Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Why You May Be Forced to Eat Genetically Modified Bananas

No, it is not because of some crony capitalist plot.

It is because of the fusarium wilt fungus which may destroy the current form of banana. A genetically modified banana may be the only alternative.

The Wall Street Journal explains:


I wonder what GMO haters are going to say about this.



  1. Say no to franken-annas! I don't care if Penn Jillette says that GMO is good. Na-na-na! I am not listening.

  2. A good question would be how was the fungus able to destroy an entire species of plant? Could it be related to the monoculture that GMOs require?

    1. It's not the species. The current variety of banana is actually clones of a plant cultivated some decades ago.


      A genetically-modified banana that can resist disease would be a great achievement especially since other varieties of banana either taste like crap or are too small to be superior.

  3. The common commercial variety of banana was created through selective breeding and is reproduced through cuttings. Hence the reason it is vulnerable.

    GMO comes in many forms. The form to which most people object are the modifications where crops are made resistant to pesticides and/or herbicides. A large amount of these chemicals are then used on the crops. It is this use of these chemicals and the residuals there of that concern people more than the modification itself. There are also GMO forms where the crops produce their own pesticides. It is the effect of these on people that are of concern. The least concerning form of GMO is of the type being discussed here, modification of the crop to resist a disease. While there could be some problems caused by the nature of the modification process, the modification's goal doesn't actually cause the concern as it does with other forms.

    1. First people confuse selective breeding, which accents already present characteristics with genetic gene splicing. I have no problem with selective breeding, it is how we got most of our food today. What I have a problem with is things like splicing a mouse gene into a plant. That is something very different.

  4. Dear Robert,

    "GMO-haters". Hmmm, really? Well, wonder no more, since you asked I'll tell you what I think. I think that binary thinking is not helpful. It appears that to you this issue has only two sides. Good or bad. You're either for it or against it. No other possibilities were mentioned. An attitude that turns this into a false dichotomy.

    In my opinion, the fundamental problem is that you've purposefully framed those of us opposed to GMO's as "haters", therefore insinuating irrationality whereas in my experience, the opposite is true, i.e. that so-called "GMO-haters" are far better informed on the issue than GMO "fan-boys" (to use one of your favorite terms). ;)

    With better informed I mean in terms of being aware of the very serious potential negative effects that GMO's (and related products such as glyphosate) could have on personal health, as well as potential negative economic consequences (eventually on a regional and even global scale) due to State / Oligarchy control of the food supply (patented GMO seeds) and massive, irreversible crop failures (Genetic use restriction technology i.e. "terminator" or "suicide seeds") etc.

    If you'd like we can get into the weeds with this (pun intended) and include environmental issues discussed strictly on an-cap, libertarian principles, for instance, private property right violations such as irreversible damage to / or rather the destruction of non-GMO crops due to "accidental" / involuntary contamination.

    Considering "Target Liberty." This GMO issue is very relevant indeed since it's foolish to bite the hand that feeds you. The State literally kills to have control, and Big-Agra only exists due to the State. Consider the consequences of having complete control over the food supply.

    Thus seen from the perspective of those that seek to destroy Liberty it quickly becomes apparent that GMO is a very, very powerful tool. In the hands of evil, it's a tool that literally could alter life as we know it on this planet in almost unimaginable ways. Also, consider that it literally took a Flood of Biblical proportions to "reset" Earth the previous time genetic modification got out of control (read Genesis 6).

    Now again look at the same target (Liberty), but from our pro-Liberty anarcho-capitalist perspective. The goal and purpose of the message are not just to change minds but to change behavior. It may be prudent not to let the method of delivery, i.e., the way the message is phrased detract from that purpose. (If your purpose is to attract more followers/flies then how about trying a bit more honey and a little less vinegar?)

    Give your regular an-caps / libertarian audience credit for being capable of entertaining complex thoughts. I for one find it disappointing to see this vital issue presented here simplistically as "GMO good" or "GMO bad" and to so flippantly dismiss and potentially alienate any that disagree as "haters."
    It is not helpful at all.

    Like any weapon, Genetic Modification is but a mere tool. However, it is a very powerful tool, and the consequences of using it are similar to or even worse than thermonuclear weapons. It should be used very carefully (nuclear reactors providing cheap energy) or not at all (nuclear weapons).

    How to know if the tool is being used appropriately for good or for evil?
    You shall recognize them by their fruits! ;) LOL (Now chew on that for awhile!)

    Best wishes,