>>1674810>One of the main aims of GMOs is to develop food crops that have higher yields, require less water, less fertilizer, or are more pest resistant.
All of those serve to reduce the amount of land needed to grow our food.
If you REALLY cared about our forests and preserving them, you would trumpet every new development as a real effort to save the world.
But you don’t, because you don’t really want to save the world so much as feel good about yourself.
No. The main aim of GMO's is to earn a profit. Anything else is a secondary goal, or a selling point. GMO's would not be produced if they were not profitable. Even if they somehow benefited the environment.
Very little is understood about the impacts of the implementation of GMO technologies. The technology was rushed into, and marketed because it was obvious it could create higher yields.
GMO crops are higher yield, however that doesn't mean they are more nutritious. Or contain more calories (although , I'll assume they do) , all higher yields mean are more potential profits. >Require less water per plant.
Sure I'll agree with that, thats another benefit of GMO's. Although its not exclusive. We are also viewing these supposed "benefits" through a very narrow lense, of profitable crops, and not potentially less profitable crops, or technologies, that are not as profitable. >Less Fertilizer
This is a meaningless statement. The quality and types of fertilizer vary so greatly that simply changing the type applied would require less use. In a GMO context, this might mean modifying the physical features of the plant to divert more of the plants energy to fruit or seed production, but that has all sorts of unintended consquenes. >Pest Resistant.
Only because Monsanto crops are engineered to withstand floods of Round Up. >All of those serve to reduce the amount of land needed to grow our food.
In practice. No. The Amount of land dedicated to Agricultural Activity has not decreased. 1/2