I'd appreciate it if you could help me
Genetic modification technology is always subject to criticism. They say that it may be harmful to the human body, or that even if we genetically modify crops to make them pest-resistant in order to reduce the amount of pesticides used, if new pests resistant to the crops emerge, the amount of pesticides used will not be reduced after all. Such criticisms are reasonable.
However, I have my doubts about the criticism that genetic modification is against the order of nature. What is "nature" in the first place? Are pesticides, greenhouse cultivation, and artificial pollination "natural"? For example, most of the forests we now consider "natural" were planted by humans.
It is very difficult to discuss what is natural and what is not.
I understand the feeling of "No, no, it is wrong to directly manipulate genes. I also have a sense of resistance to it and feel that I am crossing a line that should not be crossed. However, ethics and values change over time, and what was taboo 100 years ago may well be commonplace 100 years from now. For example, there was a time when drinking water was considered an outcast.
Shouldn't our goal be to promote safe genetic modification, not to eradicate it?
