The Case For/Against Biotechnology/Bioengineering

Thank you for entering this discussion. "The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated." --Wilfred Batten Lewis Trotter (1872-1939) English surgeon. Your argument focuses on historical evidence which shows us that technology can be extremely destructive to the environment and humanity, particularly if used in the form of weaponry. I agree. Technology certainly has caused much problems in the world, but one would be deceitful if they claimed that it also did not alleviate many of the ills of the world. Without technology we would still have a world decimated by diseases such as small pox, malaria, TB, and yellow fever. Thanks to new fields of research, like biotechnology, we have managed to combat disease and in some cases, largely eradicate it. I will use a metaphor to conclude this point. Just because a new technology has the possibility to be used in a way that is harmful does not mean that the technology itself is harmful. It depends on the user's intentions, which cannot be controlled. For example, a hammer is a tool which can be used to kill and destroy, yet it is a tool which can also be used to build and create. It is not the hammer's fault that a person decided to use it to commit murder, it is just a tool. Does that mean that we should stop producing hammers? No. ---- The environment is currently under siege, mainly because of deforestation for farmland and urban sprawl. Biotechnology can be used to combat the pressures we have placed on the environment. Erosion of topsoil can be cut by more than 70 per cent when farmers use no-till techniques to remove weeds and crop residues before planting. Biotechnology can help control weeds to reduce the need for tilling. Many of today's fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and other pesticides are better, safer and more environmentally sensitive than older versions. Even so, they sometimes enter the air, soil and groundwater when they blow or wash off plants. Biotechnology can achieve many of the goals for which pesticides were designed, often more efficiently without the runoff of chemicals into the surrounding environment. One of the main reasons for deforestation is the fact that we produce a smaller amount of food proportionate to the land used for farming. So, to keep people fed, farmers need to spread out over larger and larger tracts of land that contain better soil and fewer natural obstacles to crop growth (drought, flooding, etc). Biotechnology has shown that it can make crops more efficient growers, more nutritious, and easier to grow in nutrient deficient soil. Using biotechnology, growers will only need to plant one or perhaps two acres - instead of five acres or more - to ensure one acre's worth of harvest. This obviously means far fewer agricultural inputs such as fuel, labour, water and fertiliser. I think that we need to keep a very close eye on this new field, but we do not have any excuse not to research it further. With regulations and open scientific inquiry, this technology has show that it can, and has continued potential to prevent problems and solve the ones with which we currently live. Thank you.