted 7 months ago by nivenkos@lemmy.ml to c/europe@feddit.de
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dschingis_Pelikan@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago

This implication has two problems:

  1. This handling of new technology's has always been like that. The first nuclear reactor was build bevor they knew if it even works. No body thought twice about the danger. The difference here is that it benefits poor people more than rich so most people don't care really.

  2. In the case of most non-competitive mutations we know exactly what happens. Because this argument is so old, we now have detailed study's on gene mobility like vitamin A enzymes. Because the plant can't use that much of it, the gene is silenced very quickly. That means that your crops will yield yellow and white seeds. The farmers have to plant only yellow ones ore the genes can hardly be found on his field after a few generations.

[-] deikoepfiges_dreirad@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago

No technology inherently benefits poor or rich people. If this is used commercially, it will cause ecological harm, because the people using it make no money from caring about ecological impact.

Also I'm mainly annoyed at the idea that more precise genetical engineering = less danger.

this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
260 points (94.2% liked)

Europe

8332 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS