4 ms·

the science shows dramatic changes in temperatures and rainfall in the far North. Planting new tree stands certainly ought not be bound by a "pure native" persp

the science shows dramatic changes in temperatures and rainfall in the far North. Planting new tree stands certainly ought not be bound by a "pure native" perspective, in these times. While you and I split hairs, not a small amount of money is being invested in genetically engineered flora of all kinds, boasting that it is "climate change ready." A much bigger problem than "pure native" to my way of thinking.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
People get all twisted up over the idea of genetically engineered plants breaking out into the wild though. But, once we're staring down the barrel of the climate apocalypse it'd be cool to go nuts with genetically engineered plants like: Here's a giant redwood that grows 10x faster, filters particulates out of the air with its needles and is designed to extract carbon from the air as fast as possible.
- tomrod 4y ago
  I prefer this to eating yeast from vats grown in Carlsbad Caverns and other deep caves.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Might need both. Also lots of insect-based nutrient paste, made with your daily water ration (helps mask the unpleasant mineral and chlorine taste of the water so you don't dehydrate in the 40 C heat).
- mistrial9 4y ago
  designer grass in different colors; fish genes in oranges; new mammals as pets designed to sell.. people know very well that is what is going on.. pure BS to make a buck, like "fast growing things that live 600 years" .. like fake medicine, but worse because it breeds. zero confidence in MBAs and shysters making this a GMO business to "save the planet" ok - better, plants whose seeds die instead of refreshing; plants that are allegedly immune to only MY brand of poison and won't hurt anything; trees with patents.
otikik 4y ago
The fact that bugs me is that artificial selection is “fine”. If randomness produces a mutation, that’s kosher, but if man makes the change, that’s Dangerous.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Any mutation could be "dangerous." We're just used to a system that produces mutations randomly so we estimate the danger to be in the background. Targeted changes also can produce unknown side effects, which to my understand are what non-GMO folks fear. Toxicity, missing nutrients, etc. could certainly be issues with adjustments, but I don't think the right approach is to fear so much as to attack things two fold: test the biological systems outputs, and learn the biological systems outputs sufficiently to simulate impacts.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  If man was making said changes at the rate random useful mutations tend to occur in nature I don't think anyone would be concerned. And we typically do more than just tweak a genetic component in a single individual and see how it fares against existing populations - if the change suits our short term goals, we'll do everything we can to ensure that becomes the dominant variant, often destroying the genetic diversity that provides long term durability in the process.
- imtringued 4y ago
  If man makes the change he installs DRM into the GMO.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Because man like to make mistakes at scale.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

People get all twisted up over the idea of genetically engineered plants breaking out into the wild though. But, once we're staring down the barrel of the climate apocalypse it'd be cool to go nuts with genetically engineered plants like: Here's a giant redwood that grows 10x faster, filters particulates out of the air with its needles and is designed to extract carbon from the air as fast as possible.

tomrod 4y ago
I prefer this to eating yeast from vats grown in Carlsbad Caverns and other deep caves.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Might need both. Also lots of insect-based nutrient paste, made with your daily water ration (helps mask the unpleasant mineral and chlorine taste of the water so you don't dehydrate in the 40 C heat).
mistrial9 4y ago
designer grass in different colors; fish genes in oranges; new mammals as pets designed to sell.. people know very well that is what is going on.. pure BS to make a buck, like "fast growing things that live 600 years" .. like fake medicine, but worse because it breeds. zero confidence in MBAs and shysters making this a GMO business to "save the planet" ok - better, plants whose seeds die instead of refreshing; plants that are allegedly immune to only MY brand of poison and won't hurt anything; trees with patents.

otikik 4y ago

The fact that bugs me is that artificial selection is “fine”. If randomness produces a mutation, that’s kosher, but if man makes the change, that’s Dangerous.

tomrod 4y ago
Any mutation could be "dangerous." We're just used to a system that produces mutations randomly so we estimate the danger to be in the background. Targeted changes also can produce unknown side effects, which to my understand are what non-GMO folks fear. Toxicity, missing nutrients, etc. could certainly be issues with adjustments, but I don't think the right approach is to fear so much as to attack things two fold: test the biological systems outputs, and learn the biological systems outputs sufficiently to simulate impacts.
wizofaus 4y ago
If man was making said changes at the rate random useful mutations tend to occur in nature I don't think anyone would be concerned. And we typically do more than just tweak a genetic component in a single individual and see how it fares against existing populations - if the change suits our short term goals, we'll do everything we can to ensure that becomes the dominant variant, often destroying the genetic diversity that provides long term durability in the process.
imtringued 4y ago
If man makes the change he installs DRM into the GMO.
pixl97 4y ago
Because man like to make mistakes at scale.