Is there value in resisting a new technology (genetically modified foods, for instance), which, while potentially harmful in the short term, could save millions of lives in the future?

There’s really no point of resisting anything. If it happens it will happen.

I think genetically modified foods are “good” in the short term and will end up being harmful in the long run. Not I think the act of genetically modifying is the dangerous part – it’s the result of such modification.

For example: Round-Up Ready Canola created by Monsanto is so aptly named because the canola seed has been modified in such a way so that it resists the Round-Up pesticide. This means that our farmer can liberally spray on Roundup directly onto the crop.

Before such a technology existed the farmer would spray the field for weeds before the crop began to grow. Granted – the round-up stays in the ground and probably gets absorbed by the roots of the crop, but to make matters worse the plants are now drenched in pesticide.

I’ve worked around the stuff – I’m don’t recommend eating it.

Genetically modified foods are not going to be beneficial in either the short term or the long run. I know that everyone will not agree with this statement but that is what I believe. And studies have already shown that by eating natural food we are much healthier (and even lose weight faster).

I was just saying in another post that I am a huge fan of producing labels that let us know what is genetically modified and what is not. Of course that bill was proposed and overturned (i can’t recall if that was at a national level or a state level).

See the only argument I can see for GM foods being beneficial is that they are more readily available & more easily produced. Now if we work towards saving the environment we could have readily available natural foods. I think genetic modification is the easy way out. And I also think that we will see more and more in the future how it is harmful. Also education for and availability of farming etc.. in communities that need food would be more helpful than just GM food and giving it to them.

So to answer your question. Yes there is value in resisting. Or at least educating and allowing freedom of information (such as labels that contain information) so that we can make educated choices.

Oh and reasons GM foods aren’t good for you or our environement:
– they don’t have the same nutrients as natural foods
– they can be overabundant in one nutrient and you wouldn’t know it
– they look ripe but actually aren’t
– the GM seeds/plant can escape into the wildlife and become invasive, thus replacing natural species. This can contaminate the gene pool. This is a big concern.
– these plants do not have genetic diversity
– the pesticide argument above
– we aren’t being told what we are eating which is a huge attack against our civil liberties (in my opinion)
(- they taste worse)

((now I can see the benefit of reproducing and GM food for medicinal purposes when it is effective but not for general mass consumption))

Back to your general question. Are there other examples you are thinking of??

Anything that is new is potentially dangerous. New infers that there is little collective experience over any period of time and the dangers of using, consuming, etc are unknown. Each “new” thing or concept has its own inherent factor for danger so attempting to group them together as “new” and say new is bad brings us back to the Ludites of 1800’s England who wanted to destroy all machinery as bad because it took away jobs. Each “new” thing has it’s own merits and dangers, trying to group genetically modified foods and electric cars just doesn’t work.

Questioning progress is good. Asking for proof and stating concerns is good.

Once the science is in (genetically modified food, for example) and numerous studies confirm the benefits and address all the risks, then you are a detriment to humanity if you resist it.