My Way of Thinking: People should die to save the environment
Over the years, as biotech crops have been developed, an argument has been made that the crop improvements are simply ways for farmers to more easily grow crops and for the multinational crop protection companies to earn big profits.
Many of the activists in the earlier years of genetically modified organism research contended that biotech crops didn’t have a connection to improving people’s health and nutrition. Today, there are biotech crops being grown with improved nutrition and “pharming” has become a biotech practice for inserting genes into plants so that they produce pharmaceuticals. Yet, the activists continue to find fault with all biotech crop production.
Sacrificing lives to maintain the environment, as they perceive it must have been 300 years ago, is no reason to drop their opposition to biotech food and farming pharmaceuticals.
In other words, it is their contention that it is better to let people die from starvation and disease than to possibly impact the environment—even if that impact is seen as positive by the vast majority of the most educated and practical scientists and ecologists of the world.
The activists won’t go away until they, or someone dear to them, dies. Until then, they’ll ignore the starving and sick.
- How much corn can the ethanol industry use?
- Economist: Taxing P could reduce risk of algal blooms
- Commentary: Government wants farmers to quit farming
- What is the relationship between maturity group, yield?
- Commentary: Ambulance-chaser lawyers take on Syngenta
- Berman: Camouflaged activists threaten agriculture