* not actually new.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/800px-monsanto_logo.svg_.png)
On matters of environment, sustainability, renewable resources, and energy production I usually fall decidedly on the side of the Eco-Spags. However, on the specific issue of GMOs, I find little reason to back the violently anti-progress activists. Not because I am a great big fan of the assholes at Monsanto whose business model seems to be the genetically-engineered lovechild of Microsoft and Count Dracula, but because Monsanto's loudest opponents only use the economic and political evils of the company as a footnote to their squealing about the inherent evils of genetic engineering.
Now, I am probably largely uninformed on the topic of genetic engineering. I am neither a botanist nor an engineer, let alone both. But I have read some stuff and, like any random person on the Internet with more opinions than time, I don't see a compelling reason to shun all GMOs. Are they really bad for humans? Eh, probably not. They may be bad for bees, but that isn't conclusively proven either. I do know that GMOs present a viable short- to mid-term solution to *SOME OF* the problems we have with starvation related to overpopulation, economic instability and war. Whether the ultimate damage done by GMOs to the ecosystem (if any) outweighs the potential good GMOs might do for the people who live in that ecosystem is what I'm trying to figure out.
You won't find me arguing that the way Monsanto conducts itself in the market is excusable. It's a terrible organization filled with terrible people who have terrible priorities. But that's an economic and political problem, not necessarily a scientific or ecological problem.
What do you think?
I'm worried about the Geo-Politics concerning Monsanto, and how basically they rip people off and force them to sell their land. I also I like organic fluoride not chemical fluoride (crickets*).
I agree with your premise and add that wholesale rejection of GMOs is the problem. Individual transgenic lines may have problems, but to write off all of GMOs is some sort of technophobia.
I am fully on board with golden rice.
Food distribution in 3rd world countries piss me off. All it takes is one fucking hippie to convince one leader to let food rot in storage. You know for the children.
I'll look into this one GMO sweet potato that was created to survive shit quality soil in Africa. It requires very little water, and lots of sun. Here we have a super food that consumes less water. These are the kind of crops we should look into to conserve the usage of fresh water.
Fighting proper labeling of GMOs is a dick move, and something I agree with the eco-spags about. I think it's sensible to be cautious about new foods being created, but the hysteria is uncalled for.
I do outright oppose the existence of one class of GMOs: the pesticide-resistant and pesticide-containing ones. Peak oil isn't going to not happen just because the only people whining about it are crazy, and right now all our pesticides are based on petroleum. Wasting time and money creating food that will be useless in the foreseeable future is just fucking stupid.
I don't know if you lump this in with the business practices, but the loss of biodiversity in our food supply is really worrying. We're down to single digits of corn species, there's a very real possibility when shit gets that narrow the entire population could be wiped out and there would be no more corn, ever.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2013, 08:53:32 PM
Fighting proper labeling of GMOs is a dick move, and something I agree with the eco-spags about. I think it's sensible to be cautious about new foods being created, but the hysteria is uncalled for.
I do outright oppose the existence of one class of GMOs: the pesticide-resistant and pesticide-containing ones. Peak oil isn't going to not happen just because the only people whining about it are crazy, and right now all our pesticides are based on petroleum. Wasting time and money creating food that will be useless in the foreseeable future is just fucking stupid.
I don't know if you lump this in with the business practices, but the loss of biodiversity in our food supply is really worrying. We're down to single digits of corn species, there's a very real possibility when shit gets that narrow the entire population could be wiped out and there would be no more corn, ever.
I can see that pesticide resistance having to do with oil use, but pesticide containing? It's manufactured by the plant, and takes the place of synthetic pesticides. Not really an argument for or against, just asking for clarification.
Oh, crap, you're right.
I need to go look at more things, the "they're making corn that has pesticides in it" idea got in my head from somewhere and I don't know where. I'm totally uncomfortable with eating pesticides, because that has historically ended poorly for the organisms eating it.
I spend a lot of time around hippies and sometimes ideas sneak in without my permission :/
GMOs are potentially really cool.
Monsanto is evil.
GMOs made by Monsanto are more likely to be evil than cool.
Patenting genes that can be spread via pollen is fucking moronic and a total disaster, but that comes back to Monsanto being evil.
Having plants produce pesticides in parts and ways previously unknown is probably an ecologically terrible idea that will have unintended consequences.
Putting GMO plants and their pollen out in the environment without extensive testing is also probably a pretty bad idea.
Guess we'll find out, can't unring the bell.
Here's a GMO project which is
not Monsanto, is not related to pesticide resistance or production, and will ultimately be free for use.
http://c4rice.irri.org/
QuoteIn the majority of plants, including rice, CO2 is first fixed into a compound with three carbons (C3) by the photosynthetic enzyme ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (Rubisco)—this is known as C3 photosynthesis.Rubisco is inherently inefficient because it can also catalyze a reaction with oxygen from the air, in a wasteful process known as photorespiration (rather than photosynthesis). At temperatures above 20°C, there is increasing competition by oxygen (O2), with a dramatic reduction in CO2 fixation and photosynthetic efficiency. While all this is happening, water is escaping from the leaves while the CO2 is diffusing in. Thus, in the hot tropics where most rice is grown, photosynthesis becomes very inefficient.
C4 plants are more efficient in carbon dioxide concentration that results in increased efficiency in water and nitrogen use and improved adaptation to hotter and dryer environments.
In nature, this has occurred more than 50 times in a wide range of flowering plants, indicating that, despite being complex, it is a relatively easy pathway to evolve.
In other words, they're going to up yield, increase water efficiency, and lower fertilizer use, by turning rice into a C4 plant. If you can't get behind it, you are some sort of technophobe.
ETA: I've talked to one of the members of this team just recently. To make this work, they have to change about 12 steps in the basic cellular physiology of these plants. As of now, they have four steps. So, one third there. As they keep adding steps the work is going to get more and more complicated.
IS THIS THE PLACE WHERE WE COME TO SHOW HOW RIGHT WE ARE AND HOW SUPERIOR WE ARE TO THOSE PEOPLE?
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:16:12 PM
Here's a GMO project which is not Monsanto, is not related to pesticide resistance or production, and will ultimately be free for use.
http://c4rice.irri.org/
QuoteIn the majority of plants, including rice, CO2 is first fixed into a compound with three carbons (C3) by the photosynthetic enzyme ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (Rubisco)—this is known as C3 photosynthesis.Rubisco is inherently inefficient because it can also catalyze a reaction with oxygen from the air, in a wasteful process known as photorespiration (rather than photosynthesis). At temperatures above 20°C, there is increasing competition by oxygen (O2), with a dramatic reduction in CO2 fixation and photosynthetic efficiency. While all this is happening, water is escaping from the leaves while the CO2 is diffusing in. Thus, in the hot tropics where most rice is grown, photosynthesis becomes very inefficient.
C4 plants are more efficient in carbon dioxide concentration that results in increased efficiency in water and nitrogen use and improved adaptation to hotter and dryer environments.
In nature, this has occurred more than 50 times in a wide range of flowering plants, indicating that, despite being complex, it is a relatively easy pathway to evolve.
In other words, they're going to up yield, increase water efficiency, and lower fertilizer use, by turning rice into a C4 plant. If you can't get behind it, you are some sort of technophobe.
ETA: I've talked to one of the members of this team just recently. To make this work, they have to change about 12 steps in the basic cellular physiology of these plants. As of now, they have four steps. So, one third there. As they keep adding steps the work is going to get more and more complicated.
THAT kind of thing is fucking cool.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 09:25:00 PM
GMOs are potentially really cool.
Monsanto is evil.
GMOs made by Monsanto are more likely to be evil than cool.
Patenting genes that can be spread via pollen is fucking moronic and a total disaster, but that comes back to Monsanto being evil.
Having plants produce pesticides in parts and ways previously unknown is probably an ecologically terrible idea that will have unintended consequences.
Putting GMO plants and their pollen out in the environment without extensive testing is also probably a pretty bad idea.
Guess we'll find out, can't unring the bell.
JACKRABBITS IN AUSTRALIA? WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:19:44 PM
IS THIS THE PLACE WHERE WE COME TO SHOW HOW RIGHT WE ARE AND HOW SUPERIOR WE ARE TO THOSE PEOPLE?
NO, THIS IS WHERE WE TALK ABOUT HOW FUCKING AWESOME SCIENCE IS THAT WE CAN DO SHIT LIKE TURN A C3 PLANT INTO A C4 PLANT.
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:23:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:19:44 PM
IS THIS THE PLACE WHERE WE COME TO SHOW HOW RIGHT WE ARE AND HOW SUPERIOR WE ARE TO THOSE PEOPLE?
NO, THIS IS WHERE WE TALK ABOUT HOW FUCKING AWESOME SCIENCE IS THAT WE CAN DO SHIT LIKE TURN A C3 PLANT INTO A C4 PLANT.
NO, I CHECKED. WE'RE AT PD.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 11:21:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:16:12 PM
Here's a GMO project which is not Monsanto, is not related to pesticide resistance or production, and will ultimately be free for use.
http://c4rice.irri.org/
QuoteIn the majority of plants, including rice, CO2 is first fixed into a compound with three carbons (C3) by the photosynthetic enzyme ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (Rubisco)—this is known as C3 photosynthesis.Rubisco is inherently inefficient because it can also catalyze a reaction with oxygen from the air, in a wasteful process known as photorespiration (rather than photosynthesis). At temperatures above 20°C, there is increasing competition by oxygen (O2), with a dramatic reduction in CO2 fixation and photosynthetic efficiency. While all this is happening, water is escaping from the leaves while the CO2 is diffusing in. Thus, in the hot tropics where most rice is grown, photosynthesis becomes very inefficient.
C4 plants are more efficient in carbon dioxide concentration that results in increased efficiency in water and nitrogen use and improved adaptation to hotter and dryer environments.
In nature, this has occurred more than 50 times in a wide range of flowering plants, indicating that, despite being complex, it is a relatively easy pathway to evolve.
In other words, they're going to up yield, increase water efficiency, and lower fertilizer use, by turning rice into a C4 plant. If you can't get behind it, you are some sort of technophobe.
ETA: I've talked to one of the members of this team just recently. To make this work, they have to change about 12 steps in the basic cellular physiology of these plants. As of now, they have four steps. So, one third there. As they keep adding steps the work is going to get more and more complicated.
THAT kind of thing is fucking cool.
It's the way of the Future, Nigel. Once we make it work for Rice, what's stopping us from doing it for all of our crop plants? And since the patent holders are going to give it out freely, it's like the Polio vaccine all over again.
You know, Nigel, I'm thinking back to that BookFace thread where I got butthurt and you were probably right. Sticking a single gene into a plant to make it produce a pesticide is a rather crude solution. It's a band aid, really. Any pest insect species subjected to a strong enough selection pressure will develop resistance eventually. Equally crude is giving plants herbicide resistance. These are quick fixes. These are first generation transgenic plants, much like the first generation of automobiles, or the first generation of airplanes, or the first generation of computers. They WORK, and at the time they look cool. But remember watching those movies from the 1950s and seeing those clunky gigantic mainframe supercomputers, and thinking that all of that computing technology could now be held in the palm of your hand? Yeah.
Monsanto is playing the first generation game. They have the big boxy supercomputers. But the Rice Initiative is making smartphones.
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:26:06 PM
And since the patent holders are going to give it out freely, it's like the Polio vaccine all over again.
False equivalence.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:33:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:26:06 PM
And since the patent holders are going to give it out freely, it's like the Polio vaccine all over again.
False equivalence.
You're going to have to elaborate.
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:37:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:33:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:26:06 PM
And since the patent holders are going to give it out freely, it's like the Polio vaccine all over again.
False equivalence.
You're going to have to elaborate.
Polio vaccination does not spread from the person vaccinated. Plants introduced into an environment can.
While I am reluctantly on board with golden rice, that is because the situation calling for it is DIRE, and the regular plant life in the target regions (ie, equatorial Africa, etc) is already more or less gone.
But just deciding that there can't be unintended consequences in the biological sciences because you WANT a particular result is no fucking different than the Luddites denying any science that disagrees with their values and/or religious beliefs. IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:37:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:33:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:26:06 PM
And since the patent holders are going to give it out freely, it's like the Polio vaccine all over again.
False equivalence.
You're going to have to elaborate.
Polio vaccination does not spread from the person vaccinated. Plants introduced into an environment can.
While I am reluctantly on board with golden rice, that is because the situation calling for it is DIRE, and the regular plant life in the target regions (ie, equatorial Africa, etc) is already more or less gone.
But just deciding that there can't be unintended consequences in the biological sciences because you WANT a particular result is no fucking different than the Luddites denying any science that disagrees with their values and/or religious beliefs. IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
Did I fucking say that? NO, I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY THAT. In fact, I admitted that Bt crops and Roundup Ready crops were a shitty solution.
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:46:03 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:37:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:33:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:26:06 PM
And since the patent holders are going to give it out freely, it's like the Polio vaccine all over again.
False equivalence.
You're going to have to elaborate.
Polio vaccination does not spread from the person vaccinated. Plants introduced into an environment can.
While I am reluctantly on board with golden rice, that is because the situation calling for it is DIRE, and the regular plant life in the target regions (ie, equatorial Africa, etc) is already more or less gone.
But just deciding that there can't be unintended consequences in the biological sciences because you WANT a particular result is no fucking different than the Luddites denying any science that disagrees with their values and/or religious beliefs. IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
Did I fucking say that? NO, I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY THAT. In fact, I admitted that Bt crops and Roundup Ready crops were a shitty solution.
But you are comparing plant and insect life with things that do not reproduce. Like computers and vaccines.
This situation's risks have more in common with jackrabbits in Australia. Once you let 'em into the wild, the situation is more or less out of your control. You can live with the results, or you can go find a spider to swallow to catch the fly.
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:32:09 PM
You know, Nigel, I'm thinking back to that BookFace thread where I got butthurt and you were probably right. Sticking a single gene into a plant to make it produce a pesticide is a rather crude solution. It's a band aid, really. Any pest insect species subjected to a strong enough selection pressure will develop resistance eventually. Equally crude is giving plants herbicide resistance. These are quick fixes. These are first generation transgenic plants, much like the first generation of automobiles, or the first generation of airplanes, or the first generation of computers. They WORK, and at the time they look cool. But remember watching those movies from the 1950s and seeing those clunky gigantic mainframe supercomputers, and thinking that all of that computing technology could now be held in the palm of your hand? Yeah.
Monsanto is playing the first generation game. They have the big boxy supercomputers. But the Rice Initiative is making smartphones.
The irony, of course, being that unless we overcome the problems with food distribution and politicking that are the root of most famine, being able to produce more nutritious and more efficient crops is itself nothing more than a token gesture. Africa has enough arable land to feed the entire world using ordinary crops and ordinary sustainable farming methods, yet is home to some of the most food-poor regions in the world. For some reason people are married to the idea that we have a shortage of farmland, or will face one soon, but not only is farmland being abandoned on a mass scale, but the prices at which big agriculture is able to produce more cheap food (due in part to government subsidies) are driving small farmers out of business all over the world.
I appreciate the idealism behind the research, and I appreciate research for its own sake, but I seriously doubt that more food cheaper is going to result in an improved situation, unless major institutional changes accompany it.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 11:50:45 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:32:09 PM
You know, Nigel, I'm thinking back to that BookFace thread where I got butthurt and you were probably right. Sticking a single gene into a plant to make it produce a pesticide is a rather crude solution. It's a band aid, really. Any pest insect species subjected to a strong enough selection pressure will develop resistance eventually. Equally crude is giving plants herbicide resistance. These are quick fixes. These are first generation transgenic plants, much like the first generation of automobiles, or the first generation of airplanes, or the first generation of computers. They WORK, and at the time they look cool. But remember watching those movies from the 1950s and seeing those clunky gigantic mainframe supercomputers, and thinking that all of that computing technology could now be held in the palm of your hand? Yeah.
Monsanto is playing the first generation game. They have the big boxy supercomputers. But the Rice Initiative is making smartphones.
The irony, of course, being that unless we overcome the problems with food distribution and politicking that are the root of most famine, being able to produce more nutritious and more efficient crops is itself nothing more than a token gesture. Africa has enough arable land to feed the entire world using ordinary crops and ordinary sustainable farming methods, yet is home to some of the most food-poor regions in the world. For some reason people are married to the idea that we have a shortage of farmland, or will face one soon, but not only is farmland being abandoned on a mass scale, but the prices at which big agriculture is able to produce more cheap food (due in part to government subsidies) are driving small farmers out of business all over the world.
I appreciate the idealism behind the research, and I appreciate research for its own sake, but I seriously doubt that more food cheaper is going to result in an improved situation, unless major institutional changes accompany it.
Cain has the right of this one. The problem is primarily political.
I'M NOT CAIN!
Although I do wish Cain was here. :cry:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 11:50:45 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:32:09 PM
You know, Nigel, I'm thinking back to that BookFace thread where I got butthurt and you were probably right. Sticking a single gene into a plant to make it produce a pesticide is a rather crude solution. It's a band aid, really. Any pest insect species subjected to a strong enough selection pressure will develop resistance eventually. Equally crude is giving plants herbicide resistance. These are quick fixes. These are first generation transgenic plants, much like the first generation of automobiles, or the first generation of airplanes, or the first generation of computers. They WORK, and at the time they look cool. But remember watching those movies from the 1950s and seeing those clunky gigantic mainframe supercomputers, and thinking that all of that computing technology could now be held in the palm of your hand? Yeah.
Monsanto is playing the first generation game. They have the big boxy supercomputers. But the Rice Initiative is making smartphones.
The irony, of course, being that unless we overcome the problems with food distribution and politicking that are the root of most famine, being able to produce more nutritious and more efficient crops is itself nothing more than a token gesture. Africa has enough arable land to feed the entire world using ordinary crops and ordinary sustainable farming methods, yet is home to some of the most food-poor regions in the world. For some reason people are married to the idea that we have a shortage of farmland, or will face one soon, but not only is farmland being abandoned on a mass scale, but the prices at which big agriculture is able to produce more cheap food (due in part to government subsidies) are driving small farmers out of business all over the world.
I appreciate the idealism behind the research, and I appreciate research for its own sake, but I seriously doubt that more food cheaper is going to result in an improved situation, unless major institutional changes accompany it.
I can't do anything about the institutional changes. All I can do is promote Science. And it's not just about cheapness. Water shortage is a huge problem, as is fertilizer use. Given that it's the staple crop for the majority of humans, and that 20% of all energy consumed is rice, and that rice farming is heavily water and fertilizer intensive, increasing the efficiency of yield is very much something to work towards.
I've always had the reservations around GM foods based on the unintended side effects of introducing a gene that will interact with other parts of the product in ways that are unforeseen or act in subtle ways. Or that react with one or more of the surrounding habitats, in any way that biases certain parts of the eco system.
I'm aware of the nice 15-25 year trials in closed systems that are then introduced into the wild only after the risk has been mostly mitigated.
I would not place the need for urgency above caution. Antibiotics are becoming ineffectual due to their widespread use, and it has saved a hell of a lot of people, but if we are looking at 200 years+ of millions people dying of relatively basic infections while we look for an alternative, then maybe they shouldn't have always been administered.
When we have a better understanding of the interactions of what GM's on a macro scale, and the role new introductions will play then I would err on the side of caution.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 11:55:23 PM
I'M NOT CAIN!
Although I do wish Cain was here. :cry:
Sorry, I meant to refer to Cain's earlier comments, in agreement with yours.
On the other hand, we have only your word that you are not Cain. :eek:
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:02:57 AM
I would not place the need for urgency above caution. Antibiotics are becoming ineffectual due to their widespread use, and it has saved a hell of a lot of people, but if we are looking at 200 years+ of millions people dying of relatively basic infections while we look for an alternative, then maybe they should have always been administered.
On the other hand, if civilization takes a poop based on food, then we won't be doing any further research at all.
I am - again, reluctantly - in favor of using golden rice in famine areas.
I don't like it, but I don't see much choice.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:03:48 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 30, 2013, 11:55:23 PM
I'M NOT CAIN!
Although I do wish Cain was here. :cry:
Sorry, I meant to refer to Cain's earlier comments, in agreement with yours.
On the other hand, we have only your word that you are not Cain. :eek:
:lulz: I'm not as smart, or as
British Australian.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:48:58 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:46:03 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:37:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 30, 2013, 11:33:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 30, 2013, 11:26:06 PM
And since the patent holders are going to give it out freely, it's like the Polio vaccine all over again.
False equivalence.
You're going to have to elaborate.
Polio vaccination does not spread from the person vaccinated. Plants introduced into an environment can.
While I am reluctantly on board with golden rice, that is because the situation calling for it is DIRE, and the regular plant life in the target regions (ie, equatorial Africa, etc) is already more or less gone.
But just deciding that there can't be unintended consequences in the biological sciences because you WANT a particular result is no fucking different than the Luddites denying any science that disagrees with their values and/or religious beliefs. IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
Did I fucking say that? NO, I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY THAT. In fact, I admitted that Bt crops and Roundup Ready crops were a shitty solution.
But you are comparing plant and insect life with things that do not reproduce. Like computers and vaccines.
This situation's risks have more in common with jackrabbits in Australia. Once you let 'em into the wild, the situation is more or less out of your control. You can live with the results, or you can go find a spider to swallow to catch the fly.
1. The more complicated the changes you make, the less likely the plants can hybridize.
2. The metaphor was for technology. The creation of transgenic plants is technology. Right now it's in first generation. The solutions are makeshift and shitty.
Let's put it this way. Pests: The heart of the problem is that pests are eating the plants. You can kill the pests with broad spectrum insecticides, which is a hugely harmful process. Or you can insert a gene which kills a much more limited number, which is still not the best solution. The best solution is to make it so the insects don't even recognize the plants as tasty, so they get left alone.
Weeds: These are always a problem, as they steal both nutrients and space from the crops. You can weed, or spray herbicides, or spray herbicides while using a crop plant that is resistant to them, but in the latter two cases you're still spraying shit on the landscape. But plants have found ways to deal with this. Walnut, and many other plants, have created allelopathic compounds which deter plant growth in their vicinity. Same with Eucalyptus. Give your crops a system like this, no more herbicide spraying.
Water/Fertilizer use: Already gone over this. C4 system on rice is in progress.
The point is, the future is weird. These solutions we are agonizing over are new, short term, and likely to be a failure within the next ten years. Why? Because resistance is easy. But more complicated systems make that more difficult.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
That has nothing to do with GMOs though. Pretty much every crop plant is a sterile hybrid now.
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:08:40 AM
Let's put it this way. Pests: The heart of the problem is that pests are eating the plants. You can kill the pests with broad spectrum insecticides, which is a hugely harmful process. Or you can insert a gene which kills a much more limited number, which is still not the best solution. The best solution is to make it so the insects don't even recognize the plants as tasty, so they get left alone.
We already know pesticides are a losing strategy. We should be, as you say, taking an entirely different approach, like sacrificial plants that attract insects away from the plants we want. Making that plant LESS resistant to pests and MORE attractive. That way you don't lose the crop and you don't lose the bugs.
Or something. When you approach A doesn't work, you don't do it MORE, you walk around to the other side of the problem and attempt approach B.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:02:57 AM
I would not place the need for urgency above caution. Antibiotics are becoming ineffectual due to their widespread use, and it has saved a hell of a lot of people, but if we are looking at 200 years+ of millions people dying of relatively basic infections while we look for an alternative, then maybe they should have always been administered.
On the other hand, if civilization takes a poop based on food, then we won't be doing any further research at all.
I am - again, reluctantly - in favor of using golden rice in famine areas.
I don't like it, but I don't see much choice.
Maybe, or maybe sustaining 7 billion people isn't feasible. It might be, and if so good. But say we hit a famine that was to wipe out a large fraction of the human race, and our choice is to introduce unknowns into the food chain, or to allow the famine to occur.
The latter would be a catastrophe, the former could have the unintended side effect of wiping out the human race by building in some other weakness.
I suppose it's all about balancing the risks. I don't know enough about golden rice to comment.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:02:57 AM
I would not place the need for urgency above caution. Antibiotics are becoming ineffectual due to their widespread use, and it has saved a hell of a lot of people, but if we are looking at 200 years+ of millions people dying of relatively basic infections while we look for an alternative, then maybe they should have always been administered.
On the other hand, if civilization takes a poop based on food, then we won't be doing any further research at all.
I am - again, reluctantly - in favor of using golden rice in famine areas.
I don't like it, but I don't see much choice.
I'm not even reluctant about the golden rice. It merely takes a nutrient that is available in other food plants, including certain grains, and puts it in a food plant that is already a staple, somewhat mitigating the effects in children of malnourishment from famine conditions. I'm all for it, and honestly in that case while there MAY be unintended consequences, I don't suspect there will be any that are as potentially damaging as the potential downsides of putting a normally soil-bound insect toxin in the aerial parts of a plant.
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Maybe, or maybe sustaining 7 billion people isn't feasible.
It isn't, nor is it desirable. But to allow a die off isn't the solution, even if you can live with it. Because the starving people will not starve quietly, and they'll drag everyone down with them in an attempt to survive. The chaos would do far more damage than the famine. It always does.
Plus, who wants to be responsible for making the Nazis look like pikers? Population CONTROL is one thing, population REDUCTION is a horror.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:08:40 AM
Let's put it this way. Pests: The heart of the problem is that pests are eating the plants. You can kill the pests with broad spectrum insecticides, which is a hugely harmful process. Or you can insert a gene which kills a much more limited number, which is still not the best solution. The best solution is to make it so the insects don't even recognize the plants as tasty, so they get left alone.
We already know pesticides are a losing strategy. We should be, as you say, taking an entirely different approach, like sacrificial plants that attract insects away from the plants we want. Making that plant LESS resistant to pests and MORE attractive. That way you don't lose the crop and you don't lose the bugs.
Or something. When you approach A doesn't work, you don't do it MORE, you walk around to the other side of the problem and attempt approach B.
Or that just creates a source-sink dynamic. You still have to lower the attractiveness of the main crop in correspondence to raising attractiveness of the decoy. The other thing is, crop pests are often generalists, so they have other choices in the landscape. These other choices often act as a sink when the crop isn't available. Brown marmorated stink bugs don't go away if they have no soybeans to feed upon. They just find less attractive food sources.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:08:40 AM
Let's put it this way. Pests: The heart of the problem is that pests are eating the plants. You can kill the pests with broad spectrum insecticides, which is a hugely harmful process. Or you can insert a gene which kills a much more limited number, which is still not the best solution. The best solution is to make it so the insects don't even recognize the plants as tasty, so they get left alone.
We already know pesticides are a losing strategy. We should be, as you say, taking an entirely different approach, like sacrificial plants that attract insects away from the plants we want. Making that plant LESS resistant to pests and MORE attractive. That way you don't lose the crop and you don't lose the bugs.
Or something. When you approach A doesn't work, you don't do it MORE, you walk around to the other side of the problem and attempt approach B.
This is starting to sound suspiciously like polyculture, a farming method that works on small-scale farms and is primitive, in the sense of being very old, but proven.
It is typically dismissed as being "inefficient", but what that actually means is that it isn't adaptable to subsidy-driven factory-farming.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:15:03 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Maybe, or maybe sustaining 7 billion people isn't feasible.
It isn't, nor is it desirable. But to allow a die off isn't the solution, even if you can live with it. Because the starving people will not starve quietly, and they'll drag everyone down with them in an attempt to survive. The chaos would do far more damage than the famine. It always does.
Plus, who wants to be responsible for making the Nazis look like pikers? Population CONTROL is one thing, population REDUCTION is a horror.
No, I wasn't suggesting it either. But when it does happen, those are the choices that are going to be presented. The higher risk with more unknowns will be the path taken and it will end up being a fingers crossed solution.
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:18:46 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:15:03 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Maybe, or maybe sustaining 7 billion people isn't feasible.
It isn't, nor is it desirable. But to allow a die off isn't the solution, even if you can live with it. Because the starving people will not starve quietly, and they'll drag everyone down with them in an attempt to survive. The chaos would do far more damage than the famine. It always does.
Plus, who wants to be responsible for making the Nazis look like pikers? Population CONTROL is one thing, population REDUCTION is a horror.
No, I wasn't suggesting it either. But when it does happen, those are the choices that are going to be presented. The higher risk with more unknowns will be the path taken and it will end up being a fingers crossed solution.
I can tell you what will actually be done when things get that bad, but you probably don't want to hear it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:19:44 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:18:46 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:15:03 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Maybe, or maybe sustaining 7 billion people isn't feasible.
It isn't, nor is it desirable. But to allow a die off isn't the solution, even if you can live with it. Because the starving people will not starve quietly, and they'll drag everyone down with them in an attempt to survive. The chaos would do far more damage than the famine. It always does.
Plus, who wants to be responsible for making the Nazis look like pikers? Population CONTROL is one thing, population REDUCTION is a horror.
No, I wasn't suggesting it either. But when it does happen, those are the choices that are going to be presented. The higher risk with more unknowns will be the path taken and it will end up being a fingers crossed solution.
I can tell you what will actually be done when things get that bad, but you probably don't want to hear it.
I'm going to look at Syria and say I suspect it's several years of inaction and talking about a solution, until the suffering becomes so unbearable that there is little left to do and a token gesture is thrown to make it look like something was done but it will be too little and too late?
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:17:56 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:08:40 AM
Let's put it this way. Pests: The heart of the problem is that pests are eating the plants. You can kill the pests with broad spectrum insecticides, which is a hugely harmful process. Or you can insert a gene which kills a much more limited number, which is still not the best solution. The best solution is to make it so the insects don't even recognize the plants as tasty, so they get left alone.
We already know pesticides are a losing strategy. We should be, as you say, taking an entirely different approach, like sacrificial plants that attract insects away from the plants we want. Making that plant LESS resistant to pests and MORE attractive. That way you don't lose the crop and you don't lose the bugs.
Or something. When you approach A doesn't work, you don't do it MORE, you walk around to the other side of the problem and attempt approach B.
This is starting to sound suspiciously like polyculture, a farming method that works on small-scale farms and is primitive, in the sense of being very old, but proven.
It is typically dismissed as being "inefficient", but what that actually means is that it isn't adaptable to subsidy-driven factory-farming.
What makes poly culture so inefficient, is it that conventional automated farming means can't be applied?
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
That has nothing to do with GMOs though. Pretty much every crop plant is a sterile hybrid now.
Do you have a citation for this? Because my understanding is that while some are sterile hybrids, most are fertile hybrids that will revert.
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:17:56 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:08:40 AM
Let's put it this way. Pests: The heart of the problem is that pests are eating the plants. You can kill the pests with broad spectrum insecticides, which is a hugely harmful process. Or you can insert a gene which kills a much more limited number, which is still not the best solution. The best solution is to make it so the insects don't even recognize the plants as tasty, so they get left alone.
We already know pesticides are a losing strategy. We should be, as you say, taking an entirely different approach, like sacrificial plants that attract insects away from the plants we want. Making that plant LESS resistant to pests and MORE attractive. That way you don't lose the crop and you don't lose the bugs.
Or something. When you approach A doesn't work, you don't do it MORE, you walk around to the other side of the problem and attempt approach B.
This is starting to sound suspiciously like polyculture, a farming method that works on small-scale farms and is primitive, in the sense of being very old, but proven.
It is typically dismissed as being "inefficient", but what that actually means is that it isn't adaptable to subsidy-driven factory-farming.
What makes poly culture so inefficient, is it that conventional automated farming means can't be applied?
Yes, the crops pretty much have to be tended by actual farmers, and aren't eligible for subsidies. Lots of the small farms in my area practice a modified polyculture where they grow ten or twenty types of crop and rotate their fields, which allows some machinery to be used but it isn't efficient on the same level as having vast fields of, say, beets, with giant machines to weed between rows and harvest them.
They tend to have a higher overall food yield per acre per year, but crop yield isn't counted that way, it's based on individual crops not combined yield.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:30:06 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
That has nothing to do with GMOs though. Pretty much every crop plant is a sterile hybrid now.
Do you have a citation for this? Because my understanding is that while some are sterile hybrids, most are fertile hybrids that will revert.
You know what? I pulled that out of my ass from recollection. I can't find anything supporting that statement, which means it's probably bullshit.
It does call into question Roger's fear about single generation seeds, though.
Of course, another thing about small farms and polyculture is that they are also highly beneficial for local economies, and resistant to large-scale disaster-induced famine in a way that our current centralized food production model isn't.
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:22:13 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:19:44 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:18:46 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:15:03 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Maybe, or maybe sustaining 7 billion people isn't feasible.
It isn't, nor is it desirable. But to allow a die off isn't the solution, even if you can live with it. Because the starving people will not starve quietly, and they'll drag everyone down with them in an attempt to survive. The chaos would do far more damage than the famine. It always does.
Plus, who wants to be responsible for making the Nazis look like pikers? Population CONTROL is one thing, population REDUCTION is a horror.
No, I wasn't suggesting it either. But when it does happen, those are the choices that are going to be presented. The higher risk with more unknowns will be the path taken and it will end up being a fingers crossed solution.
I can tell you what will actually be done when things get that bad, but you probably don't want to hear it.
I'm going to look at Syria and say I suspect it's several years of inaction and talking about a solution, until the suffering becomes so unbearable that there is little left to do and a token gesture is thrown to make it look like something was done but it will be too little and too late?
I was thinking more along the lines of closed borders and non-persistent nerve agents.
Masque of the Red Death material.
I think polyculture is a great idea, and wish it became the standard. I don't think it should stop the research on GMOs though.
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:35:09 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:30:06 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
That has nothing to do with GMOs though. Pretty much every crop plant is a sterile hybrid now.
Do you have a citation for this? Because my understanding is that while some are sterile hybrids, most are fertile hybrids that will revert.
You know what? I pulled that out of my ass from recollection. I can't find anything supporting that statement, which means it's probably bullshit.
It does call into question Roger's fear about single generation seeds, though.
I've been looking for the last 15 minutes. :lol:
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:35:09 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:30:06 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
That has nothing to do with GMOs though. Pretty much every crop plant is a sterile hybrid now.
Do you have a citation for this? Because my understanding is that while some are sterile hybrids, most are fertile hybrids that will revert.
You know what? I pulled that out of my ass from recollection. I can't find anything supporting that statement, which means it's probably bullshit.
It does call into question Roger's fear about single generation seeds, though.
That particular technology has been shelved, at least for now, due to public pressure. Or at least so Monsanto says.
Those and their wonder-potato that McDonald's refused to buy. :lol:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:37:11 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:35:09 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:30:06 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
That has nothing to do with GMOs though. Pretty much every crop plant is a sterile hybrid now.
Do you have a citation for this? Because my understanding is that while some are sterile hybrids, most are fertile hybrids that will revert.
You know what? I pulled that out of my ass from recollection. I can't find anything supporting that statement, which means it's probably bullshit.
It does call into question Roger's fear about single generation seeds, though.
That particular technology has been shelved, at least for now, due to public pressure. Or at least so Monsanto says.
I've been involved with certain dealings my company had with Monsanto that we backed out of because of ethics concerns (read, PR concerns).
You heard it right. An energy company didn't want to dirty itself with those bastards. :lol:
Monsanto is truly vile, but they are not themselves the entire GMO argument.
Well, you can try to sell it, but if people won't eat it, the idea is kind of moot.
Another entirely separate issue to food security that I would love to talk about is the rapid loss of cultivars in pretty much every kind of crop.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:39:14 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:37:11 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:35:09 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:30:06 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:06:13 AM
I'm not saying it's not potentially useful, just that it will be of dubious benefit on its own.
My problem with a lot of GMO food is that it puts more of the control over food into the hands of the people who are largely to blame for much of the situation.
My other problem is with single-generation seeds. There's a horror story in there. We've had 3 dark ages, and we have never lost the knowledge gained from the agricultural revolution. Making seeds that don't make more seeds makes that hideous possibility more likely in the next dark ages. And there will be a next dark ages, sooner or later.
That has nothing to do with GMOs though. Pretty much every crop plant is a sterile hybrid now.
Do you have a citation for this? Because my understanding is that while some are sterile hybrids, most are fertile hybrids that will revert.
You know what? I pulled that out of my ass from recollection. I can't find anything supporting that statement, which means it's probably bullshit.
It does call into question Roger's fear about single generation seeds, though.
That particular technology has been shelved, at least for now, due to public pressure. Or at least so Monsanto says.
I've been involved with certain dealings my company had with Monsanto that we backed out of because of ethics concerns (read, PR concerns).
You heard it right. An energy company didn't want to dirty itself with those bastards. :lol:
Monsanto is truly vile, but they are not themselves the entire GMO argument.
They aren't, but they hold the patent on Terminator™ seeds, so for the time being that particular technology is not one we have to worry about.
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:41:37 AM
Well, you can try to sell it, but if people won't eat it, the idea is kind of moot.
Another entirely separate issue to food security that I would love to talk about is the rapid loss of cultivars in pretty much every kind of crop.
That is incredibly distressing, and oddly we just don't seem to learn from the various blights and famines that it's a bad idea to lose diversity.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:34:17 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:17:56 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:08:40 AM
Let's put it this way. Pests: The heart of the problem is that pests are eating the plants. You can kill the pests with broad spectrum insecticides, which is a hugely harmful process. Or you can insert a gene which kills a much more limited number, which is still not the best solution. The best solution is to make it so the insects don't even recognize the plants as tasty, so they get left alone.
We already know pesticides are a losing strategy. We should be, as you say, taking an entirely different approach, like sacrificial plants that attract insects away from the plants we want. Making that plant LESS resistant to pests and MORE attractive. That way you don't lose the crop and you don't lose the bugs.
Or something. When you approach A doesn't work, you don't do it MORE, you walk around to the other side of the problem and attempt approach B.
This is starting to sound suspiciously like polyculture, a farming method that works on small-scale farms and is primitive, in the sense of being very old, but proven.
It is typically dismissed as being "inefficient", but what that actually means is that it isn't adaptable to subsidy-driven factory-farming.
What makes poly culture so inefficient, is it that conventional automated farming means can't be applied?
Yes, the crops pretty much have to be tended by actual farmers, and aren't eligible for subsidies. Lots of the small farms in my area practice a modified polyculture where they grow ten or twenty types of crop and rotate their fields, which allows some machinery to be used but it isn't efficient on the same level as having vast fields of, say, beets, with giant machines to weed between rows and harvest them.
They tend to have a higher overall food yield per acre per year, but crop yield isn't counted that way, it's based on individual crops not combined yield.
Automation techniques are still advancing in leaps and bounds, I don't know anything about farming but is the drive not there to find a hardware solution?
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:43:40 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:41:37 AM
Well, you can try to sell it, but if people won't eat it, the idea is kind of moot.
Another entirely separate issue to food security that I would love to talk about is the rapid loss of cultivars in pretty much every kind of crop.
That is incredibly distressing, and oddly we just don't seem to learn from the various blights and famines that it's a bad idea to lose diversity.
That actually is a good argument against GMOs and hybrids in general, that it homogenizes the genetic diversity within a species by crossing everything together. There's also the problem of cultivar sale, that the number of kinds of cultivars out there has decreased dramatically. Even apples and tomatoes, which retain a relatively higher average number of cultivars for sale, are tiny in comparison to 100 years ago.
Thought: maybe what we need is some old fashioned free market. Monsanto has a virtual monopoly right now. But what happens when these first gen lines go out of style and other companies step in to compete? On one hand we'll have even more GMOs on the market. On the other hand, Monsanto won't be able to hold court anymore.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:36:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:22:13 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:19:44 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:18:46 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:15:03 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Maybe, or maybe sustaining 7 billion people isn't feasible.
It isn't, nor is it desirable. But to allow a die off isn't the solution, even if you can live with it. Because the starving people will not starve quietly, and they'll drag everyone down with them in an attempt to survive. The chaos would do far more damage than the famine. It always does.
Plus, who wants to be responsible for making the Nazis look like pikers? Population CONTROL is one thing, population REDUCTION is a horror.
No, I wasn't suggesting it either. But when it does happen, those are the choices that are going to be presented. The higher risk with more unknowns will be the path taken and it will end up being a fingers crossed solution.
I can tell you what will actually be done when things get that bad, but you probably don't want to hear it.
I'm going to look at Syria and say I suspect it's several years of inaction and talking about a solution, until the suffering becomes so unbearable that there is little left to do and a token gesture is thrown to make it look like something was done but it will be too little and too late?
I was thinking more along the lines of closed borders and non-persistent nerve agents.
Masque of the Red Death material.
Christ. If it gets that bad there's not an awful lot I'd want to stick around for.
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:50:43 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:36:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:22:13 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:19:44 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:18:46 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 31, 2013, 12:15:03 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 31, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Maybe, or maybe sustaining 7 billion people isn't feasible.
It isn't, nor is it desirable. But to allow a die off isn't the solution, even if you can live with it. Because the starving people will not starve quietly, and they'll drag everyone down with them in an attempt to survive. The chaos would do far more damage than the famine. It always does.
Plus, who wants to be responsible for making the Nazis look like pikers? Population CONTROL is one thing, population REDUCTION is a horror.
No, I wasn't suggesting it either. But when it does happen, those are the choices that are going to be presented. The higher risk with more unknowns will be the path taken and it will end up being a fingers crossed solution.
I can tell you what will actually be done when things get that bad, but you probably don't want to hear it.
I'm going to look at Syria and say I suspect it's several years of inaction and talking about a solution, until the suffering becomes so unbearable that there is little left to do and a token gesture is thrown to make it look like something was done but it will be too little and too late?
I was thinking more along the lines of closed borders and non-persistent nerve agents.
Masque of the Red Death material.
Christ. If it gets that bad there's not an awful lot I'd want to stick around for.
I don't know much, but I know the way my government thinks. It is a great stupid beast that thinks in terms of "ordnance delivery" rather than "dropping bombs on people", and has HORRIBLE contingency plans for all manner of shit, and fresh-faced pyschopaths from Harvard & Yale that think those things would be just
neat.
Robert McNarama was not an aberration. He was an archetype.
The history of cultivars is one of those "dull until you spend three days researching it on wikipedia and suddenly best thing ever" things. I was always confused why the wax fruit in my grandparents' basement had these weird looking bananas until I found out that cultivar ("Big Mikes") got wiped out in the 50s and has been replaced with the ones you see now (Cavendishes). Also, oranges. The whole thing.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 31, 2013, 12:56:00 AM
The history of cultivars is one of those "dull until you spend three days researching it on wikipedia and suddenly best thing ever" things. I was always confused why the wax fruit in my grandparents' basement had these weird looking bananas until I found out that cultivar ("Big Mikes") got wiped out in the 50s and has been replaced with the ones you see now (Cavendishes). Also, oranges. The whole thing.
I, personally, am fascinated by potatoes. There are hundreds of cultivars in South America, all suited for different conditions. What do we get up here? Pretty much just Russett Burbank. THANKS MCDONALD'S!
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:49:39 AM
Thought: maybe what we need is some old fashioned free market. Monsanto has a virtual monopoly right now. But what happens when these first gen lines go out of style and other companies step in to compete? On one hand we'll have even more GMOs on the market. On the other hand, Monsanto won't be able to hold court anymore.
What's stopping others from entering the market?
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 02:12:08 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 31, 2013, 12:56:00 AM
The history of cultivars is one of those "dull until you spend three days researching it on wikipedia and suddenly best thing ever" things. I was always confused why the wax fruit in my grandparents' basement had these weird looking bananas until I found out that cultivar ("Big Mikes") got wiped out in the 50s and has been replaced with the ones you see now (Cavendishes). Also, oranges. The whole thing.
I, personally, am fascinated by potatoes. There are hundreds of cultivars in South America, all suited for different conditions. What do we get up here? Pretty much just Russett Burbank. THANKS MCDONALD'S!
Over four THOUSAND registered edible cultivars at the International Potato Center in Lima!
(http://www.yeity.com/feature-images/peru%20potato%20crazy.jpg)
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 02:52:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 02:12:08 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 31, 2013, 12:56:00 AM
The history of cultivars is one of those "dull until you spend three days researching it on wikipedia and suddenly best thing ever" things. I was always confused why the wax fruit in my grandparents' basement had these weird looking bananas until I found out that cultivar ("Big Mikes") got wiped out in the 50s and has been replaced with the ones you see now (Cavendishes). Also, oranges. The whole thing.
I, personally, am fascinated by potatoes. There are hundreds of cultivars in South America, all suited for different conditions. What do we get up here? Pretty much just Russett Burbank. THANKS MCDONALD'S!
Over four THOUSAND registered edible cultivars at the International Potato Center in Lima!
(http://www.yeity.com/feature-images/peru%20potato%20crazy.jpg)
So beautiful. :fap:
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 02:49:12 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:49:39 AM
Thought: maybe what we need is some old fashioned free market. Monsanto has a virtual monopoly right now. But what happens when these first gen lines go out of style and other companies step in to compete? On one hand we'll have even more GMOs on the market. On the other hand, Monsanto won't be able to hold court anymore.
What's stopping others from entering the market?
That's a good question and I don't know the answer.
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 03:39:36 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 02:52:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 02:12:08 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 31, 2013, 12:56:00 AM
The history of cultivars is one of those "dull until you spend three days researching it on wikipedia and suddenly best thing ever" things. I was always confused why the wax fruit in my grandparents' basement had these weird looking bananas until I found out that cultivar ("Big Mikes") got wiped out in the 50s and has been replaced with the ones you see now (Cavendishes). Also, oranges. The whole thing.
I, personally, am fascinated by potatoes. There are hundreds of cultivars in South America, all suited for different conditions. What do we get up here? Pretty much just Russett Burbank. THANKS MCDONALD'S!
Over four THOUSAND registered edible cultivars at the International Potato Center in Lima!
(http://www.yeity.com/feature-images/peru%20potato%20crazy.jpg)
So beautiful. :fap:
HNNNG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPT-C2ukAaU
heritage cultivars is a thing that my ex housemate was obsessed with.
Quote from: Pixie on October 31, 2013, 04:06:24 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPT-C2ukAaU
heritage cultivars is a thing that my ex housemate was obsessed with.
That was AWESOME.
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 03:39:36 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 02:52:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 02:12:08 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 31, 2013, 12:56:00 AM
The history of cultivars is one of those "dull until you spend three days researching it on wikipedia and suddenly best thing ever" things. I was always confused why the wax fruit in my grandparents' basement had these weird looking bananas until I found out that cultivar ("Big Mikes") got wiped out in the 50s and has been replaced with the ones you see now (Cavendishes). Also, oranges. The whole thing.
I, personally, am fascinated by potatoes. There are hundreds of cultivars in South America, all suited for different conditions. What do we get up here? Pretty much just Russett Burbank. THANKS MCDONALD'S!
Over four THOUSAND registered edible cultivars at the International Potato Center in Lima!
(http://www.yeity.com/feature-images/peru%20potato%20crazy.jpg)
So beautiful. :fap:
Something relevant The Psychology of Distrusting GMOs (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/the-psychology-of-distrusting-gmos.html)