I don't understand your point. What are the supposed benefits of GMO grops that makes it easier for me to eat organic? Are you talking about global food supply? If so, there are many other issues we can bring up, one being that most food grown in the US goes either to animal feed or to plants that make HFCS and a slew of other things that don't really count as "food" to me.

I interesting benefit of GMO is (or rather will be), setting a benchmark. Better example then GMO is artificially fertilisers & pesticides.

An organic farming technique is always compared to one using those artificial methods. Once the benchmark is there and there is a market for organic, it's a good recipe for improving organic farming technology.

If we all ate organic, a third of the world population would have to starve to death from sheer shortage of food.

Don't talk about animal feed, either--we'd have to raise more cattle just for the manure if we didn't use chemical fertilizers.

That's a mighty strong statement of fact to throw out without any kind of citation. Care to share a couple?

I've attributed these claims to statements by Norman Borlaug elsewhere in the thread. Here specifically: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=730793

I don't think that's a valid argument. It's perfectly okay to notice that what you're benefiting from is not something you want to support. I can replace words in your argument thus: "It's amazing how many people have jumped on the safe work conditions bandwagon when they have reaped the benefits of horrible work conditions in third world countries."

You're comparing apples and oranges there.

Are you referring to GMO crops and safe working conditions as the apples and oranges? Rest assured that I am not comparing them, I am simply reshaping your statement to support my statement that "It's perfectly okay to notice that what you're benefiting from is not something you want to support."

Yes, but efficient farming is having a negative impact on the biosphere. Like with most issues, the question is "Where do we draw the line?"

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Productivity_an...

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/modern_agriculture.htm...

Those list just a few studies and it looks like they are conflicting? I can't discuss this issue properly because I don't know enough about it.

I would prefer whichever method is both efficient and environmentally-safe. I'm just annoyed by the currently fashionable knee-jerk reaction of people that assume organic farming is better.

If you don't know enough about the issue to discuss the it properly, then on what are you basing the assumption that people's claims to the superiority of organic farming is knee-jerk?

GMO crops have only been around since, at the very earliest, 1986, so it's pretty hard to say that people at the top of the ladder are there because of them. Lumping "efficient farming" in with GMOs to make that argument is wholly disingenuous - efficient farming could have nothing to do at all with GMO crops (see: Polyface Farm).