This message was self-deleted by its author

[LWolf]

37. Some of it is, and some of it isn't.

Here is one aspect that's cut and dried for me that trumps the rest:

I don't want anyone owning patents on the world's food supply, and I don't want crops dependent on patented products. So...no genetically modified seed that can't be saved by farmers, that must be repurchased from patent owners every single year. No gmos that are modified to survive patented weed killers that also must be purchased from the patent holder each year and that also, not so incidentally, interact with the natural world outside the fields they are sprayed upon. That's cut and dried for me. No global corporate ownership of the food supply.

There's also, of course, the issue you mention...the chance to feed a hungry, rapidly exploding population. That's no so cut and dried. On the surface, it looks like a good thing. The rotten underbelly, though, exposes the fact that, as long as science is touted as the solution to feeding an overpopulated planet, the human population will continue to explode. I'd like there to be a healthy planet left for the rest of the biosphere, so I don't support this "solution." Also found in that rotten underbelly is the simple fact that solutions are never addressed until the corporate ruling class have set up ways to profit from them. Sustaining the planet and the species should not be about profiting the 1%.