GMO’s are not all created equal.
Some accelerate natural plant breeding keeping the sanctity of “species”.
Others pervert species with what is like a Russian roulette with nature.
Precaution and non-insanity mean we must get science back to discovery in reverence for nature to avoid dismantling something far greater and more complex and complete than we could create in a million years of techno-proliferation.
We have started with a near perfect planet, the more we tweak it thoughtfully within the naturally understandable boundaries the more likely we will find fun and new ways of doing things that delight the populous; fine. The more we take things apart beyond the naturally understandable bounds, the more likely we are to permanently disrupt a system that has been thus far very forgiving.
Beyond that, there are certain problems already surfacing which should give us pause.
If genetic modification maintains the sanctity of species, it is fine. If not, it is unnecessary and dangerous to the future of mankind and life on earth. Science has logical and understandable boundaries that need to be respected. The GMO debate is a reminder of this that we also run into at times in atomic science, and others. Scientists did not create or invent life or the ecosystems of this planet. If they had to mastermind it without seeing the model first, they would not have been able. Therefore, when there is potential to destroy, the scientist has no right to proceed. To have that right would entail asking everyone who will ever live permission and every creature for that matter, even if there is no religious bent, which is irrelevant. The scientist has no right to destroy irreparably or take such a risk toward what we all have a degree of ownership of, period. This is the right and property of all life, not the scientist with the ability to disrupt.
If there is any doubt, show some sound logic that there is anything whatsoever to gain except more of what we already have in a different form. Is the goal to design a world that can allow for endless population growth or resource extraction? It is not possible. Sound logic must decide while scientists wait.