The problem in Puna is accepting scaremongering and anti-science beliefs as acceptable alternatives to education and rational reasoning. This chart isn't the best, the year 2000 label should be over to the right more, but it demonstrates the connection between technology and explosive human population growth:
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.....image.jpg
As can be seen, human population growth became exponential due to the 1st Industrial Revolution and mechanized farming. With the development of germ theory (bacteria and virus), followed shortly by vaccines, the population growth rate became even faster.
Organic farming is not something new. It was the first form of farming, roughly 7000 years old. Looking at the chart, transitioning from hunter-gatherer to agrarian, which allowed for the development of civilization, the human population growth born/dead ratio changed very little. Essentially, for every person born, one died. Average lifespans changed very little, staying about 48 years for thousands of years. From the 1st Industrial Revolution in the late 1800's, lifespans began rapidly lengthening and the born/dead ratio started going from 1:1 to 2:1 to 3:1, more people born with fewer dying as early and more people living longer.
Corporate farming became prominent in the 1970's and it is corporate farming that is able to feed this increasing population. Corporate farming is actually allowing human population to grow, not killing off people. If 7,000 year old organic farming was the only practice allowed, there would be mass starvation due to very low efficiency. It would be a solution for the population bomb problem though. This chart only goes up to present day with 7.2 billion humans on this planet. There are extrapolations of this chart where it doesn't keep going skyward, that limits are reached in food production (there is a limit to arable land
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image...e-land.jpg) and in one extrapolation, there is massive starvation ahead if something isn't done. Scientists know what needs to be done to prevent this exponential curve from collapsing, or at least move the collapse further out. That is, grow more food from less area. This means changing the plants to require less fertilizer to grow more. There is a lot of progress in this area, but then these fruits and vegetables are GMO.
The historical data proves that technology is actually saving lives, not harming lives. The damage to the ecosphere environment is not due to technology, it is due to too many humans. If the human population were reduced by 1/2 or 2/3 (eliminating 3 or 4 billion people), the Earth would return to a more natural state. The changes we humans are making to this planet only affect us and whatever fauna and flora we wipe out with our massive consumption needs. Since people consider people more valuable than the health of the planet, we are stuck in our journey forward in time.
While nostalgia and going back to simpler times is a rewarding fantasy, it needs to be recognized as delusional. If science and technology are not able to provide more solutions, then going back to the farming practices of 7,000 years ago are not going to save us. The original question is "where is the proof that GMO is harmful to human beings?". The simple answer is that reverting to 7,000 year old organic farming provides historical data it isn't any kind of solution, and will not provide some better alternative for the future.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
