• xor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean I guess one of the biggest arguments for gene editing is that humans have been modifying the genetics of plants and animals for thousands of years, to the great benefit of humankind. While this was through selective breeding, gene editing is fundamentally a very similar ethical question.

    Without genetic modification, it would have been beyond impossible to feed everyone, or even get somewhat past subsistence farming.

    Modifying humans, however, is a totally different question to mosifying trees.

    • U de Recife@lemmy.sdfeu.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Dogs are a good example of how wonderful our selective breeding has been. Well, it’s great for us, no doubt. Who doesn’t love a tiny tiny dog? But for the dog? Probably not the best.

      Cool, we have better paper making factories with better trees for the purpose. But what about all the unknown unknowns of changing the genes of the tree? How will that affect the environment? Is this carefully tested, monitored, giving it enough time to truly understand the consequences? Or are we just breeding a nice cute little dog again, without caring about what happens to the thing modified?

      You see, this has nothing to do with taking sides. I wonder. Just that. And yeah, it still feels dumb to me. But being no expert, perhaps reality will prove me wrong. I do hope so, because I hope for a brighter future, not a gloomy one.

      • Fish [Indiana]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree that it seems like there should be some sort of tradeoff for editing genetics. It’s hard to say how these types of trees might affect aspects of the environment, such as soil composition or the surrounding wildlife. With that being said, I eat genetically modified food every day, so what do I know.