> This was all accomplished using natural processes and evolutionary pressure.

1.) That's different than gene splicing in important ways. Personally, I don't like the argument that selection is no better than gene splicing. I don't want to get into the metaphysics of evolution, but i believe chopping and splicing DNA is fundamentally different than human-aided-natural selection.

Even then, I'm not personally against genetic engineering applications, once we have done enough research to know what we're doing. We're constantly discovering new things about how ecosystems work (like the mycelium "wood-wide web" interconnections) so I find it irrational when folks insist that there no possibility of harm to introducing gene-spliced organisms. How can we know? Give it a few hundred years.

My point is that rushing to applications is driven mostly by greed. Monsanto sells the poison and the engineered crops to withstand the poison, so you can add more poison (and Monsanto profits) and you have to buy their now-patented crops, you can't legally keep the seeds and grow your own (and again Monsanto profits.) The GMOs are just a tool to lock in the profits. And we all get to live with the effects of all that poison.

Meahwhile, folks like Gabe Brown are growing plenty of food, turning a profit year after year, without any of that.

2.) The result of agriculture is arguably population growth, resulting (eventually) in our modern anthropomorphic climate change, which might just kill us all (or most of us.) So the jury is out, eh? I mean if the Earth goes the way of Venus then, yeah, agriculture will have turned out to be a bad idea. As in, "we never should have climbed down from the trees in the first place." Not to be a downer, I'm just saying.

> At this rate if we still want to have food in 50 years we absolutely need to do some lab driven genetic modification to add more drought and heat tolerance (among other traits) to our crops. Otherwise we are looking at a future with at best greatly reduced food variety for the vast majority of the population, and at worst outright starvation for large portions of our population.

I know of one geneticist who is breeding (not splicing) tomatoes in such a way as to come up with a super mother tomato plant, where every seed in every tomato on every plant will be a different variety. The idea is you grow a wad of these seeds in your locale and then develop your own "land race" tomato variety adapted to your local conditions. He's doing this in his backyard, no "lab driven genetic modification" needed.

Now that's something in the grey area between pure natural selection and "mad scientist tinkering with God's handiwork", eh? Maybe he will cause some sort of massive natural disaster, some monster (like the Bradford pear[1]), but it's not in the same league as Monsanto's poison-tolerating beans.

> Your comment is focusing on the worst possible application of GMO, but forgetting about the tremendously good applications of GMO.

Like what?

> The solution to the problem is simple: you outlaw the negative applications, and you encourage the positive applications.

That's no solution at all if you can't predict the negative side effects of the applications, eh? The law has no oracle. Everyone involved thought the Bradford pear was a good thing.

> If we don't get started on this soon then we are looking at a dark future where only the richest can afford to eat like we do today.

FWIW, I'm into ecological/regenerative agriculture, and as long as people have access to land and seeds we can eat well. Even the effects of climate change can be mitigated. We don't need GMOs.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/how-we-tur...