The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Does the world need Genetically Modifed Food?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 77649
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Genetic modification has been a popular topic of discussion and debate for the past many years. So, I hope I do not have to define GM. Without wasting any time, I'll go straight to the topic.

It has been predicted that by 2050, the world population will reach nine billion. To accommodate this large population, the land that we have is being used more for settlement and other purposes, and very little land we have been left with for agriculture.

The land that we have now for agriculture will definitely decrease by the next few decades. And the world population will increase drastically. What do we do then? How do we supply food and fulfill the demands of the hungry people in the world? Will our present traditional way of farming provide sufficient food for everyone, with so little land?

Anny person with common sense and a right mind can imagine the situation of the world when there is food crisis. Malnutrition will kill people. Nations will fight with each other for food. People will suffer. In the end, humanity will die. Even after knowing all of this, how can we stay calm and still say that "world is not in need of GMOs?"

GMOs are the solution for world hunger. The only solution that we have.

And yet there are people who are against the use of GMO because they "dont want to take any risks". Well, by not commercializing GMO, we are risking human lives and letting the possibility of world hunger dwell. What would be a better risk than that, people?!


Hi. Thank you to my opponent for the debate.

My opponent's contention is that GMOs are the solution to world hunger and that it's the only solution we have. He's saying that the future of humanity will die of starvation if GMO's are not implemented.
I will contend that the world does not need Genetically Modified food to survive and why it's not the solution to world hunger.

1. Vertical Farming
My opponent mentions that our land for farming will decrease due to population growth and expansion of human settlements. So what are we gonna do with such little amount of land??? The answer is something called Vertical Farming.
Vertical farming is a 21st century solution to our food crisis which primarily uses hydroponic/aeroponic/aquaponic methods to produce organic crops without the need for GMOs.
If land scarcity is a problem, then instead of building farms laterally, we build them vertically, duh. By growing vertically it would yield significantly more crops per area of land than with conventional land based farming. Since v
ertical farms are grown indoors in a closed-loop controlled environment, this means almost any type of crop can be grown virtually anywhere on the planet.

2. Energy
When you trying to solve a global food crisis, the issue is not so much a matter of using GMO's, as much as it is a matter of solving an energy crisis. It's because food/agriculture supply is directly correlated to our energy supply and production just like almost anything in our modern soceity. Energy is the root of any modern civilization. This is acknowledged by the steep significant rise in the population curve and is what catalyzed the 2nd Industrial Revolution during the late 19th century when oil was discovered to be an abundant and cheap energy source.
Now think about it. If we had an unlimited supply of energy, we would correspondingly be able to produce an abundant amount food. So the question/issue becomes: how do we produce an unlimited supply of energy or close to it?
Well, a simple soultion is by implementing renewable energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Any of these three energy sources alone are virtually inexhaustible, we just need to tap into and collect it.

As for solar, Elon Musk (founder/CEO of Tesla Motors, SpaceX, and SolarCity) puts it, "We have this handy fusion reactor in the sky called the sun, you don't have to do anything, it just works. It shows up everyday and produces ridiculous amounts of power."'

According to an MIT, "More solar energy strikes the surface of the earth in one hour than is provided by all of the fossil energy consumed globally in a year."

Additionally, it is projected that by 2030 the total land area the world would need to run entirely on solar energy is about 496,000 sq. Kilometers, which is shown in this map.
As you can see from the map, the amount of land required is virtually almost trivial and can be implemented today with current technology.

To summarize, GMO is not the only solution to solve world hunger like my opponent says. There are much safer and smarter alternative ways.
- The decrease in land area for agriculture can be solved by implementing energy efficient vertical farms which can produce organic foods.
- Because food supply is directly tied to energy production, by solving our energy crisis with abundant renewable energy, consequently world hunger/ food scarcity can be easily fixed.

Debate Round No. 1


freakingout forfeited this round.


Since my opponent has forfeited the second round, I will not post anything for this round.
Debate Round No. 2


freakingout forfeited this round.


Since has forfeited the last 2 rounds, and has not made any counter-arguments. it is clear who the winner is.
For this last round I will briefly summarize my arguments from round 1.

Obviously there is a huge growing discontent surrounding GMO's throughout the globe because of its health and safety issues.
But regardless of whether it poses real health risks or not, the argument for this debate is whether we need to GMO to produce enough food to feed the exploding global population.

I argue that GMO's are absolutely unnecessary to meeting the global food demand within the coming decades. Here's my points:

1. We might not have enough land to grow enough food using conventional farming, but we the world has significantly more than enough land to grow food using Vertical farming in order to feed the entire human population. Verical Farms will utilize efficient farming techniques such as hydroponics to produce food all year round in any location and climate. With vertical farming, the sky is literally the limit. Thus land is not an issue.

2. Producing all of that food requires energy. Obviously, the more energy we have, the more food we can produce. Today our main energy is oil. In the coming decades, the price of oil will only rise, which consequently will make food more expensive and less obtainable to ordinary people. Additionally, oil is a finite energy which is centralized and controlled by only a small percentage of the world population. The people at the top who control the energy ultimately control the food supply. By using inexhaustable renewable energies such as solar, communities will be able produce their own energy and food locally without depending on big institutions. Unlimited renewable energy = abundant food. The more people are in control of their energy supply, the better they can control their food supply.

To conclude, the world does not need GMOs to feed the world population.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.