When I talk about sophisticated robots, I’m talking about switching our food production over to nutrient cycling loops and solving the work problem with mechanized labor. Tightly-knit food cycles produce just as well as monocrops, and my position is that we should be investigating the potential of labor-intensive farming techniques instead of meddling with plant genetics.

I think our split is that you don’t see anything wrong with monocrops and genetic engineering, and I say that we could build a less environmentally degrading food-production infrastructure without resorting to genetic engineering of plants for food.

I’m all for genetically engineering plants in the name of material science, though. There are some interesting applications in that field.

The methods are very straightforward. These plants can be engineered in any college-level lab/greenhouse and grown by local farmers. ‘Sophisticated robots’ are not needed. You’re making it sound like a car factory

In principle I’m all for golden rice. Once the IP issues were resolved, the technique was used to modify local strains, thus potentially maintaining diversity. However, a more pressing issue may be to adapt crop species to cope with increasingly adverse conditions as a result of environmental degradation. It’s sad that this is happening, but it’s inevitable.

The most pressing issue is about making the technology available at the grass-roots level, or at least as close as we can get (i.e. local colleges and research centres), so that local scientists and farmers can adapt the crops they require for the region they are grown in.

The issue isn’t necessary about monocrops.

Consider the real benefits that could come from plants that have better salinity/draught resistance and a better balance of nutrients.

I think the technology has to move away from monopolies such as Monsanto and over to agricultural colleges who conduct research on local crops to benefit local communities.