It seems that we want to default to finding fault with anything genetically modified, and that may well be the best way to view things like this; I don't know, or have a strong opinion at this point.
But I do think that it's worth boiling tough questions down to the basics for possible easier consideration of them, and in this case, to me, it seems like it's a question of is it worse to use a known cure for a significant known problem, a cure that appears to present less collateral risk to the environment than present alternatives, or is it worse to not use it for fear of a possible future unknown problem?
West Nile notwithstanding, I think that here in Canada we don't feel the urgent need to try to stop the spread of dengue fever, malaria, etc. as do people in warmer climates, and so it may be a luxury for us to dither about GMO mosquitoes when people are being killed by the non-GMO varieties elsewhere.
I'm thinking that villagers dying of malaria wherever, are likely big fans of the GMO concept for mosquitoes, if someone ever bothered for their opinion or awareness. And really, I'm thinking that their vote on that should count more than mine.
To me, GMO seems just selective breeding sped up. We have been selective breeding everything we eat since we dropped down from the trees. It's not something that I spend a great deal of time thinking about really. Maybe I should learn more. Good thing to talk about though. My 2 cents anyway, cheers Mollycollie.
|