38 ms·

This is the kind of anti science drivel I never expect to see on HN, but here goes. You paint this as being a 'gmo posterchild' when clearly, it is humans, scr

This is the kind of anti science drivel I never expect to see on HN, but here goes. You paint this as being a 'gmo posterchild' when clearly, it is humans, scrambling with Every technology at our disposal, to save a species. Your whole rambling post harbors the implicit notion that 'GMO BAD, "Natural" GOOD' with no statement to support that backward notion. The GM strains are superior in apples for a plethora of reasons, or they would use your obscure, bitter, non-browning, and less disease resistant apples requiring even more pesticides. But they do not. I concede that quite likely we can use thousand year old tech to accomplish these goals. However the timeframe may be much longer (omitting red tape) for a result, and time is of the essence. If you can substantiate the unsaid evils of GM vs breeding by selected random mutations, please, be my guest.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
You could do without the tone in this comment, and could stick to the facts instead of trying to smear me. I am not even anti-GM. Nowhere in my comment did I say GM was evil. Go back and actually read. I'm trying to point out a fact: mass selection has advantages, GMO in the "gene splicing" way is here is not necessary, and is a _political_ liability. You want to reforest the wild with GMO organisms? It won't be me trying to stop you, but others definitely will. So it's a dumb way to do it. BTW, what I am talking about is not "thousand year old tech" -- mass selection breeding is under a century old. Luther Burbank died in 1926. And mass selection is now done with marker assistance, a very modern "GM" technology. _Would_ that medieval monks knew anything about breeding and mass selection. They did not. Also you might want to do some research before making claims about non-browning apples that you can't back up with facts. It is you who are violating the community standards of HN with your personal attacks. Do not call someone's comments drivel -- especially if you can't even be bothered to read them.
gyrgtyn 10y ago
Tree genes work way differently than plant (like corn) genes. Trees evolve very rapidly. Genes vary wildly between generations. Planting a ton of Chestnut trees, maybe mixing in come Chinese genes, and re-breeding the ones that seem immune is probably the fastest, cheapest way to get immune trees again. -- Side thought, is the company making GMO Chestnuts going to have IP on the seeds? That seems like it would create some bad incentives recreate this whole scenario with other tree species -Kill all the 'native', free trees of some species, reintroduce your expensive super-tree.
- astrolabe38 10y ago
  > is the company making GMO Chestnuts going to have IP on the seeds? No. The ACF's only problem is insufficient funding -> insufficient production.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago

You could do without the tone in this comment, and could stick to the facts instead of trying to smear me. I am not even anti-GM. Nowhere in my comment did I say GM was evil. Go back and actually read. I'm trying to point out a fact: mass selection has advantages, GMO in the "gene splicing" way is here is not necessary, and is a _political_ liability. You want to reforest the wild with GMO organisms? It won't be me trying to stop you, but others definitely will. So it's a dumb way to do it. BTW, what I am talking about is not "thousand year old tech" -- mass selection breeding is under a century old. Luther Burbank died in 1926. And mass selection is now done with marker assistance, a very modern "GM" technology. _Would_ that medieval monks knew anything about breeding and mass selection. They did not. Also you might want to do some research before making claims about non-browning apples that you can't back up with facts. It is you who are violating the community standards of HN with your personal attacks. Do not call someone's comments drivel -- especially if you can't even be bothered to read them.

gyrgtyn 10y ago

Tree genes work way differently than plant (like corn) genes. Trees evolve very rapidly. Genes vary wildly between generations. Planting a ton of Chestnut trees, maybe mixing in come Chinese genes, and re-breeding the ones that seem immune is probably the fastest, cheapest way to get immune trees again. -- Side thought, is the company making GMO Chestnuts going to have IP on the seeds? That seems like it would create some bad incentives recreate this whole scenario with other tree species -Kill all the 'native', free trees of some species, reintroduce your expensive super-tree.

astrolabe38 10y ago
> is the company making GMO Chestnuts going to have IP on the seeds? No. The ACF's only problem is insufficient funding -> insufficient production.