Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
You forgot one thing. The direct genetic manipulation, while giving desired results much faster compared to selection, is not stable or predictable.
Because, when using selection, the plant tests it itself - by surviving or not. Several plant generation loops and analysis, and done. This is not the case with direct manipulation.
It takes a LOT of resources to simulate the plant development and calculate the impact. It takes a lot of money and time to run test cases to stabilize the whole changes and iron out even tiny quirks.

Only then direct genetic manipulation is safe.
This is not being done. Instead money making is done - safety does not interest people, they are used to dump wastes without thinking of consequences, like babies peeing in own bed.

This is why genetically modified food possesses danger much beyond the scope of a nuclear meltdown.
Tschernobyl case, with tremendous efforts, was managed.
But you can't manage where genetic damage is driven, you can't control where the bee flies.

sure but BUT natural breeding(selection) with modern techniques means genetic analysis and based on the analysis you do a natural breeding is technically the same than a direct genetic manipulation.
the only point is: natural breeding sounds better but its technically the same.
you can select any natural-mutation based on a radiation damage on the genetic with natural breeding and in the end there is nothing "natural" its only a effect of the radiation and mutation.

Direct genetic manipulation is the same like a mutation because of (natural)radiation its only faster.

Natural mutation or direct Genetic manipulation do not chance this: "the plant tests it itself - by surviving or not."

The plant still tests itself by surviving or not.
this basic rule is not off just because you manipulate the genetic code.

(only you use the BAD stuff termination technology then its broken by design)