Message from @I Know a Fat Guy
Discord ID: 628718168952668162
and make it taste good too
Possibly. That would be really hard though. Lol
in time although probably more likely it'll be a couple different plants
Yeah.
On a different topic of technological development, I think an effective waterless toilet needs to be invented. The existing solutions are not up to par.
My only problem with that is that the vegans would view it as validation.
Sal,
There's a ***VERY REAL*** difference between selective breeding and cutting up DNA. I'm all for GMO, but don't conflate the two. That kind of dishonest comparison plays right into *"protestors"* hands...
Wolf,
Forcing farmers to buy new seeds every year is not sustainable in the event of an emergency. Also, if the company was so awesome, they'd have made a profit already.
...
And because I'm such a *"nasty subhuman,"* I've called GMO protestors *"the worst sort of racists"* since I was a leftist myself... In fact, since before the Guard, so at least 1999.
I only think this because infrastructure repair costs will sky rocket in the future
selective breeding was more like fumbling in the dark, GMO is doing the same in good lighting
So tell me Mandatory, if your business model is making better varieties of plants and selling the seeds to farmers, who can then use the seeds from this harvest to grow next season's crop, how do you stay in business?
My phone is really weird about what it decided to capitalize.
Thank god Im never applying for Harvard or any Ivy League school
Wolf,
¿You got a Motorola?
Anyways, if you're product was so damned awesome, you'd still be in business.
Yeah, it's some iteration of I think the Moto G.
*Random capitalization.*
The problem with that idea, mandatory, is that if you sell seeds to someone, they grow the plant, and it has seeds, you don't need the people who sold you the seeds anymore
And figuring out how to genetically engineer shit probably costs a pretty penny
Of course you could make the initial sale of seeds far more pricey to get a profit off the first batch, but then they probably wouldn't sell
Just engineer the plants to be seedless.
I think they are. Now that I think about it, from what I remember I think the argument was farmers using extra seeds they had left over the next year. Maybe not. It's not an argument I've payed particularly close attention to.
how did that even happen
A. Any crop that is grown as a hybrid will see significant yield losses after even one year of replanting so it's more cost effective to buy it again any laws or patents aside
B. R&D costs a ton of money and recouping losses after 1 year for a dramatically improved self pollinating crop would often be impossible.
C. You buy the seed from the company on the condition that you agree not to replant it. If you want to replant and breed your own varieties you are free to buy the many open source varieties available, some farmers (especially organic) do this and are successful, good for them. Others don't want to invest the time, labor, and cost necessary to do that, which is also fine but it then has to make economic sense for someone else to do it for you.
D. Not completely on topic but I see some confusion here. Most crop improvement is still done through traditional breeding (using the term loosely I suppose but without any genetic engineering). GM is only good for traits that come from a single or very few genes and is very expensive (although that's changing). It really only makes sense to use GM to add genes only present in another species that would be greatly beneficial to the crop like RoundUp Ready or Bt. Things like increased seed size are going to come from so many different genes that it would be essentially impossible or incredibly impractical to improve through GM. Also many crops have no commercial GMOs on the market.
> Turns an entire organisation into a terrorist group overnight
> Gets sued
> Surprised Pikachu face
GMO crops often end up cross contaminating non-gm crops cuz of the neighboring farms and then they get sued
they then end up just using gmo seeds the next season to due to liability risk
The frequency of that occurring is often heavily overstated by the media and the cases cited often don't tell the whole story
I was taught GMO crops are infertile, thus creating a monopoly where farmers are reliant on GMO producers for their seed in order to grow the crop to begin with
GMO crops have no inherent infertility
My knowledge is outdated then
it could still be true in some cases
Because my biology teacher taught us that GMO crops cant pollinate due to their artificial nature
Without going into the genetics too deep, a crop grown as a hybrid like corn is going to have the best yield and be entirely uniform at the first generation after the cross of the two inbred parents, if you save the seed the genetics will start to be less favorable due to inbreeding and also harder to harvest because they will be less uniform
So cross pollinating is basically impossible. But then again, I havent studied biology in about 7 years
So it makes more economic sense for the farmer to buy the hybrid seed each year rather than lose the yield
But cross breeding and GMO are completely different things though
Well not entirely, but they are in the way they are produced
GMOs are only "artificial" at 1-2 genes they are hardly different than regular crops they can breed entirely normally
^ the farmer I know thinks a lot of the lefty views on farming (non-GMO and organic) are dumb. But also If that's what they're going to pay for that's what he's going to grow.
Is your farmer friend subsidized by the government?
If so, there's your answer