Why does it seem like the majority of leftists here support G mos?

Why does it seem like the majority of leftists here support G mos?

I can understand why the majority of leftists here would support something like pmo or fapping since this is Holla Forums and the internet, but why the heavy support on G mos?

A leftist could argue that G mos are capitalist and run by the big porkies at monsanto who mostly care about making alternatives to pesticides that grow in the plant instead of being sprayed on them.

So what is your claim for being pro-gm o?

And yes, I did just make that thread a few minutes ago.

The technology is good, that we can morph our agriculture at an accelerated rate in order to better suit our needs is a good thing and I think as long as the terms are "feeding the most amount of people with the least amount of resource investment" then it's pretty much an objectively good thing.
That the managers of such technology are shit I think is obvious but there isn't any coherent reason I've ever seen to suppose that GMO's require or inevitably create an exploitative form of agriculture that Monsanto so neatly represents.
To make an analogy, Silicon Valley is shit, nearly every cultural and business practice created by it is destructive and wasteful. However, vital computer hardware and its development like microchip processors and whatnot, tech services like google, these are genuinely useful things that can be used to productive ends. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

All crop plants are g.m.o.s

Modern genetic engineering allows us to more easily and directly get the traits we want out of crops.

The downside is that companies like Monsanto can use the technology for increased profits rather than genuinely improved crops, but that goes with everything under capitalism. The technology itself isn't bad.

Gmos usually cause no harm to humans themselves ,except for alergies caused by components previously non existant in some plants, but that's your problem not GMO's. What is harmfull are pesticides used nowdays and particularly the unadequate use of pesticides by small scale farmers which in third world countries suplly most of the food.
Gmos can admitedly cause enviromental problems when allowed to interact with local biomes, but then again this is a consequence of iresponsability.

but stuff like bananas are under great danger of being more easily infected with diseases due to the lack of Genetic variation that in uncontrolled breading environment prevent the spreed of genetic diseases and make it harder for viruses to attack the system

I don't think GMO necessarily means genetic cloning. And capitalism already killed the real banana, it was called the gros michel. The banana we eat now, cavendish, was considered trash by the industry.

Allergies are reactions to proteins not "new components previously non existent in some plants". Scientists aren't creating new proteins, so there'd be no reason for an increase in allergic reactions (and there are 0 reported reactions to GMOs specifically). The rise in food allergies that people point to so much are just spurious correlations, and have to be with better diagnostic standards for finding allergies.

Monocultures were a problem with traditional breeding as well. IIRC they were a big player in creating the Dust Bowl. What you have a problem with is improper farming techniques, not GMO technology.

While I am very much in favor of the scientific benefits of G.M.Os which far outweigh any potential drawbacks, capitalism does not allow society to truly reap those scientific benefits. We can produce more food in less time, how can that be a bad thing? Well, it’s not, but when we are producing more food than what is required to feed literally every human being on the planet, which is really saying something given our severe overpopulation, yet starvation is still among the top causes of death in the world, you can see that the benefits of G.M.Os are inherently incompatible with our current, privately-owned, market-allocated mode of production and distribution. A small amount of massive corporation privately control almost all of the means of production used for G.M.Os; it’s mostly Monsanto.

The tools for G.M.Os should be used for good. That’s what they are — tools. It’s just the next technological step in agriculture which has existed forever, no method is inherently good or bad, it’s how they are used. Corporate control of G.M.O. production is driven exclusively by private profit. It is not profitable for the capitalists to distribute food to the starving because they have no money. If there was a way to profit off of feeding the world, we would have fixed mass starvation a long time ago. It is profitable, however, for companies to dump any product they have produced an excess of so said product doesn’t lose its arbitrary price value on the market because it no longer has scarcity. With the production speed that G.M.Os provide and automation and all that, we are a post-scarcity society in terms of production, but as long as these tools are owned by private interests and driven by profit, society will never reap the benefits they should from being post-scarcity. G.M.Os should be a good thing. Starvation should have already been eradicated. Our refusal to move beyond capitalism and private markets is literally the only reason people are still starving and it makes me so incredibly mad that more people do not realize that we have had the means to end these problems for a long time but an economic system which relies on profit contradicts this. These problems simply should not exists in the year 2018. Or 2008. Or 1998. Starvation should have been a thing of the past a long time ago.

why do you call them G mos?

OP must have thought there was a word filter, but apparently there isn't one.

a lot of shit that our grandparents consumed would be considered high-quality today. that's what happens when you're born into one of the world's greatest economies and leave it as the least stable.

My grandparents were born before the Great Depression

well I mean people born in the 30s and 40s

GMOs are a problem in that they are copyrighted strains and lack diversity needed to ensure survival from crop disease.

Because they haven't been proven to be harmful to human health.

Opposing GMOs is bourgeois luddite faggotry. You're literally opposing cheaper, more plentiful food because you are afraid of words or want to LARP as a happy hobbit farmer with your organic artisanal craft crops. It's plain fucking evil, almost cartoonishly so.

There are definite excesses and exploitation associated with GMOs, but as with everything, capitalism is at fault, not GMOs themselves.

"Why do leftists support potable water, indoor plumbing, electricity? They're run by big porkies! What is your claim for being pro-amenities?"

But considering your flag, you'd probably make the above point too. Kill thyself.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the technology, within a socialist system it would be an incredible boon.

This. I really am leery of GMO's under capitalism because they're (unsurprisingly going to be used to profit for companies and fuck the environment and consumer health risks.

Under socialism, GMO's could be extremely well used and I imagine they're going to see use in a lot more places than food industry. It's just that they would take a very long development time and probably have low return until they're well tested and widespread. And frankly neoliberal capitalism is not going to focus research on something like that.

gmos do not equal Food Science
hostess chemical briquettes and mickey dees mystery meat are not gmo crops
don't be a Lysenko thot

but uhhhhhhhh fuck monsanto though

Yeah, exactly. The process of extreme domestication of plant crops has so reduced genetic variety, that they are extremely vulnerable - you don't have wild corn, for instance, derived from our current crops because even if seeds/potentially fertile remains of a plan drifted out of the culture, it couldn't grow - because what we've bred for crops have become so completely reliant on us thru domestication, that they can only exist in an incredibly narrow & controlled environment.

Likewise, the high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in a whole TON of our fertilizers and chemical treatments have completely fucked up the nitrogen cycle. There's really only a small amount of organisms able to "fix nitrogen" (meaning, they are able to take nitrogen in its normal, toxic state & are able to break it down into something usable for the rest of the globe thru metabolic processes) which are mostly a type of bacteria, specifically cyanobacteria. That wasn't a problem for a while, because there is a fuckload of bacteria on this planet, I mean duh it's almost unimaginable how many there are, but they were able to balance out the natural amount of nitrogen in the air. However the massive increase of nitrogen in the atmosphere as a result of human "innovations" in production over the last century have REALLY fucked this up, with far more nitrogen entering the atmosphere than can be fixed, meaning you have a dangerously growing amount of substance that is utterly toxic to most life on earth.

"G mos" makes me think of Grant Morrison.

really? all it makes me think of are retarded preachy hippies