Genetic Weapon Against Insects Raises Hope and Fear in Farming
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I also don't like the idea of spraying stuff around that is built to silence genes--I'd like to have some mention on how specific the targeting is i.e. are you knocking out specific codons, frame rewrite or transposons, and if it's that general how is it contained/delivered?
It's the vast crop monoculture that is the problem, not the "pest" who evolves and then takes advantage of it.
Your argument about "toe-to-toe with evolutionary biology" is a little misguided. Everything about agriculture and pest control is going toe-to-toe with evolutionary biology. You either let evolution run all over you, or you try to keep up. Monoculture is a problem, but crop diversity wouldn't eliminate the evolutionary challenge - it's just another mitigating strategy.
Though I never ment to suggest that the evolutionary challenge would be eliminated--it just changes the approach to the problem, rather than looking at specific pests and targeting them individually, (which is actually an endless fight--but may provide continued revenue for Monsanto) look at the systemic relationships and the patterns they create as they persist. If you eliminate one pest, you still have broad homogenous crop, which is a natural draw for all sorts of similar 'pest' problems.
In any case I see it as being symptomatic of our highly optimized food system--which has problems in all sorts of places (input/output and stderr), as I think we are optimizing for the wrong thing in the long term.
Slightly circular, and OT--sorry.
the "problem" is, Monsanto needs more profits. And they are doing a terrific job of solving the crap out of that problem, getting farmers hooked on ever more complicated and unproven techniques as each one fails, each one modifying nature further so that Monsanto's newest approaches are even more critical.
Monsanto has no ethical or environmental incentives beyond those which might damage their profit model. And so far, with secret treaties like TPP at their back, it looks like they can go super far before anything like that happens.
Evolution qua evolution won't care, and will swiftly and smoothly move into the technology arena as much as ever, but it will be a different game at that point. Intelligences may spar at each other, but brute biology won't have a seat at the table anymore. And intelligences at least have a chance to compromise at something less that all out war, which is all brute biology has ever known and all it can ever know.
I think that you are right about the tipping point between intelligence and natural selection. But given that we manage to share 20% or so of our genes with bananas, I would want to be very very sure of ourselves. I think the science needs to catch up with the commerce.
The general response most of us have to things like nuclear technology, bio-engineering is usually characterised by "gosh, that's an awfully big downside". To me that is a very rational response and a good understanding of the nature of risk.
Edit: bit less didactic
For something in biology, genes are very well understood. Targeting them has much less harmfull potential than targeting proteins, untargeted attacks, or spaying things that nobody understand the working.
Anyway, I agree that it's the wrong direction to go. But it's the one that's profitable for the research center.
This has nothing to do with whether this particular tech is a good idea or not; I highlight it as an interesting example of the sort of thing where we're going to get a permanent upper hand on conventional biological evolution. Eventually, even the ability to adapt in "one generation" is going to be too slow for biology to keep up. There's other research fields beginning this journey too; some of the latest cancer fighting tech begins to verge on this too, for instance.
And I keep saying "biological evolution" because there is no escape from the general principle of evolution; if we all become cyborgs tomorrow, but do nothing to curb our warring tendencies, cyborgs will most assuredly evolve. But it will be of a different character, driven by intelligence rather than totally random chance.
As stated in TFA, BT corn deterred pests for a while, and now it apparently doesn't, but it seems to have been profitable in the interim. What is the ROI for this new thing?
> The Windup Girl is set in 23rd century Thailand. Global warming has raised the levels of world's oceans, carbon fuel sources have become depleted, and manually wound springs are used as energy storage devices. Biotechnology is dominant and mega corporations like AgriGen, PurCal and RedStar (called calorie companies) control food production through 'genehacked' seeds, and use bioterrorism, private armies and economic hitmen to create markets for their products. Frequent catastrophes, such as deadly and widespread plagues and illness, caused by genetically modified crops and mutant pests, ravage entire populations. The natural genetic seed stock of the world's plants has been almost completely supplanted by those that are genetically engineered to be sterile.
Thats nice, we have glyphosate resistant Superweeds, now we need insecticide resistant Superbugs.
Some sort of contraption built by Google Boston Dynamics with "Weed OCR" software that yanked weeds and smashed bug called the Weedernater. Yes.
Monoculture is not nature and is not just not how plants evolved to grow. We can continue to force it as we have been but that obviously isn't working all that well.
Here's the wheat yield per hectare: http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/upd...
And corn bushels per acre: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lvcQDaR56xg/Trfc71LwF3I/AAAAAAAAQK...
Genetic engineering, as well as more traditional agriculture knowledge, has hugely improved productivity.
Official paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/abs/406718a0...
Full text alt: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Rice-Diversity-Yield.htm
Polyculture ag. production's not a bad idea, and it obviously can improve yields under the right conditions, but to be widely adopted it either needs top down advocacy from a larger body (Gov) or be so compelling economically that individuals / companies push for and adopt it at the personal level.
Yields are one thing, but there is also the additional logistical difficulty, and cost, that comes from planting many different crops. Particularly tough when you're talking about some midwest, intensive crop farming, where machinery, layouts, and storage have been designed and optimized for monoculture operations over literally millions of acres. Adapting those operations while maintaining economies of scale is one of the greatest hurdles.
Also, while folks sometimes decry our farming, America isn't as bad as we often make it out to be, and many areas do significantly mix crops. Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crops_Kansas_AST_20010624....
Shows fields of wheat, sorghum, corn, and sections left fallow that are fairly well mixed in Kansas.
It's really hard to create an outrage strong enough that people will just stop buying it, and go to a competitor. But this is the only message big corporations understand.
"Corn growers need a new tool. For a decade they have been combating the rootworm by planting so-called BT crops, which are genetically engineered to produce a toxin that kills the insects when they eat the crop.
Or at least the toxin is supposed to kill them. But rootworms are now evolving resistance to at least one BT toxin."
Co-existence is the only way that is compatible with evolution.