正如工业存在劳动密集型和技术密集型两种类型一样，农业同样也存在这两种类型，后一种，大概就是霍克里奇先生说的油气密集型。所谓油气密集型，大多存在于发达国家，而在发达国家不存在饥饿问题，现在的转基因技术，大多也是发达国家所开发，所以这些转基因作物，并不是为了解决饥饿问题而研发，而且为了让人们吃上“更清洁更健康”的食品的目的而研发的。所以，如同我上一个回复一样的结论，转基因作物的确不能解决产量问题。而且我需要补充的一点是，转基因作物的确可能导致产量下降，因为转基因作物的抗虫抗逆的能力，是要需要作物付出额外能量的，虽然这种额外能量损耗对产量的影响会很小。另外有一点，我还没有完全理解的是：为什么说转基因作物是依赖与石油的？
我不同意作者观点的依据，但是我赞成这个观点。转基因作物的确不能解决发展中国家的饥饿问题，其实，科技本身并不能解决任何饥饿问题和环境问题。因为科技只是一个手段，解决的是自然的问题，而饥饿以及污染都是人类的问题，人类的问题只能用人类的方法来解决，那就是政治和经济。人类不自我约束，经济不协调发展，那么那伟大的科技，都满足不了人类的欲望。
世界粮食并不是不够，只是有钱人买了太多，而没钱的人因此吃不上饭。
- Aturen

As industry is divided into labor-intensive industry and skill-intensive industry, agriculture has the same classification as industry. The counterpart of skill-intensive industry in agriculture probably refers to “oil-gas intensive agriculture” raised by Ms. Hockridge. The so-called “oil-gas intensive agriculture” mainly exists in developed countries. Now in developed countries, hunger is not a problem any more. And the technology of genetically modification is mainly researched in developed countries. Thus, the genetically modified crops are not for the purpose of solving hunger, but for “cleaner and better” food for people. So the result is just the same as my previous conclusion: genetically modified crops cannot solve the problem of output. Moreover, I have to add one point here, genetically modified crops do have the possibility of decreasing output, for the extra ability of insect resistance and stress tolerance need more energy to develop, although the portion of energy maybe little. Besides, I haven’t completely understood why genetically modified crops are relying on oil. I agree on this opinion although I don’t agree with the proof that the author provided. Genetically modified crops cannot solve the hunger problem in developing countries and that’s for sure, because technology is just a method of solving problem of nature, not the human problems—hunger and pollution. Human being’s own problems can only be solved by our methods—politic and economic. If human don't restrict his own behaviors and keep incongruence economic, great technology cannot meet our desire. Actually, food in the world is not insufficient. The poor don't have enough food because the rich buy too much. --Aturen

转基因农业基本仍然走的是石化农业的老路，说它依赖石油我想是因为它们仍需倚赖化肥。而对于那些广泛种植的抗除草剂品种（如孟山都公司的Roundup Ready大豆），除草剂的使用量也仍然惊人。这也是石化产品的衍生产物。另外，大规模单一化种植对机械的要求也间接要求石油的供应。
-- TVhead

GM agriculture follows the old oil-intensive path. It is oil reliant because it still relies on fertilizer. As for the widely planted pesticide resistant species, such as Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean, the amount of weed killers used is staggering, which is also a by-product of petro-chemical industry. Furthermore, the use of agricultural machinery for large scale single cropping cannot do without oil. TVhead

化肥中依赖石油的大概只有尿素了吧，尿素只是氮肥的一种，用“依赖”这个词，太哗众取宠了。我不明白现在的那些环境政治家们到底想要怎么样的农业，农业机械化，化肥的施用，这些都是进步，相比其他行业，农业要求的能源已经很少了；所谓不施用肥料的有机农业，肯定不能广泛开展，好田只有那么多。至于您提到的抗除草剂品种依然需要除草剂，那是当然，毕竟现在只能降低除草剂的使用，不能杜绝除草剂的使用，而且完全杜绝了也不好，不符合生态平衡的要求。要完全杜绝，只有一个办法，那就是用手拔，劳动密集型农业可以做到。

Urea is probably the only fertilizer that relies on oil, and it is just one of nitrogen fertilizers. Hence it is exaggerated to say fertilizers rely on oil. I do not understand what kind of agriculture those environmental politicians want. Mechanization and fertilizer represent the progress of agriculture. Even so, agriculture consumes little energy compared with industries. It is impossible to popularize the so-called organic agriculture which claim to be fertilizer-free, because high-yield fields are quite limited. As for the pesticide-resistant species you have mentioned, we can try to reduce the amount of weed killer used, but the idea of abandoning weed killer is unreasonable. Total abandonment will not benefit current ecological balance. In addition, if we forbid all weed killers, the only alternative is to pluck the weeds by hand. It is impossible except in labor-intensive agriculture.