It is not difficult to see that Don is simply pointing out that we have for a long time profitably intervened in the development of plants and animals and GM is just another type of intervention.
Consider the great variety of goldfish, all patiently bred from wild carp.
Greater possibilities than those of selective breeding are offered by GM, and the opposition is largely puerile in its basis.

I thank those who have commented. I always learn from the comments. To Bugsy, the fact that some people have their own view of what 'genetic modification' means doesn't mean anything more than that. Human beings have been fiddling with nature for a very long time, and inserting genes from one species into the the DNA of another is, IMO, just a new version of the tendency.

I may have not understood Dyson, though I have read and heard what he said.

And as I wrote on my website to another commenter, I think I'm a mixture of environmentalist and humanist, as most people probably are. It's the balance in al of us that is different. I do think we are different from other animals, and also that because we have intelligence, we have a steward's responsibiity to use that intelligence wisely.

No Don, people don't "have their own view of what 'genetic modification means". "Genetic modification" has an objective definition, look it up.

Grafting has absolutely nothing to do with modification of genes in any sense, any more than a liver transplant does.

If you were talking about "fiddling with nature", then why not just talk about fiddling with nature, rather than using the term 'genetic modification' in examples that clearly show that you don't understand the subject matter.

I am actually accepting of GM in our food and arguments about the safety of our food with GM are weak. However, I do find that many environmental concerns generally are quite valid and worth at least considering before ignoring.

Environmentalism is about thinking about consequences, and preventing irreversible harm, not "doom and gloom".

Yes we humans interfere with the environment in order to improve our chances of survival just as do most other creatures, an obvious example is the the beaver, in fact just about all forms of life attempt the alter the environment for their own benefit. Unfortunately humans sometimes get it terrible wrong, you only have to look at the harm done in Australia by the introduction of rabbits, foxes, the cane toad, carp and a huge range of exotic plants.

The other problem that is unique to humans is the greed. An animal will seek the best territory that supplies all its basic needs, but humans appear to have an insatiable appetite for more and more. It leads to a situation where genetic engineering is more likely to be exploited to yield greater profits for the companies owning the seed, rather than the farmer. Typically GM seed is some 30% more expensive than conventional seed, but does not necessarily translate to increased profits for the farmer.

On the plus side we have Golden rice:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Distribution

On the down side we have:-
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-kill-monarch-butterflies

Good article, Don. Well done.

Don,

If I said your home was to be torn down and you get nothing, the majority of the public would be outraged. Why then are humans not so outraged when (the living habitats) of birds and native animals are destroyed by humans?

A lot do not care. Those that do, should not be made to look or feel like criminals - becuase they do not fit in with the views of left wing socialists (favouring humans at any cost) or the right wing and/or business sector (wanting financial growth (at any cost).

Environmentalists are often "dumbed down" and have rude comments made about them. I know being an environmentalist myself, but I'm not going to let these left/right people distract me from the important issue of environmental protection and sustainability. The comments I've had are in my view a "denial" of the issues at hand, and a way to "cop out", talk and face up to Australia's (and other countries) serious and complex environmental issues.

What I found strange, was the point by (Freeman Dyson): "The natural ecology of England was uninterrupted and rather boring forest" With humans replacing the forest.... with a much richer variety of plant and animal species. The National Trust (I am a member) is aiming to restore the natural environment of the U.K and has done so for a long time.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/what-we-do/what-we-protect/nature-and-wildlife/

After viewing the film http://www.wastelandmovie.com/, I also cut my waste/recycling home by two thirds, seeing the damage humans are causing to the planet. I don't agree serenity is better than vigour. We need more passion in general and good balance, that goes beyond a materialistic society.

Finally I won't be responding to Sarah Russell saying: "I am happy to discuss human’s responsibility to care for our planet... I could go on... but would prefer to do so another time." She is simply in my view not interested - and is being lazy, and this applies (sadly) to so many humans.