Why Is Gmo's Wrong
Question: Evaluate the arguments in favor of the use GM food.
Answer:
Ethical objections against GM foods are presented in two types, extrinsic and intrinsic.
Extrinsic objections state the possible results of GM technology are displeasing and that GMO’s are wrong because its risks outweigh the benefits. Extrinsic objection holds that GMO’s are unsafe for the environment and consumers and it would lead to social inequities.
The arguments presented in favor of GM foods in countering extrinsic objection states that it is not possible to assess without conducting any research or data analysis that the risks outweigh the benefits in proving GMO’s wrong. GMO’s are a potential to improve the efficiency of food production and agricultural sustainability,
confirming safety and purity of food and creating diversity in agricultural environment.
Intrinsic objection states that the process of GM technology is unacceptable in itself and that GMO’s are wrong no matter how good the benefits are. It holds that GM foods are wrong because it play God, invents world changing technology, reproduce by nonsexual means, and disrupts integrity, beauty and balance of nature and cross species boundaries. Stated below are few of the most popular among them.
One of the main objections states that agricultural biotech tries to play god. Here we have to consider that the definition of God differs from person to person and different cultures. Moreover, we can also logically appeal that God is a being who would want to give the authority to us. Thus in this case he would not care or it would be part of his plan. Thus, in this case, playing god would not be a bad thing.
Similarly, another objection states that ag biotech is illegitimately to cross species boundaries (Bioethics, page 755). There is enough scientific evidence to prove that the difference among different species is fluid and changing. Thus, the objection fails in its purpose.
In my opinion, the explanations and the arguments against the objections are weak and fluctuating. Thus I would agree with the use of agricultural biotechnology.
Answer:
Ethical objections against GM foods are presented in two types, extrinsic and intrinsic.
Extrinsic objections state the possible results of GM technology are displeasing and that GMO’s are wrong because its risks outweigh the benefits. Extrinsic objection holds that GMO’s are unsafe for the environment and consumers and it would lead to social inequities.
The arguments presented in favor of GM foods in countering extrinsic objection states that it is not possible to assess without conducting any research or data analysis that the risks outweigh the benefits in proving GMO’s wrong. GMO’s are a potential to improve the efficiency of food production and agricultural sustainability,
confirming safety and purity of food and creating diversity in agricultural environment.
Intrinsic objection states that the process of GM technology is unacceptable in itself and that GMO’s are wrong no matter how good the benefits are. It holds that GM foods are wrong because it play God, invents world changing technology, reproduce by nonsexual means, and disrupts integrity, beauty and balance of nature and cross species boundaries. Stated below are few of the most popular among them.
One of the main objections states that agricultural biotech tries to play god. Here we have to consider that the definition of God differs from person to person and different cultures. Moreover, we can also logically appeal that God is a being who would want to give the authority to us. Thus in this case he would not care or it would be part of his plan. Thus, in this case, playing god would not be a bad thing.
Similarly, another objection states that ag biotech is illegitimately to cross species boundaries (Bioethics, page 755). There is enough scientific evidence to prove that the difference among different species is fluid and changing. Thus, the objection fails in its purpose.
In my opinion, the explanations and the arguments against the objections are weak and fluctuating. Thus I would agree with the use of agricultural biotechnology.