Most of these are myths or have nothing at all to do with GMOs
> a drive for deeper genetic modification
So? That just means it's working.
> a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood
This is an artifact of patent law, not genetic modification.
> But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
What does "not a solution for the world" mean? And why is it not sustainable? If we use genetic modification to optimize an organism, there is no reason that it can't be sustainable. In fact, we can make farming even more sustainable than it is now.
> it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture
You're using a misdirected ad-hominem attack against GMO technology. "The developed world damaged some technologically undeveloped populations, so it's somehow negative that any technology from the developed world be used to help any technologically undeveloped populations."
The Monarch butterfly thing actually does: It is a result of the fact that herbicide-resistant GMO crops allow you to actually eliminate (rather than just reduce) weeds in a field. Those weeds both sustain butterfly populations and reduce crop yields.
Most of these are myths or have nothing at all to do with GMOs
> a drive for deeper genetic modification
So? That just means it's working.
> a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood
This is an artifact of patent law, not genetic modification.
> But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.
What does "not a solution for the world" mean? And why is it not sustainable? If we use genetic modification to optimize an organism, there is no reason that it can't be sustainable. In fact, we can make farming even more sustainable than it is now.
> it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture
You're using a misdirected ad-hominem attack against GMO technology. "The developed world damaged some technologically undeveloped populations, so it's somehow negative that any technology from the developed world be used to help any technologically undeveloped populations."