>>11766486>You haven't even shown GMOs have decreased the amount of farmed cultivarshttps://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45179/43668_err162.pdf
There's no leap in logic required to see that the increased spread of GMOs implies a decrease of farmed cultivars.>So why are you confusing the two?
Literally what? Anon was talking about the problems of widespread homogeneity of crops, and you keep babbling on about monofarming. Learn the difference between them, you dunce.>Are you illiterate? The same is true for new cultivars.
Are you? Anon originally said that there is nothing inherently wrong with GMOs.>The question was, how is this different from cultivars?
idk maybe look at the statistics for how widespread cultivars are compared with GMO crops, retard.>Again, this is true of all monofarming.
You stupid cunt, the difference is losing all the crops in a state or country compared with losing them from a single farm.>You already admitted that they're mutually exclusive.
No.>You replace a non-GMO crop with a GMO crop. You don't add a GMO crop onto a non-GMO crop. So your claim that the effects are additive is nonsense.
You are more stupid than a downie. We are talking about effects here. You take the effects of regular mono-cropping, then add in the effects such as global homogeneity. In fact, to see that the effects are not mutually exclusive, just consider growing a single farm practicing mono-cropping with a GMO vs non-GMO. Then the effects would be identical, and hence are not mutually exclusive.>So you didn't say their effects are added together?
Is English not your first language? The effects of two different things can be the same.>I'm asking you when it's going to happen, not if it's happened yet.>In order to be a threat you have to show it can actually happen.
Showing that it can actually happen is entirely different to predicting the future and saying that for certain it will happen on such a date.
You need to learn basic logic.