[nobodypanic]

speaking of GE foods. i wish they would genetically engineer birth-control into the food. what an advance that would be.

[scas]

The fixation on genetic engineering is kind of silly

No it's not. I'm trying to show people that genetic engineering/geoengineering/dense cities/nuclear power may be some of our best tools in slowing/adapting to climate change. Genetic engineering is what i'm interested in studying. Again, no one here sees Craig Venters synthetic life as magnificent. But my lecture prof thought so too, and that like so many other scientific breakthoughts, it will only be recognized in hindsight. Either way, i'm thinking i should find something better to do with my time....it is very tribal here. And I will bet that no one existing in a fringe group has ever had their opinions changed. We all know the famous Mark Twain quote.

BTW I don't support the ruinous practice of fish farming and ocean rape. Nor deforestation, nor ploughing, nor ruining the soil. Nor factory farming. Supreme Master Ching Hai has it right...go vegan to save the planet. Vegetarian at least.

2nd: GE foods that produce medicine are being worked on. Birth control..unlikely.

Engineered organic

Organic farming teacher Raoul began the joint presentation with a checklist for truly sustainable agriculture in a global context. It must:

Provide abundant safe and nutritious food…. Reduce environmentally harmful inputs…. Reduce energy use and greenhouse gases…. Foster soil fertility…. Enhance crop genetic diversity…. Maintain the economic viability of farming communities…. Protect biodiversity…. and improve the lives of the poor and malnourished. (He pointed out that 24,000 a day die of malnutrition worldwide, and about 1 billion are undernourished.)

Organic agriculture has made a good start on these goals, he said, with its focus on eliminating harmful pesticides, soluble synthetic fertilizers, and soil erosion. Every year in the world 300,000 deaths are caused by the pesticides of conventional agriculture, along with 3 million cases of harm. Organic farmers replace the pesticides with crop rotation, resilient varieties of plants, beneficial insects, and other techniques.

But organic has limitations, he said. There are some pests, diseases, and stresses it can’t handle. Its yield ranges from 45% to 97% of conventional ag yield. It is often too expensive for low-income customers. At present it is a niche player in US agriculture, representing only 3.5%, with a slow growth rate suggesting it will always be a niche player.

Genetically engineered crops could carry organic farming much further toward fulfilling all the goals of sustainable agriculture, Raoul said, but it was prohibited as a technique for organic farmers in the standards and regulations set by the federal government in 2000.

At this point plant geneticist Pam took up the argument. What distinguishes genetic engineering (GE) and precision breeding from conventional breeding, she said, is that GE and precision breeding work with just one or a few well-characterized genes, versus the uncertain clumps of genes involved in conventional breeding. And genes from any species can be employed.

That transgenic capability is what makes some people nervous about GE causing unintended harm to human or ecological health. One billion acres have been planted so far with GE crops, with no adverse health effects, and numerous studies have showed that GE crops pose no greater risk of environmental damage than conventional crops.

Genetic engineering is extremely helpful in solving some agricultural problems, though only some. Pam gave three examples, starting with cotton. About 25% of all pesticide use in the world is used to defeat the cotton bollworm. Bt cotton is engineered to express in the plant the same caterpillar-killing toxin as the common soil bacteria used by organic farmers, Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt cotton growers use half the pesticides of conventional growers. With Bt cotton in China, cases of pesticide poisoning went down by 75%. India’s cotton yield increased by 80%. Pam pointed out that any too-succesful technique used alone encourages pests to evolve around the technique, so the full panoply of “integrated pest management” needs always to be employed.

Her second example was papayas in Hawaii, where the entire industry faced extinction from ringspot virus. A local genetic engineer devised way to put a segment of the virus genome into papayas, thereby effectively innoculating the fruit against the disease. The industry was saved, and most of the papayas we eat in California are GE.

Rice is Pam’s specialty at her lab in Davis. Half the world depends on rice. In flood-prone areas like Bangladesh, 4 million tons of rice a year are lost to flooding—enough to feed 30 million people. She helped engineer a flood-tolerant rice (it can be totally submerged for two weeks) called Sub1. At field trials in Asia farmers are getting three to five times higher yield over conventional rice.

The cost of gene sequencing and engineering is dropping rapidly (toward $70 a genome), and our knowledge about how food crops function genetically is growing just as rapidly. That accelerating capability offers a path toward truly sustainable agriculture on a global scale.

Returning to the stage, Raoul doubted that certified organic farmers would ever be allowed to use GE plants, and so he proposed a new certification program for “Sustainable Agriculture,” that would include GE.

-- by Stewart Brand

http://longnow.org/

All the young people in the universities can work hard, and even use technology, to hopefully slow or stop the sickening process that the old generations caused. 7 generations? Longnow?

[Ludi]

speaking of GE foods. i wish they would genetically engineer birth-control into the food. what an advance that would be.

Kind of tough on the rest of the critters, though. They're already suffering from chemicals in the water supply.

[nobodypanic]

speaking of GE foods. i wish they would genetically engineer birth-control into the food. what an advance that would be.

Kind of tough on the rest of the critters, though. They're already suffering from chemicals in the water supply.

good point. on the other hand, maybe the reduction of people can more than make up for it? i guess it's moot anyway, since the resident expert on such things seems to think it quite unlikely.

in any event, we have to get a grip on population dynamics. anything we do is nearly worthless if it's accompanied by an increase in the number of mouths to feed.

[Pretorian]

BTW I don't support the ruinous practice of fish farming and ocean rape. Nor deforestation, nor ploughing, nor ruining the soil. Nor factory farming. Supreme Master Ching Hai has it right...go vegan to save the planet. Vegetarian at least.

Mind me asking, do vegans change oil in their cars? Do they buy or build houses? Do they heat them during the winter? Do they eat? Do they breed? Are they wearing clothes?
My problem with vegans, aside of hypocrisy of veganism itself, is that they think they can sit on a cock and eat it at the same time. Not going to happen, sorry.

[scas]

At least Obama is supporting family planning. The USAs population is exploding..and they're a 1st world country.

What are we going to do about people in Lagos? I don't know, but i'm sure Malthus would pipe up if he were alive.

Pretorian - veganism represents one of the cheapest ways to nourish a human with the absolute minimum emissions. Grow as much as you can in your own backyard, buy locally. Perhaps you only see black and white - either you are vegan or carnivore. I don't drive, I electric bicycle and bus. I don't plan to build a house, I will rent or live in a tiny cabin. I wear clothes because Homo Sapiens have lost their protective coat of fur, however I do like the nudist lifestyle. People should not be having kids either due to population - maybe one at most.

Anyway, did you heard polar bears are not endangered because their numbers have increased since the 50s?

BTW if you don't believe in James Hansen style climate change....then we're on a different page.

[Ludi]

on the other hand, maybe the reduction of people can more than make up for it?

Not if it causes the rest of the critters to not be able to reproduce. We might could try known successful methods of managing population before we do something drastic like birth-control food.

[Pretorian]

Pretorian - veganism represents one of the cheapest ways to nourish a human with the absolute minimum emissions. Grow as much as you can in your own backyard, buy locally.

One question-- where the excess food will go?

[scas]

Pretorian - veganism represents one of the cheapest ways to nourish a human with the absolute minimum emissions. Grow as much as you can in your own backyard, buy locally.

One question-- where the excess food will go?

I know you are fishing and baiting...

However, excess can be canned and stored in countries warehouse for that inevitable global crop failure, or given to poor, or let it rot and leave the land to regenerate naturally. I recommended Hansens book to catch up what we face.

Everything needs to be balanced against climate change. You will find I don't have all the answers, but me not having an answer does not prove your argument correct.

[scas]

Food for Thought:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that Europe, America, and China will be uninhabitable for food growth by 2040. James Lovelock says this could be as soon as 2025.

Approximately 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded. In Africa, if current trends of soil degradation continue, the continent might be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025, according to UNU's Ghana-based Institute for Natural Resources in Africa.

According to the the Royal Society we will be +4 degrees anomaly by 2060 - 'locked in' unless we maintain a large aerosol cloud. We know our artificial aerosol cloud is blocking 1-3 watts of sunlight. We know methane is venting from the Arctic and has increased by one-third in 5 years, we know disintegration is non-linear, and know it can cause abrupt climate change of 10-16 degrees.

Many people here suggest that permaculture, organic, or alternative methods can survive these conditions. Modern Saudi Arabia is overpopulated, has nearly depleted its groundwater, and its wheat fields are failing. Certainly a failure of modern industrial agriculture - they surely could have made it last longer useing small farm methods. How many people could move to Saudi Arabia and produce food for themselves? Now recognize that this is still only a 0.75 degree anomaly.

Plants of the same species tend to die at the same high temperature, just like humans. If GE could someday confer heat resistance, would lateral transfer to other strains be so terrible against preventing famine? AGW is proceeding 10x faster than the PETM...few can adapt.

[vtsnowedin]

Before we stop fishing and fish farming we better start producing an alternate source of protein sufficient to feed as many.

Or put more resources toward a sustainable population. You can't win the Food Race by producing more food.

Re: The Food Race: http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/kentstate.cfm

Interesting speech. I like the cattle in the parking lot parable. How do you suggest we walk away from the food race?

[Ludi]

How do you suggest we walk away from the food race?

Put the resources we would have put toward increasing food production toward helping people manage a sustainable population (at this point, that means helping educate and empower women, and provide family planning and birth control services).

Try to help people be aware that the population problem is not just a third world problem, but a world problem (one American kid uses the resources of about 30 Bangladeshi kids and no Bangladeshi woman has 30 kids).

Promote local sustainable agriculture/food-growing instead of promoting industrial agriculture. Grow your own food if possible or buy locally grown food if possible.

Phase out industrial ocean fishing as soon as possible. Don't eat industrially-caught ocean fish.

Those are just a few ideas.

[Loki]

We shouldn't be farming fish or harvesting the oceans at all, nor factory farming meat.

At least we can agree on something.

Back to the graph a moment. 4 million metric tons of fish landed in the US. Estimating 1000 calories of usable flesh per kilogram landed a metric tonne landed is enough to feed a person for a year, so the US catch feeds four million people or the equivalent and the world wide catch feeds millions more. Before we stop fishing and fish farming we better start producing an alternate source of protein sufficient to feed as many.

I probably overstated by opposition to fish farming---when I think of the practice, I automatically think of salmon farming (the main form of fish farming here in the Pac NW), which has some pretty nasty ecological consequences. Salmon farming is absolutely abhorrent---and the US fedgov is getting ready to give the OK to GE salmon. Yay for GMOs!

I think fish farming probably has a role to play IF done sustainably. But that's a big if. Pops brings up a good point, though farmed salmon aren't fed corn, they're fed other fish (all wild caught), making it even more outrageously unsustainable.

As for wild fisheries, the great majority of them are mining operations. Stocks are being rapidly depleted around the world. Reliance on wild fish stocks will eventually lead to starvation one way or another.

[vtsnowedin]

How do you suggest we walk away from the food race?

Put the resources we would have put toward increasing food production toward helping people manage a sustainable population (at this point, that means helping educate and empower women, and provide family planning and birth control services).Try to help people be aware that the population problem is not just a third world problem, but a world problem (one American kid uses the resources of about 30 Bangladeshi kids and no Bangladeshi woman has 30 kids).

Promote local sustainable agriculture/food-growing instead of promoting industrial agriculture. Grow your own food if possible or buy locally grown food if possible.

Phase out industrial ocean fishing as soon as possible. Don't eat industrially-caught ocean fish.

Those are just a few ideas.

Well we should start buy educating and empowering the forty million women in Egypt. I don't know how we could go about that without first killing forty million Egyptian men to free those women from the chains that bind them but I'm sure there is an easier way.

[Ludi]

There's a lot of outreach that needs to be done in Muslim (and Christian!) countries. Greg Mortenson and the Central Asia Institute are doing great work educating women in Afghanistan and Pakistan . This is the sort of thing we should be doing instead of blowing people up.

http://www.ikat.org/

It can't happen overnight, but if there were popular support creating political will, it could be done. Of course this should have been happening all along, but there is no immediate profit in restraining population growth.

http://www.populationconnection.org/sit ... gwomensrts

This is something we need to be dealing with because of Peak Oil and Global Warming, aside from other environmental issues.

[vtsnowedin]

There's a lot of outreach that needs to be done in Muslim (and Christian!) countries. Greg Mortenson and the Central Asia Institute are doing great work educating women in Afghanistan and Pakistan . This is the sort of thing we should be doing instead of blowing people up.

http://www.ikat.org/

It can't happen overnight, but if there were popular support creating political will, it could be done. Of course this should have been happening all along, but there is no immediate profit in restraining population growth.

http://www.populationconnection.org/sit ... gwomensrts

This is something we need to be dealing with because of Peak Oil and Global Warming, aside from other environmental issues.

I agree with you point of view but I am pessimistic about the chances of success. War famine and pestilence are much more likely to reduce the human population then the education of women who are not allowed to go to school.

[Ludi]

I agree with you point of view but I am pessimistic about the chances of success.

I'm pessimistic too if we don't try. If we try, I'm less pessimistic.

[vaseline2008]

Angler's 738-pound Pacific bluefin tuna may be biggest ever caught (by rod and reel)

Most of the fish were released, but the giant tuna and marlin were kept and will be sent to the taxidermist.

What a waste of some great sashimi!

[Fishman]

As noted, most of the fish were released, I don't think the meat will go to waste. Most taxidermy mounts are fiberglass. They only need size and pictures. Almost all big fishing tournaments such as this one are all catch and release unless a record fish is caught or perhaps the largest for the tourney. If you want to cry over a fish stock, cry over the tuna cans at your local market.