NationStates Jolt Archive

There appears to be a new weed to consider in the development of biofuel resources ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/africa/09biofuel.html?em&ex=1189396800&en=0653a7244f33ba52&ei=5087%0A

The Royal Tropical Institute, a nonprofit research institution in Amsterdam that has been working to develop jatropha as a commercial biofuel, estimates that there are 22,000 linear kilometers, or more than 13,000 miles of the bush in Mali.


So what do you think?

If we can spread the current oil wealth to some of the poorest out there then I say good. I know people have said Bio fuel is not the answer to the problem because of the yields. But I noticed they stay in the mindset of what corn can do or other common produce that is currently used. There may be many plants out there like this one that has a yield many time that of what corn is currently giving us.

So what do you think?



But jatropha requires no pesticides, Mr. Samaké said, little water other than rain and no fertilizer beyond the nutrient-rich seed cake left after oil is pressed from its nuts.


Is this "cake" yellow? Clearly we should invade just to be sure.

Either that, or wait until Monsanto patents the genome, and the price of jatropha biodiesel jumps to $5.00/gal.

Alternative fuels are great. I'm just a pessimist who wants to figure out all the ways the vested interests will screw it up.

I dig.

Is this "cake" yellow? Clearly we should invade just to be sure.Best to err on the side of caution, eh? ;)

So long as they stay clear of the Dogon.

Either that, or wait until Monsanto patents the genome, and the price of jatropha biodiesel jumps to $5.00/gal.

Alternative fuels are great. I'm just a pessimist who wants to figure out all the ways the vested interests will screw it up.
That sounds like well-seasoned/reasoned pessimism, actually. A lot of patents sit snug until the time is right, as it is. There'll be more, to be sure.

I dig.

So you have progeny here now?
Nice pun, btw.

If we can spread the current oil wealth to some of the poorest out there then I say good. I know people have said Bio fuel is not the answer to the problem because of the yields. But I noticed they stay in the mindset of what corn can do or other common produce that is currently used. There may be many plants out there like this one that has a yield many time that of what corn is currently giving us.

Something pops up every now and again on SciAm, and they even have issues devoted to similar measures.
They had a good article on thermal depolymerization a while back that ended up in two interesting threads.

This sounds promising, however it does remind me of a quote from Blood Diamond: "It's a good thing that they did not find oil, then we would have a real problem."

Okay, here's what happens: Some dipshit entrepreneur is going to smuggle some cuttings into the US or other major country and the plant is going to thrive to the point that it displaces other native flora and the ecosystem gets totally fucked. Or maybe a nice african aphid of some kind that will discover that cash crops like wheat, corn and/or oats are ever so much tastier.

Delightful things are bound to happen when people think they can outsmart nature. I for one will be watching the show with great interest. :)

Okay, here's what happens: Some dipshit entrepreneur is going to smuggle some cuttings into the US or other major country and the plant is going to thrive to the point that it displaces other native flora and the ecosystem gets totally fucked. Or maybe a nice african aphid of some kind that will discover that cash crops like wheat, corn and/or oats are ever so much tastier.

Delightful things are bound to happen when people think they can outsmart nature. I for one will be watching the show with great interest. :)

Oh it'll be much worse than that. Suffice it to say that I, for one, welcome our new botanical overlords.

that cash crops like wheat, corn and/or oats are ever so much tastier.

Those aren't cash crops. Cash crops are stuff like coffee, mint and spices; Luxury crops basically.

Oh it'll be much worse than that. Suffice it to say that I, for one, welcome our new botanical overlords.

All hail overlord botany, king of the weeds?

All hail overlord botany, king of the weeds?

Cultists get entangled and digested alive first :)

Cultists get entangled and digested alive first :)

Sign me up!

But please, oh please, do not put me with them bloody flies.

This sounds promising, however it does remind me of a quote from Blood Diamond: "It's a good thing that they did not find oil, then we would have a real problem."

Oh yeah, just watched that the other day.

Oh it'll be much worse than that. Suffice it to say that I, for one, welcome our new botanical overlords.

Day of the Triffids makes us all tingly, don't it?

Sign me up!

But please, oh please, do not put me with them bloody flies.

I don't know anyone who deserves to be chopped up and fed to a hungry plant!
:mad:

That's really good to hear, especially since it's so predominant in Africa. Cellulosic and non-crop biofuels might be Africa's petroleum (aside from the extensive amounts of undiscovered and discovered oil on the continent already) if it is developed properly. That might provide a huge economic opportunity for the African states if they can utilize this to its full potential.

That's really good to hear, especially since it's so predominant in Africa. Cellulosic and non-crop biofuels might be Africa's petroleum (aside from the extensive amounts of undiscovered and discovered oil on the continent already) if it is developed properly. That might provide a huge economic opportunity for the African states if they can utilize this to its full potential.
..and don't get pimped out from the get-go.

I would like to say that turning algae into biodiesel is one of the great ideas being developed right now, couple Algal biodiesel with lithium batteries and a lightweight, efficient car design, and we have our answer to America's automotive energy problems.

That's a pretty big if. If government corruption, or a people's army or some other silly thing doesn't destroy it, one of us will surely patent it in a way such that no Africans profit from this plant.

It is. I hope it does turn in to something good, but I've read enough about Africa and its history to know that these kinds of problems always surface.

That's really good to hear, especially since it's so predominant in Africa. Cellulosic and non-crop biofuels might be Africa's petroleum (aside from the extensive amounts of undiscovered and discovered oil on the continent already) if it is developed properly. That might provide a huge economic opportunity for the African states if they can utilize this to its full potential.That's a pretty big if. If government corruption, or a people's army or some other silly thing doesn't destroy it, one of us will surely patent it in a way such that no Africans profit from this plant.

That's a pretty big if. If government corruption, or a people's army or some other silly thing doesn't destroy it, one of us will surely patent it in a way such that no Africans profit from this plant.

That's what i meant by "pimped out from the get-go".
:(

seems better than using corn, considering that is part of the reason why non-vegan products are becoming so much more costly...

Either that, or wait until Monsanto patents the genome, and the price of jatropha biodiesel jumps to $5.00/gal.
http://www.planet-familyguy.com/pfg/images/characters/freak.jpg
Monsanto is a good boy, aren't you, Monsanto?

But seriously, what's wrong with someone trying to make a profit by feeding the 800 million starving people in the world with super crops? You don't hate starving Africans, do you?

Also, I don't like the idea of this. I used to be all for biofuels until I actually started doing the math on them and found most to either be of inferior quality or actually consume more energy than they produced. To get a large commercial crop you either need lots of farm equipment or lots of people toiling night and day in the fields and that last one just reminds me of something done in America over a hundred fifty years ago. Add to that the amount of new land that would have to go under the plow to create enough to supply current demand, even with GE plants this would be a fairly large increase.

But seriously, what's wrong with someone trying to make a profit by feeding the 800 million starving people in the world with super crops?


Two words: "Terminator Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Technology)"

With this technology, the seeds of your "super crop" produces plants which are in turn sterile. This forces the farmer to go back to the seed company in order to buy more, instead of simply collecting and using the seeds from his own crop. This is not "feeding starving people." This is manufacturing artificial scarcity in order to take advantage of starving people who could otherwise secure financial independence.

Monsanto has apparently promised not to use such technology (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260202,00.html). But they're not the only company developing it. Also, I'm going to envoke my skepticism and suggest that a capitalist doesn't go to the effort and expense of acquiring a patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,723,765.PN.&OS=PN/5,723,765&RS=PN/5,723,765), and the company that originated it, simply because he has time and money to piss away on nothing. That would be stupid, and capitalists are not stupid.

They just don't give two shits about starving farmers, or the safety of the food supply, if it will improve profit.

(EDIT: Oh, and on a side note, ask the people of Vietnam what they think of multinational corporations who produce agricultural products. They'll probably have two words for you also: Agent Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange). Carefully note which such company was involved in the production of that most life changing product. Only because they care about the poor starving people.)

You don't hate starving Africans, do you?Of course I do. They should all be forced to eat, so there isn't a single one of those bastards left!!

Of course I do. They should all be forced to eat, so there isn't a single one of those bastards left!!
Here, here! You might want to tell TLO that.

TLO,
They only developed that terminator tech because greeny nutjobs Made the pseudo-scientific claim that GE food would give regular plants purple tentacles and make Family Trees (a tree hole is its mouth, a family tree is so named because it can eat a whole family in one bite) more aggresive. So they developed this tech to make sure that there would be no contamination and it seems to work in tests and be safe for people according to three US government agencies. I will trust scientists over hippy protesters any day.

The rainbow herbicides were developed because of a war. An army marches on its stomach and hides in bushes. Eliminate the crops and they starve. Eliminate the cover and they have nowhere to hide. It's been going on since WW2 and scorched earth since before Darius of Persia.

There are still people dying of hunger, something you've never even felt the physical sensation of. Monsanto is paying scientists to develop crops with higher yeilds per acre and which are more resistant to disease. Genetic tampering is nothing new and humans have been doing it for thousands of years now, this is just a faster way. Unless you and yours are starving you need to shut the fuck up.

So they developed this tech to make sure that there would be no contamination...


Unfortunately, the terminator "tech" itself is also subject to the danger of contamination. Like cross contamination between terminator and non-terminator crops.

Oops, independent farmer just lost his crop to a sudden bout of sterile seeds. Guess he'll have to buy a whole new batch. Just a marketing scheme, I suppose.


...and it seems to work in tests and be safe for people according to three US government agencies.


Cite 'em (You thought I'd just trust you?)


The rainbow herbicides were developed because of a war. An army marches on its stomach and hides in bushes. Eliminate the crops and they starve.


Continued starvation and health problems, including cancer, long after the war is over is the added bonus. Not to mention the veterans who delivered the stuff, not knowing what it was or what it's effects on them would be. Didn't know they were the enemy too.


There are still people dying of hunger, something you've never even felt the physical sensation of.


You sure about that? I've lived with, labored for, held in my arms, and helped feed people who fear not being able to eat on a given day. Outside of my home country. How about you?

Unlike most of my fellow citizens, I have seen, smelled, and heard starvation. This personal experience is probably most responsible for why attempts to economically exploit the starving piss me off so.


Monsanto is paying scientists to develop crops with higher yeilds per acre and which are more resistant to disease.


Higher yields and disease resistance are needed and beneficial. Genetically engineered artificial scarcity which fosters economic dependence is not needed and is not beneficial. Some noble deeds do not excuse the less than noble.


Genetic tampering is nothing new and humans have been doing it for thousands of years now...


...through natural agricultural processes (i.e. not soaking seeds in a chemical bath invented in a laboratory) without a global reach. Thousands of years ago, one mistake screwed one farmer. Today, one mistake screws an entire global food supply. The domestic corporate food chain is bad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#2006_United_States_E._coli_outbreak) enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#2007_United_States_Salmonella_outbreak).

Unfortunately, the terminator "tech" itself is also subject to the danger of contamination. Like cross contamination between terminator and non-terminator crops.
Except that hasn't happened and is next to impossible. Would you bet against the sun rising because the odds of that are about the same as something with its balls genetically cut off actually reproducing.

See, if you were a scientist for some company like Monsanto or Cargill or for the US government and had access to these products in their test phases and were testing them I'd consider your argument. But you're not. You're a neo-hippy protester and an immature punk and I can't respect that.

Oops, independent farmer just lost his crop to a sudden bout of sterile seeds. Guess he'll have to buy a whole new batch. Just a marketing scheme, I suppose.
Sterile seeds have been tested and seem to pose no such threat. The only marketing scheme here is that ag companies want to use pics of their products feeding millions of starving people to look good.

Cite 'em (You thought I'd just trust you?)
The EPA, FDA, and USDA. GE crops are the most highly tested in the history of agriculture. The EPA regulates them if a pesticide or other chemical is involved, the USDA for where they're grown and how it will affect the environment, and the FDA for human health effects. So sayeth Dr. Terri Lomax, Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology and the Center for Gene Research and Biotechnology at Oregon State University where she teaches Cell and Molecular Biology and Issues in Agricultural and Natural Resources Biotechnology. I'd tell you I'm sorry for spoiling your fun but I'm really not.

Continued starvation and health problems, including cancer, long after the war is over is the added bonus. Not to mention the veterans who delivered the stuff, not knowing what it was or what it's effects on them would be. Didn't know they were the enemy too.
I'm not promoting the tactic nor am I defending a morally questionable war, all I'm saying is that I fail to see what scorched earth policy employed forty years ago has to do with feeding starving Africans today. Are you saying that GE food is poisonous? 'Cause that's what Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth did in Zambia in 2002 and we all--wait, almost no one knows what happened. See these eco-nutjobs told some African governments that already donated food from the US was poisoned. Thousands of people died because they were denied thousands of tons of corn by their own government because their government had been duped by Greenpeace. If that isn't a crime against humanity I don't know what is. What's my source? That bastion of right-wing group-think known as the LA Times.
"Zambia Rejects Gene-Altered U.S. Corn." - L.A. Times, August 28, 2002.

You sure about that? I've lived with, labored for, held in my arms, and helped feed people who fear not being able to eat on a given day. Outside of my home country. How about you?
Prove it. You thought I'd just trust you?

Unlike most of my fellow citizens, I have seen, smelled, and heard starvation. This personal experience is probably most responsible for why attempts to economically exploit the starving piss me off so.
And your racism is probably most responsible for why attempts to provide poor people with a different skin color with high yeild crops piss you off so much. A low blow? Yeah, but you can't start getting picky because you have enough. That's just self-centered and racist.

Higher yields and disease resistance are needed and beneficial. Genetically engineered artificial scarcity which fosters economic dependence is not needed and is not beneficial. Some noble deeds do not excuse the less than noble.
How do higher yeilds of disease resistant corn create a scarcity of food? And once you have everyone fed then the people who are starving right now can focus their attention on other stuff like education so they can take control of the tech they rely on and become more independant.

I agree that the lesser of two evils is still evil but just because something is privately owned doesn't make it evil. Just because someone is buying something from someone else doesn't mean they're being exploited.

...through natural agricultural processes (i.e. not soaking seeds in a chemical bath invented in a laboratory) without a global reach. Thousands of years ago, one mistake screwed one farmer. Today, one mistake screws an entire global food supply. The domestic corporate food chain is bad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#2006_United_States_E._coli_outbreak) enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#2007_United_States_Salmonella_outbreak).
Actually it's through cross-pollination with other species, eugenics, and grafting. Those are clumsy and slow and you can't really ever tell what you'll get through those methods until after you get it so they can even be dangerous. The lab offers more controlled conditions and allows for more direct manipulation.

I also cannot understand how anyone would be against food and other goods being shipped around the world. Trade gives people a reason to get along. It solves problems and spreads ideas, if someone figured out a solution to something bugging him at home but nobody figured it out elsewhere he can give them his solution. Yes, sometimes power is abused but you have to learn to accept the bad with the good because without downs there would be no ups.

Also, while food contamination in the US and around the world does happen from time to time, disease resistant food is less vulnerable to things like mold and parasites. What's really needed to wipe out foodborne illness is a practical method to get clean water and cheap medicine to the people of the world. That means new technology and technilogical trade. And yes, that'll mean that somebody'll make a buck but it won't change the fact that people would be helped.

Fun factoid, before GE food the starvation rate was about 1/3 of the worlds population, now it's 1/6. That's right, GE food has saved a billion people. That's billion with a B. If we went back to a strictly organic approach on existing farmlands then we'd have to sign off about 2 billion people 'cause there'd only be enough food to feed 2/3 of the worlds mouths.

We need to spread all the technology we have all we can so that everyone can have the option of turning down food. I can't understand why anyone would fight food advances. You should be dancing every morning you wake up because you have food. Like I said, unless you and yours are starving you need to shut the fuck up.

Except that hasn't happened and is next to impossible. Would you bet against the sun rising because the odds of that are about the same as something with its balls genetically cut off actually reproducing.


There are plenty of situations where cross-pollination is entirely possible. The problem with the idea of plants having had their "balls genetically cut off" is that plants do not reproduce like mammals do. The "terminator" technology, as far as I understand, doesn't sterilize the plant, but rather renders the seed useless (or "sterile"). The reproducer is still viable, the result of reproduction is not.

Since pollination is a required part of the process of making seeds and fruit, for many species of crop plant, the "terminator" technology cannot interfere with pollination. If it prevented pollination entirely, it would be inapplicable to a whole host of potential crops. Thus, these plants must continue to be able to produce seed and fruit; for that, they must continue to be able to pollinate. Therefore, the plants must be able to continue to spread their genetics (the point and purpose of pollination) even if the result is seed that just sits and does nothing.

If these plants can continue to pollinate, they can continue to cross pollinate. As such, many kinds of potential "terminator" crop can introduce their altered genetics into non-"terminator" crops via pollination. This in turn means that the non-"terminator" crop will fail to produce viable seed in a given cycle. Naturally, an independent farmer who relies on a regular supply of good seed from his crop will consider this a less than optimal situation.


Sterile seeds have been tested and seem to pose no such threat


You've missed the point. Sterile seeds aren't a poison in and of themselves. Rather, the independent farmer relies on his crop producing a ready supply of good seed, which he can use to replace crop plants as necessary. But the "terminator" technology prevents this, because it causes the pollination/reproductive process of the crops to produce useless sterile seeds. This reduces the supply of viable seed the farmer has to replace crops that die or otherwise become nonproductive.

Thus the farmer must go to a company like Monsanto to buy more seed. Monsanto sells him "terminator" seeds, which produce a new crop, but no new viable seeds. Thus the farmer must go back to Monsanto again, and again, and again. Instead of just using the seeds naturally produced by the plant at no additional cost, the farmer must constantly spend money purchasing seeds. If the farmer didn't have to constantly purchase seeds, he could be spending his money on further developing his farm, feeding his family, or improving his community.

Instead, the "terminator" technology requires than an already poor farmer funnel badly needed money away from his farm, family, and community and into the pockets of an already rich multinational corporation.

That is the poison, if in a metaphorical sense.


The EPA, FDA, and USDA. ...Dr. Terri Lomax, Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology and the Center for Gene Research and Biotechnology at Oregon State University where she teaches Cell and Molecular Biology and Issues in Agricultural and Natural Resources Biotechnology.


Citations typically point to specific reports, papers, statement, etc. It's easy to name three relevant government departments, or pick someone out of a biology faculty directory.


I'm not promoting the tactic nor am I defending a morally questionable war,...


I'm not saying otherwise.


... all I'm saying is that I fail to see what scorched earth policy employed forty years ago has to do with feeding starving Africans today.
Are you saying that GE food is poisonous?


No. I'm saying that Monsanto's actions probably have little to do with helping people, and everything to do with making a profit. Making a profit, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But I'm not going to pretend that their current business ventures are undertaken only as some humanitarian cause. Trying to suggest otherwise (by constantly citing "feeding starving Africans" in the face of serious questions concerning present biotech ventures) can lead to serious oversights.


'Cause that's what Greenpeace...


Don't get me started on Greenpeace. Trust me, if one thinks I am a blind supporter of Greenpeace, one is seriously mistaken. Unfortunately, they and I happen to occupy the same side of the spectrum on the very specific issue of "terminator" seeds and crops.

If anything, forcing me to have such an "ally" only makes me hate Monsanto all the more.


See these eco-nutjobs told some African governments that already donated food from the US was poisoned. Thousands of people died because they were denied thousands of tons of corn by their own government because their government had been duped by Greenpeace. If that isn't a crime against humanity I don't know what is. What's my source? That bastion of right-wing group-think known as the LA Times.
"Zambia Rejects Gene-Altered U.S. Corn." - L.A. Times, August 28, 2002.


OK. But "terminator" seeds and crops don't poison. They just destroy farmers' independence. In the situation described above, Greenpeace is clearly wrong, but I fail to see how this says anything in particular about "terminator" technologies.

If you're trying to question Greenpeace's credibility, you're preaching to the already well converted choir.


Prove it. You thought I'd just trust you?


Unlike purported government reports on the safety and suitability of "terminator" technologies, my personal experiences are exactly that; personal subjective experiences. Unlike the government agencies you cite for support, I cannot provide links or other references to available evidence proving that I have spent time volunteering in the third world; if I could, I would have in the first place. Proving it isn't totally impossible, but I would have to sacrifice my privacy and the privacy of friends and family (which you need not do in order to properly cite your government agency sources) and one is likely to conclude that I am a liar anyway.

So believe me or don't. It doesn't change what I have done.


And your racism is probably most responsible for why attempts to provide poor people with a different skin color with high yeild crops piss you off so much.


As I've already noted above in my opposition to Greenpeace, and in another thread...

Higher yields and disease resistance are needed and beneficial.

...I don't oppose high yield or disease resistant crops. I oppose "terminator" seeds and crops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_technology). One would think that high yield and disease resistant crops which produce good quality, viable, and reusable seed, saving the farmer money instead of requiring the constant re-purchasing of what he could already have automatically would go even farther toward eliminating poverty and starvation.

If anything, "terminator" seeds and crops, which require farmers to constantly spend their already scarce money re-purchasing seed from a multinational corporation, instead of using their money to improve their own lives and communities, smacks of good ol' fashioned colonialism. That's where the "racism" is, if anywhere.


How do higher yeilds of disease resistant corn create a scarcity of food?


High yield, disease resistant crops don't create scarcity. Terminator technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_technology) does.


Just because someone is buying something from someone else doesn't mean they're being exploited.


It does mean they're being exploited, if the choice is between "afford to constantly re-purchase our seed instead of using your own" and "or starve."


Actually it's through cross-pollination with other species, eugenics, and grafting. Those are clumsy and slow and you can't really ever tell what you'll get through those methods until after you get it so they can even be dangerous. The lab offers more controlled conditions and allows for more direct manipulation.


Perhaps. However, even those products produced in the laboratory under controlled conditions can have unforeseen adverse effects. Agent Orange and other defoliants are an example. Shoot, just look at the world of pharmaceuticals, where long term side effects can become an issue. DDT is an excellent means of promoting human health by controlling the insects which spread malaria, but it can also have adverse effects on wildlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle) (I think I tend toward being in favor of bringing DDT back, but only so long as use is specific and controlled; coating everything in sight in a three foot thick layer, as was the original practice, is probably still a very bad idea).


Yes, sometimes power is abused but you have to learn to accept the bad with the good because without downs there would be no ups.


A better agricultural metaphor would be to strive to keep the wheat while eliminating the chaff. Without downs there are only ups.

I was considering going through your post line by line and taking it apart when I realized something, not only is this going off the topic of new biofuels, it also has already become a post disection.

Look, I know that the plant still has to pollinate to create the fruits and seeds we all like to eat but even assuming that, say a wild plant gets pollinated with the terminator gene, the worst case scenario is that particular plant, not the species doesn't reproduce. And the independent farmer wouldn't have that problem if the terminator gene doesn't go to market.

The thing about the terminator gene though is that it was developed because greenies made claims (sans any data) that GE foods would contaminate wild or organic plants with their disease resistance and high yeild genes and demanded a way to prevent this. The terminator gene was the solution. It also has not been released.

I'm also not ignoring Monsanto's motivations. I understand that their only reason for feeding people is to turn a buck. I understand that they're just going to say "look at all the good we're doing, buy our product." But so long as they're doing that good I don't really care if they use it for PR.

The interview where Dr. Lomax asserts that the US government tests GMO can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8), in an excerpt from Penn & Teller: Bullshit, season 1, episode 11: "Eat This!" GM foods are covered under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as a food containing an additive. They must be tested for human health effects under this law. You can find the whole thing here (http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm) as amended through December 31, 2004.

And before you can bring up Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, Monsanto Canada's director of public affairs has stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act." Turns out that Schmeiser had been saving seeds and doing some cross breeding expeirments to get around paying for Roundup Ready canola.

I understand that I take a lot of unpopular positions; for GE, against biofuels, pro-nuclear, anti-religion, pro-gun, etc. I take them because I'm skeptical of scare stories and because I am generally distrustful of utopian people. I understand that the world isn't perfect, that everything has a cost associated with it. While you may not have to bother with the downs of life someone else will have to shoulder your burdens. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch and I'd rather everyone have some low points in life than try to push them off to someone else. You can't have ups without downs. Now go back to your hugbox, you damn ass-pie.

PS, try to avoid citing wikipedos in the future as wikipedia is just a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) in which participants play editors of a hypothetical online encyclopedia, where they try to insert misinformation that they are randomly assigned when they create their accounts, while preventing contrary information from being entered by others. Players with similar misinformation to promote will generally form "guilds" in order to aid each other.

...say a wild plant gets pollinated with the terminator gene, the worst case scenario is that particular plant, not the species doesn't reproduce.


This is true. It's not like the crop of an independent farmer is going to just fall over and die because it is pollinated by a "terminator" plant. However, a particular plant, and thus an entire crop, will eventually have to be replaced. This is accomplished through access to a supply of seed.

The purpose of the "terminator" technology is to reduce the supply of seed. Period. If control over the supply of seed can be in the hands of an already rich corporation, or the independent farmer who is already struggling to survive, I'm going to choose the farmer.


And the independent farmer wouldn't have that problem if the terminator gene doesn't go to market.


The Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260202,00.html) I found (via Wikipedia) says that Monsanto has promised not to use it commercially, but they're not the only ones developing the technology. Related patents continue to be issued to other companies developing their own implementations. If they're spending all this time and effort, they are going to want to recover their costs eventually.


The thing about the terminator gene though is that it was developed because greenies made claims (sans any data) that GE foods would contaminate wild or organic plants with their disease resistance and high yeild genes and demanded a way to prevent this.


If this is true, the "greenies" were wrong.


But so long as they're doing that good I don't really care if they use it for PR.


"PR" isn't the issue. The potential to monopolize the market in seed is.


Penn & Teller: Bullshit, season 1, episode 11: "Eat This!"


I saw their episode on college (via YouTube as well, I think), where they cited about 15 people who didn't go to college but were still successful. Somehow 15 exceptional people proved that nobody needed to go to college to be successful. 15 out of millions.

I wasn't impressed.


pro-nuclear, anti-religion, pro-gun...


I happen to think that nuclear power is useful (finding a waste management method other than "big pile in the ground" would be nice though; a fusion breakthrough would be fantastic for such), religion is silly, and responsible/lawful firearms ownership is a positive practice.


PS, try to avoid citing wikipedos in the future as wikipedia is just a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) in which participants play editors of a hypothetical online encyclopedia, where they try to insert misinformation that they are randomly assigned when they create their accounts, while preventing contrary information from being entered by others.

The contributors to Wikipedia obviously "[prevented] contrary information" when they included information that supports the case of "terminator" genetic technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_technology#Possible_Advantages_of_GURT_technology), while providing links to organizations that also support the technology (http://www.worldseed.org/Position_papers/Pos_GURTs.htm). I've even provided links to this information against my own case, as I'm part of the evil conspiracy of bias and such.

I saw their episode on college (via YouTube as well, I think), where they cited about 15 people who didn't go to college but were still successful. Somehow 15 exceptional people proved that nobody needed to go to college to be successful. 15 out of millions.

I wasn't impressed.
I bought seasons 3 & 4 but the circucision episiode made me uncomfortable. It was funny 'cause it had lot's of dick jokes in it but I did not need to see infants getting the ends of their dicks cut. They also have well-paid professional writers and researchers to check the facts of what Penn (& Teller off screen) says on the show.

I happen to think that nuclear power is useful (finding a waste management method other than "big pile in the ground" would be nice though; a fusion breakthrough would be fantastic for such), religion is silly, and responsible/lawful firearms ownership is a positive practice.
Ever heard of a breeder reactor? Turns depleted uranium into plutonium fuel. And don't hold your breath on fusion research. All the money is going to the wrong projects today, tokamaks are just not going to do it.

The contributors to Wikipedia obviously "[prevented] contrary information" when they included information that supports the case of "terminator" genetic technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_technology#Possible_Advantages_of_GURT_technology), while providing links to organizations that also support the technology (http://www.worldseed.org/Position_papers/Pos_GURTs.htm). I've even provided links to this information against my own case, as I'm part of the evil conspiracy of bias and such.
The Wikipedos have an intense disliek for mudkips. Get all of your information from Encyclopædia Dramatica (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/) and the Lulz News Network.

They also have well-paid professional writers and researchers to check the facts of what Penn (& Teller off screen) says on the show.


Therein lies the key ;)


Ever heard of a breeder reactor?


Yup.

Despite the existance of that technology, however, the waste continues to pile up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg).

The fusion people need to get it in gear.

Therein lies the key ;)
When you're well-paid it's usually a good sign that you do your job well. "Work well and you will be treated well. Work badly and you will die."

Despite the existance of that technology, however, the waste continues to pile up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg).
The policy of not recycling waste in the US is driven by fears about terrorism. Someone a while back mentioned the possibility that terrorist might be able to get a hold of plutonium created in breeder reactors and make a bomb with it. This scared everyone shitless and the US decided it'd be wiser to lower the purity of its fuel and not breed new stuff.

The fusion people need to get it in gear.
The fusion people have been going at it for decades. The first functioning fusion reactor was built by the guy invented TV. When Philo Farnsworth got tired of tinkering with electron beams he switched to light nuclei interactions and created several models of a reactor type know as the Fusor. Rather than try to squeeze a ball of plasma into fusing like most other reactors, it used a wire grid in the center to attact the ionized gas with an oposite charge. Most nuclei just pass through the center without colliding but always fall back into the center and eventually do smack into other nuclei. If this happens head on they fuse and release neutron radiation and light. You can build your own model for under a grand American if you know what you need and where to get it.

The best working fusion reactors were fusion warheads. They worked most like the sun, just without the gravity to hold everything together and without sufficient fuel to sustain the reaction beyond the span of a second.

Today all the money is going into the wrong projects, the expensive ones that are long on promise and short on results. Tokamaks aren't going to do it, so sayeth Richard Hull, a guy who knows fusion because he's build 3 or 4 reactors.

And what did I tell you about trusting the wikipedos?