Defending GMOs on grounds that they are not poisonous is like defending manufacturers who exploit

[NuclearDem]

24. Right, a few problems with that.

First:



Within the next two years, we could very well have eight billion people living on this planet. As you can tell, this number is quadruple the population of just one hundred years ago, and since hunger hadn't exactly been wiped out in 1922, how exactly are agricultural techniques of centuries ago going to be able to feed billions more people than it has ever had to before?

Second, even if I give you that because the human race has managed to eat in the past, we should stick with what we've done, that completely ignores the fact that agriculture, like every other field and facet of human society, has been evolving for thousands of years, and civilizations have used the best technologies and practices available to them to maximize their yield and better feed their people. Crop rotation, hydroponics, mechanization, irrigation, and selective breeding didn't just pop up when the first seeds were planted, so why should we reject one of the biggest leaps in genetics and agriculture we've had in centuries?