Of many reasons why companies have been kept asserting to use the biotechnology, their
main theme is that the biotechnology is the only solution to feed the whole population. =
(Among many reasons why companies have kept asserting the use of biotechnology is because
their main theme is centered about biotechnology being the only solution to feed the whole
population.) However, it might sound very righteous if you see the hidden intention of this
argument, you would quickly realize that there is the private interest from a few people.
However, to disclose this fake argument, you could quickly catch how contradicting it is to say
that. While the biotechnology has been introduced as a solution to the problem of feeding the
world, why the problem still exists or deteriorates as time goes, even though the ‘solution’ has
been adapted (Civil Eats). In addition to that, the fact that the feeding-the-world problem has
been suddenly brought up fairly recently while it hadn’t been an issue for thousands years of
nature history, = (thousands of years in the history of nature) makes everybody feel more
skeptical if the problem is really the problem or what actually caused that problem. (whether the
problem really is a problem or if there’s a different cause of it.) As we are giving more thoughts
on the problem and the solution, we could finally move on to another question which is “what if
the ‘solution’ was the culprit for the ‘problem?”
To be on the right track of getting the answer, it starts with the idea that human beings
can control the lives of organisms and nature. This idea is based on the thinking that the human
being is independent to nature, rather than being a part of it. This mindset then also affected on
defining science that human beings could control the environment. Under this way, new
scientific theories have normally structured through the constant trials and failures with
experiments to prove their efficacies until they got approvals from the officials (Cummings).
However, as the theory is created from nowhere, the conclusion made by humans could
inevitably be inconsistent and uncertain. This imbalance is so obvious that it goes against in
every principle. For instance, when it comes to the creation theory that God (Creation Theory in
which God) has created the world within seven days, while the science concept allows humans to
intervene in nature, this absolutely challenges and (is) against to the belief that nature is already a
perfect creation from (by) God. Furthermore, it also adverse to the ethical field, as it hides things
that seem to be unfavorable to certain people’s interests (Cohen). Unnecessary capitals
intervention and manipulating the data in favor of a few also tell why the science created by
human is not transparent. Lastly, it reverses natural principles in which the whole organisms have
passed down their genes to the next generation by sex as well as encouraged the genetic
diversity, as the biotechnology breaks the rules by simplifying the genetic codes. (Cummings)
On the contrary, everything becomes (starts to) make sense when human beings are
explained as a part of nature. In this time, the science theories are accumulated through the
constant observations of nature environment, and the theories get established when they get the
coherent observations (Kingsolver,). Since the observations are the process of objectively seeing
the already-existed environment in different angles to get the most closed looks, the theory
would be consistent and more certain. Meanwhile, since the role of the theory is how to describe
the surrounding environment, the Creation Theory is still be respected by saying that nature itself
has been created perfectly and have their own sustainable operating system which doesn’t need
any artificial intervention. Not only that, the transparency to public that the data is open to
everybody gives evidence of why this science is ethical. Lastly it is aligned with natural
principles in which the sustainability can be achieved by natural regeneration via sex and the
genetic diversity maintained as a result. (Great sentence!)
The answer for the question whether we need biotech to feed the world is crystal clear.
Given that the concept of biotechnology has come into the world in 1990s as a tool to control the
genetic nature of living organisms as a way that human has intended for. The absurdity of thirty-
years old science used to rule over the thousands-years old science is self-explanatory. If we stop
and think if it is valid to say that the nascent science can be the solution for the environment
sustainability, you would clearly get how absurd to think in that way is.
