"Just raising yields" has helped save millions of poor folk in third world countries from starvation. I'm not sure that pacifying first world leftist hippies should be the top PR priority of science.
Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO. (Borlaug was probably one of the top 10 people of the 20th Century)
GMO is much more recent, and generally works on crops which are large and mechanized, which don't really exist in third world countries. The main beneficiaries to date of GMO have been soybeans and corn in the US. The stat I've seen is 5-10% gains in the 90s from GMO. (http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full)
There probably are ways to use GMO which would work in non-mechanized farming, though.
The green revolution did a lot of good, but GMO is potentially doing even more.
Have you looked at modern strains of GM rice? That stuff is absolutely amazing. Incredibly drought and flood resistance, and can thrive in a huge range of environmental conditions.
As GMO tech progresses, we'll probably just see better and better stuff. Imagine plants with antifreeze proteins to resist cold snaps.
As GMO tech progresses, we are seeing strange side effects like interference with the monarch butterfly and bees, soil depletion, a drive for deeper genetic modification as weeds and insects adapt to old versions, a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood, just to name a few problems.
Who would blame anyone for choosing food over starvation? But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
I aim this generally: it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture. All under the banner of "isn't science great," "what could possibly go wrong," and "cheaper feed for livestock."
I doubt it's a popular opinion, but there I said it!
Most of these are myths or have nothing at all to do with GMOs
> a drive for deeper genetic modification
So? That just means it's working.
> a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood
This is an artifact of patent law, not genetic modification.
> But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
What does "not a solution for the world" mean? And why is it not sustainable? If we use genetic modification to optimize an organism, there is no reason that it can't be sustainable. In fact, we can make farming even more sustainable than it is now.
> it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture
You're using a misdirected ad-hominem attack against GMO technology. "The developed world damaged some technologically undeveloped populations, so it's somehow negative that any technology from the developed world be used to help any technologically undeveloped populations."
The Monarch butterfly thing actually does: It is a result of the fact that herbicide-resistant GMO crops allow you to actually eliminate (rather than just reduce) weeds in a field. Those weeds both sustain butterfly populations and reduce crop yields.
The problem is that indigenous populations are sustainable only while they are very sparse. There is no way current 7 bln people could live on earth without GMO tech progress.
Third world countries are also mechanized. All of South America grows soybeans. It's Round Up all over. I'm from Argentina and can assure you that since early 00's soybean export taxes have paid at least one-third of the gov. budget.
I think this is true for marginal zones (low quality soil) where there shouldn't be soy but that's the only crop that will make a profit. Part of the problem is the insane taxation.
With the costs of growing other crops I guess it's not that bad, it's not good soil anyway. The good zones are doing OK.
