GENTECHNIK — HOFFNUNG ODER BEDROHUN

GENTECHNIK — HOFFNUNG ODER BEDROHUNG?

Voraussichtlich leben in der Mitte des nächsten Jahrhunderts zehn Milliarden Menschen auf der Erde — doppelt so viele wie heute. Um sie zu versorgen, wird sich die Landwirtschaft grundsätzlich verändern müssen. Die Anbauflächen immer weiter zu vergrößern, wäre zu gefährlich, denn die tropischen Wälder würden dann endgültig verschwinden, und riesige Gebiete wären bald Steppe und Wüste.
Was wir also brauchen, sind nicht größere Anbauflächen, sondern Pflanzen, die erstens mehr Nahrung und wertvolle Rohstoffe liefern, zweitens mit weniger Dünger auskommen, drittens Schädlingen und Trockenheit leichter widerstehen und viertens Licht und Wasser besser ausnutzen. Mit der „normalen“ Pflanzenzüchtung ist dieses Ziel nicht zu erreichen, vielleicht jedoch mit den Methoden der Gentechnik. Mit ihrer Hilfe gelang es bereits, Aprikosen und Kartoffeln zu „verbessern“ und Erdbeersorten zu entwickeln, die Kälte besser ertragen. Im Prinzip kann man mit der Gentechnik Pflanzen und Tiere „konstruieren“, die es in der Natur gar nicht gibt. Die Gentechnik, so sagen ihre Anhänger, ist billig, sicher und umweltfreundlich. Sie kann viele unsere Probleme lösen, indem sie Pflanzen schafft, die sich selber vor Krankheiten und Schädlingen schützen, bessere Erträge liefern und ihren Dünger selbst produzieren.
Viele Menschen lehnen die Gentechnik jedoch ab. Sie fürchten, die Natur werde am Ende von Lebewesen aus dem Labor beherrscht und zerstört. Krankheitserreger könnten (gewollt oder ungewollt) erzeugt werden und sich unkontrolliert ausbreiten; und eines Tages werde man wohl sogar mit dem Menschen experimentieren. Gentechnik ist deshalb für viele ihrer Gegner ein Synonym für den verantwortungslosen Umgang mit der Natur, für einen unerlaubten Eingriff in die Evolution oder in die Schöpfung Gottes.

Результаты (английский) 1:

GENETIC ENGINEERING - HOPE OR THREAT? Expected to be 10 billion people on Earth live in the middle of the next century--twice as many as today. To provide them, agriculture will have to change basically. To enlarge the acreage, more and more, it would be too dangerous, because the tropical forests disappear finally and huge areas were soon steppe and desert. What we need are not larger acreage, but plants that provide firstly more food and valuable raw materials, second come out with less fertilizer, thirdly more easily resist pests and drought and better exploit fourth light and water. With the "normal" plant breeding is this target cannot be achieved, but perhaps with the methods of genetic engineering. With their help managed already, to "improve apricots and potatoes" and to develop varieties of strawberries that endure cold better. In principle can you with genetic engineering plants and animals "construct" that do not exist in nature. Genetic engineering, their followers say is cheap, safe and environmentally friendly. You can resolve many our problems by creating plants, which guard itself against diseases and pests, produce better yield and produce their fertilizer itself. Many people reject genetic engineering however. They fear the nature will dominated at the end of life from the lab and destroyed. Pathogens could (intentionally or unintentionally) are generated and spread uncontrollably; and one day you'll experiment probably even with the people. Therefore, genetic engineering is a synonym for the irresponsible treatment of nature for an unlawful intervention in the evolution or God's creation for many of their opponents.

Результаты (английский) 2:

GENETIC ENGINEERING - HOPE OR THREAT

expected ten billion people live in the middle of the next century on earth - twice as many as today. To cater, agriculture will have to change fundamentally. The acreage continues to increase, would be too dangerous, because the tropical forests would then disappear for, and vast areas would soon steppe and desert.
So what we need are not more acreage, but plants that provide first more food and valuable raw materials secondly require less fertilizer, thirdly, resist pests and drought lighter and fourthly exploit light and water better. The "normal" plant breeding this goal can not be achieved, but perhaps with the methods of genetic engineering. With their help, it already managed to "improve" apricots and potatoes and to develop varieties of strawberries, endure the cold better. In principle one can with the genetic engineering of plants and animals "construct" that does not exist in nature. Genetic engineering, so say its adherents, is cheap, safe and environmentally friendly. You can solve many of our problems by creating plants protect themselves against diseases and pests, provide better yields and produce their fertilizer itself.
However, many people reject genetic engineering. They fear that nature is dominated and destroyed at the end of organisms from the laboratory. Pathogens could (intentionally or not) are generated and spread uncontrollably; and one day you'll probably experiment even with the people. Genetic engineering is therefore for many of their opponents, a synonym for the irresponsible handling of nature, for unauthorized intervention in the evolution or in the creation of God.

Результаты (английский) 3:

genetic engineering - hope or threat?to live in the middle of the next century, ten billion people on earth - twice as many as it is today. in order to provide farming will fundamentally change. the area continues to expand, would be too dangerous, as the tropical forests will finally disappear, and large areas were soon steppe and desert.so what we need is not more land, but plants, the first food and valuable raw material, secondly, with less fertilizer to manage pests and drought, thirdly and fourthly, easier to resist light and water out. with the "normal" breeding, that goal is not to achieve, but perhaps with the methods of genetic engineering. with your help, it was already, apricots and potatoes to „verbessern erdbeersorten "and to develop better bear the cold. in principle, one with the genetic engineering of plants and animals „konstruieren ", in nature, does not exist. genetic engineering, so tell your followers, is cheap, safe, and environmentally friendly. you can do a lot of our problems by plants creates, themselves against diseases and pests, protect better yields and fertilizer supply their produce themselves.many people object to the genetic engineering, however. they fear the nature will at the end of life from the lab, and destroyed. pathogens may (intentionally or not) are produced and spread uncontrollably, and one day will be even with the human experiment. genetic engineering is therefore for many of your opponents is a synonym for the irresponsible use of nature, for unlawful interference in the evolution or in the creation of god.