• DarkThoughts@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    By blasting them with chemicals or radiation in order to create a bunch of random mutations, in the hopes that one of those mutations are beneficial. So instead of injecting very specific target genes into a plant, which is a very controlled process, you end up with a bunch of random mutations of which you apparently aren’t worried about the side effects. Those breeds are not labeled in any way and simply mixed in with everything else in your local supermarket. This whole “we’re messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions” in regards to gene editing is just uneducated esoteric nonsense.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-mutation-breeding

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      This whole “we’re messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions” in regards to gene editing is just uneducated esoteric nonsense.

      How close are we to monkeys, apes, etc.? Can you see the future and how is the climate going? We don’t know if taking away one thing will affect another down the road. Will every gene edit cause harm? Probably not, but we don’t know which ones or how many. Have a great life selling cigarettes.

      • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think science deniers with a complete lack of understanding of genetics should try to berate anyone on climate change, thank you. Like, you’re literally arguing like a covid denier too as to why people shouldn’t wear masks. If you’re so worried about the repercussions of “taking away one thing”, then why does that same logic not apply to “taking away many random things”? And no, cigarettes are harmful, you’re the one who’d argue that we don’t know this for sure. lol