PDA

View Full Version : Genetically engineered trees - today's protest



StevenBauer
09-28-2015, 10:20 AM
Down in N.C. Any one have any info? I can't find anything on the web yet.


Steven

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 10:32 AM
Trees are being genetically altered to grow faster, yield better wood and even detect biological attacks. Proponents of genetically engineered trees (http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/trees.asp) say biotechnology can help reverse deforestation while satisfying demand for wood and paper products. For example, Australian eucalyptus trees have been altered to withstand freezing temperatures, and loblolly pines have been created with less lignin, the substance that gives trees their rigidity. In 2003, the Pentagon even awarded Colorado State researchers $500,000 to develop pine trees that change color when exposed to biological or chemical attack.
However, critics argue that not enough is known about designer trees’ effect on their natural surroundings — they could spread their genes to natural trees or increase wildfire risk, among other drawbacks. Still, the USDA in June gave approval for ArborGen (http://www.arborgen.us/index.php), a biotechnology company, to begin field trials for 250,000 trees in seven southern states.


Read more: http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/genetically#ixzz3n3kkfOcm

Jim Mahan
09-28-2015, 10:33 AM
GMO trees? Maybe they can figure out how to grow two-by trees, S4S in increments of eight feet.

TerryLL
09-28-2015, 10:48 AM
There are thousands of acres of GMO poplar in NE Oregon.


http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/09/boardman-tree-farm-of-greenwood.html

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 10:59 AM
Is there one species, specifically, you are referring to Steven?

Too Little Time
09-28-2015, 11:01 AM
GMO chestnut trees. I am in favor.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 11:05 AM
Well, I'm against most genetically altered "anything" in the ecosystem except some genetically altered genes in cancer research perhaps. In an ecosystem, it will take years to determine the effects, pros and cons of genetically altered species.

Not a good idea to fool with mother nature! We haven't learned that at all! It appears we screw it up 90% of the time.

David W Pratt
09-28-2015, 11:08 AM
If you look at plants, there is a much higher frequency of ployploidy than in animals, so transfer of genes is a virtual certainty

Keith Wilson
09-28-2015, 11:44 AM
I'm getting very, very tired of reflexive luddite anti-GMO stuff.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 11:52 AM
I'm getting very, very tired of reflexive luddite anti-GMO stuff.

Well, alrighty then!

I hope you're tired of Monsanto, as well.

ron ll
09-28-2015, 11:54 AM
We've been genetically modifying plants and animals for centuries.

Keith Wilson
09-28-2015, 11:57 AM
Genetic modification is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad purposes. Bt cotton is a good thing. Golden rice with beta-carotene is a Very Good Thing. Monsanto's business practices, not so much.

John of Phoenix
09-28-2015, 12:17 PM
We've been genetically modifying plants and animals for centuries."Hybrid" has evolved into a four letter word.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 12:26 PM
I continue to be amazed at the number of people who wouldn't DREAM of setting a non-native species loose in a new environment, yet who are perfectly comfortable with turning loose a completely new, man-made species.

hokiefan
09-28-2015, 12:37 PM
There hasn't been a non-modified pine tree planted in the south in 50 years. The paper industry has been working hard on dropping the maturation age for decades. When I was a young kid it was 25 years. It is well under 15 now. It is not a new thing at all.

Cheers,

Bobby

Keith Wilson
09-28-2015, 12:48 PM
Remember that higher yields, however achieved, reduce the amount of land under the plow for any given level of production.

Non-native species are all over the place already. I have earthworms in my lawn, tomatoes in the garden, starlings everywhere, and pheasants in the woods, also that &^%$ ^$*!! buckthorn. Natural species from elsewhere have millions of years of evolution behind them, and sometimes cause serious problems, sometimes not. GMOs are generally a small change to an existing species. Again, it's a tool, and can be used well or badly.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 12:59 PM
Remember that higher yields, however achieved, reduce the amount of land under the plow for any given level of production.

While strictly true, increases in production simply translate into increases in population, just like increases in roads simply increase traffic.


Non-native species are all over the place already. I have earthworms in my lawn, tomatoes in the garden, starlings everywhere, and pheasants in the woods, also that &^%$ ^$*!! buckthorn. Natural species from elsewhere have millions of years of evolution behind them, and sometimes cause serious problems, sometimes not. GMOs are generally a small change to an existing species. Again, it's a tool, and can be used well or badly.

God, I hate that stuff.

Keith Wilson
09-28-2015, 01:07 PM
While strictly true, increases in production simply translate into increases in population, just like increases in roads simply increase traffic.With all respect, this is balderdash. It may have been true 5000 years ago when most folks lived near the edge of starvation, but certainly not anymore. Population increase in country after country has stopped or even reversed when people get prosperous. The highest rates of population growth are in the poorest countries.

I agree with you about buckthorn. Horrible, horrible, horrible sh!t.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 01:12 PM
With all respect, this is balderdash. It may have been true 5000 years ago when most folks lived near the edge of starvation, but certainly not anymore. Population increase in country after country has stopped or even reversed when people get prosperous. The highest rates of population growth are in the poorest countries.

I agree with you about buckthorn. Horrible, horrible, horrible sh!t.

And the highest rates of production are in the richest countries.

We don't eat everything we produce. We export a lot to those poor countries, and they make babies faster because of it.

This doesn't reflect upon their morality/responsibility/foresight AT ALL, IMO, just a natural response to environmental stimulus.

The Green Revolution has done more to damage Earth than pretty much any other thing that people have done.

slug
09-28-2015, 01:19 PM
And the highest rates of production are in the richest countries.

We don't eat everything we produce. We export a lot to those poor countries, and they make babies faster because of it.

This doesn't reflect upon their morality/responsibility/foresight AT ALL, IMO, just a natural response to environmental stimulus.

The Green Revolution has done more to damage Earth than pretty much any other thing that people have done.

whoa !

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 01:21 PM
whoa !

Will you be hollerin' 'gee' and 'haw' next, or 'giddup'?

Jim Bow
09-28-2015, 01:30 PM
Tree farm near Boardman, OR Hiway 84

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0279/7801/files/boardman6_1024x1024.jpg?2334

Keith Wilson
09-28-2015, 02:10 PM
We don't eat everything we produce. We export a lot to those poor countries, and they make babies faster because of it.
This doesn't reflect upon their morality/responsibility/foresight AT ALL, IMO, just a natural response to environmental stimulus.Eh? And why don't the people in the richer countries have lot of babies, then? We can certainly afford it. Plenty of food, plenty of money, plenty of space, plenty of resources, we should be breeding like bunnies, right? Why aren't we? Why is the fertility rate in Italy 1.4 babies per woman?

Sorry, this doesn't hold water at all, and it's stuck in the same sort of wildly erroneous thinking that produced the apocalyptic predictions of The Population Bomb, every single one of which was dead wrong. People stop having so many kids when they get reasonably prosperous and secure. It's been demonstrated over and over and over again. World fertility rates have been declining dramatically for quite a while now, even without external controls like in China.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Trends_in_TFR_1950-2050.png

https://familyinequality.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/fertility-income-2009.jpg

Paul Pless
09-28-2015, 02:15 PM
I'm getting very, very tired of reflexive luddite anti-GMO stuff.worse than reflexive luddite tea party stuff? what about reflexive luddite gun stuff??

slug
09-28-2015, 02:17 PM
Eh? And why don't the people in the richer countries have lot of babies, then? We can certainly afford it. Plenty of food, plenty of space, plenty of resources, we should be breeding like bunnies, right? Why aren't we? Why is the fertility rate in Italy 1.4 babies per woman?

Sorry, this doesn't hold water at all, and it's stuck in the same sort of wildly erroneous thinking that produced the apocalyptic predictions of The Population Bomb, every single one of which was dead wrong. People stop having so many kids when they get prosperous ans secure. It's been demonstrated over and over and over again.


Think again. South of my location is a region who grew its population faster than its economy and resources.

ONE HUNDRED MILLION youth with no work, no future.

what the hell do you think is happening in Europe right now ?

The UN is telling Europe to prepare for 35 million economic immigrants over the next ten years.

population bomb ?

Keith Wilson
09-28-2015, 02:26 PM
The UN is telling Europe to prepare for 35 million economic immigrants over the next ten years.Which is 7% of the total population. The US gets around 2 million per year, with 60% of the population of the EU.

But yeah, the Middle East is all f***ed up; can't argue with that.


Worse than reflexive Luddite tea party stuff? What about reflexive Luddite gun stuff??No, but it's more irritating since I usually agree with these people on other issues.

peb
09-28-2015, 02:41 PM
I would like to know when they are going to make a good rose bush without thorns. I would buy one in a heartbeat.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 02:43 PM
They have

http://www.rose-gardening-made-easy.com/images/paul-neyron-rose.jpg

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 04:13 PM
...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Trends_in_TFR_1950-2050.png

...

Well, THAT's good news, even if it's 100 years too late.