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?