I mean, why not use hemp instead of engineering a new species of tree?
can’t patent that
You’ve been able to patent asexually reproduced plants since 1930, so if a new paper production centric hemp breed was primarily reproduced by cuttings it would be patent-able. If said hemp breed were reproduced via seeds, then you’d need to use the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 which allows very similar legal protections.
Poplars are probably the best way to get a lot of biomass quickly. I doubt hemp is a competitive alternative.
And they’re not engineering a new species of tree, they just modified the trees to reduce the lignin content so the cellulose can be processed easier and less resource intense.
Trees provide habitat for wildlife, can grow in areas less conducive to farming, and require little to no care after planting.
While what you’re saying is generally true about trees, they’re creating poplars for the paper industry. They will grow in big monocultures and get mowed down after just a decade. That’s pretty much worthless as an ecosystem.
They’re grown in a similar way for biomass for the energy sector. Poplars are probably the easiest way to build up a lot of biomass.Poplars are probably the easiest way to build up a lot of biomass.
That’s why they’re so poplar.
kudzu is very fibrous it can be made into paper and it grows so fast we can’t eradicate it in the southern united states. It grows like a foot a day. I worked with a guy in mississippi he cut it back 7 feet every saturday or it would overtake his backyard.
I’ve been fighting kudzu for years that keeps encroaching my property from the neighbor’s yard
by far the fastest growing plant matter I’ve ever seen
the way it can grow underground and then pop up 10 feet away it’s like those whack-a-mole games but far less fun
not to mention it wraps around any thing it finds so it can quickly choke out a tree
I, for one, am grateful for science and what we can do with it. It’s crazy awesome that people figured out how to edit genes. I really liked Unatural Selection (2019) TV series.
CRISPR? I hardly know her.
I’m concerned about the first application of crispr to make super soldiers.
A few genes flipped and the army coming out the other side would be terrifying.
Strong soldiers are cool and all but I feel war has progressed way passed that, what with all the drone vids of the ukraine war and such.
unless we have gene edited people that are pro gamers, in which case id cry a bit when I run into them online ;w;
As we saw in Afghanistan, drones are great but you need boots on the ground to hold territory.
yeah I hear you but drones remove boots on the ground from the other guys without removing boots on the ground from your guys.
Modern wars are won with technology. Tanks, planes and drones. Super soldiers wouldn’t make much of a difference these days.
b
Here you go https://www.the-odin.com/diy-crispr-kit/
Your argument is if you can’t do it then nobody should be able to? That’s an interesting hill.
b
So you’re one of the rich ones.
Capitalism always finds a way…
From all the uses one could find to CRISPR, this is probably one of the dumbest.
Is it? This seems like one of the most beneficial and least controversial uses
Making paper? Capitalizzum. Marx would have cried if he heard people equate economy and production with capitalism.
Here’s my point. We live under global capitalism. It’s just how things are, right?
And capitalism, just like, say, life, has its ways. It creates an environment where certain outcomes are more likely than others.
Making an observation about it does not make me partial to other systems. I have no such preference. What I observe is just that capitalism, just like life, always finds a way—its way.
I heard someone mentioned the danger of using CRISPR to make better soldiers. It’s crazy, right? But why isn’t crazy to tinker with a tree? Yes, it may make those trees a better product. And all seems good. But once you do that to the tree, and it becomes profitable, the incentive is there to make that true for everything else.
I think it’s dumb because such power (CRISPR) should be treated with great care. Curing a disease? Go for it. But be careful. Now, to make a better product? I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way.
Perhaps I’m not seeing the whole picture. Or maybe I should take some bioethics class again.
But whatever may be the case, my point is not there all proletariat the world over should unite.
I mean I guess one of the biggest arguments for gene editing is that humans have been modifying the genetics of plants and animals for thousands of years, to the great benefit of humankind. While this was through selective breeding, gene editing is fundamentally a very similar ethical question.
Without genetic modification, it would have been beyond impossible to feed everyone, or even get somewhat past subsistence farming.
Modifying humans, however, is a totally different question to mosifying trees.
Dogs are a good example of how wonderful our selective breeding has been. Well, it’s great for us, no doubt. Who doesn’t love a tiny tiny dog? But for the dog? Probably not the best.
Cool, we have better paper making factories with better trees for the purpose. But what about all the unknown unknowns of changing the genes of the tree? How will that affect the environment? Is this carefully tested, monitored, giving it enough time to truly understand the consequences? Or are we just breeding a nice cute little dog again, without caring about what happens to the thing modified?
You see, this has nothing to do with taking sides. I wonder. Just that. And yeah, it still feels dumb to me. But being no expert, perhaps reality will prove me wrong. I do hope so, because I hope for a brighter future, not a gloomy one.
I agree that it seems like there should be some sort of tradeoff for editing genetics. It’s hard to say how these types of trees might affect aspects of the environment, such as soil composition or the surrounding wildlife. With that being said, I eat genetically modified food every day, so what do I know.
I think it’s dumb because such power (CRISPR) should be treated with great care. Curing a disease? Go for it. But be careful. Now, to make a better product? I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way.
Why? Is this a religious statement? If it betters the world then that’s it, it should be used. CRISPR is just a technology for editing genes, it’s not some sacred tool that should have arbitrary restrictions, or a nuclear weapon. If the utility of using it is positive why not?
Most of our crops, that we rely to feed the world today would be barely usable for consumption before we domesticated them. Same with fruits and plenty of other food sources, like cattle.
You mentioned little dogs in another comment, and while some will have more issues, others have rather long lifespans for dogs (chihuahuas). Important thing is, this is what happened when we had no idea or precise control of what we were doing, which we have now with gene editing. Can’t get more precise than that. I also think this objection is moot since trees don’t think and therefore don’t experience suffering in the way animals do, unless you think your flowers scream in terror whenever you forget to water them, this isn’t even a moral conundrum.
Edit: leaving this in to clarify what I’m responding to.
without caring about what happens to the thing modified?
Mate, I don’t know or care about the other guy’s insults, but don’t you think unspecifically attributing the word to the US’s terribly managed economy is getting cringe and worse muddying the water. I’ve seen a super posh actress who’s famous for being posh (nobility on both sides of the family) complain (in character) about it on a trailer for a major movie coming out soon.
Not to say criticism is cringe, but while I might be wrong, something seems to be missing.
Thank you for commenting.
I’m not US based. Perhaps I have a way of using capitalism that rubs some people the wrong way. Not my intention, but I brought it up. So it’s on me.
I see capitalism as a state of affairs. I live under it as other peoples at other times lived under a different set of conditions. I’m not trying to pick up a fight.
Did you read the article? They’re just reducing the lignin content in the wood so it’s easier to process cellulose. I don’t understand where you see the difference to let’s say selective breeding to produce bigger and sweeter fruits. CRISPR is just an optimised and probably better results promising alternative to the massive amounts of trial and error we had to go through to isolate promising genetic traits.
Thank you for engaging! This is what makes Lemmy such a great platform. It’s people like you who engage in a meaningful way.
Now, you raise a good point. Did I read the article? Well, I’ve cut the middleperson, and went straight to the paper. The Editor’s summary has this to say:
This work demonstrates that genome editing can be harnessed for breeding more efficient trees, which will provide timely opportunities for sustainable forestry and a more efficient bioeconomy.
Which means ‘more efficient’ to us. To our understanding of efficiency. At face-value, I’m sold to the benefits. Economy-wise, it looks great. But it still bothers me. Something something about ‘the greater picture’. That’s why I mentioned in another reply that I probably have to update my view on bioethics. It’s been a while since I gave it a careful consideration. I may be missing the the forest for the trees… (dad joke).
I see your concerns. I think we can’t avoid using our land. The alternative would be not existing. Also we have to agree that most people demand a degree of consumerism that puts a strain on the resources we have. That’s the reality we face. Paper is a very necessary good and probably will be forever. The production of paper is resource intensive. Removing lignin would reduce our demand of resources.
I don’t see big poplar forests with the whole purpose of harvesting cellulose as that problematic if we keep in mind that this also gives more space for habitats we have to protect.What this research promises is that we can make the best of what we have because that is all we have left after we ravaged the planet and are not willing to stop that.What’s not clear to me is whether these edits will be passed on to future generations of trees. I think that’s usually not the case with CRISPR, but this article is talking about “breeding”, so maybe it is the case here. The phrase “building a better forest” is particularly disturbing as well.
My concern here is basically that we don’t want to be replacing wild forests with genetically engineered monoculture. Replacing millions of years of evolution and biodiversity with 1 or 2 “optimal” genetic lines leaves the population vulnerable to things like disease and environmental changes. A diverse population is much more resilient against these dangers, since the differences in individuals may allow some to survive where others couldn’t.
So as long as the usage is limited to specific tree farms, it’s probably no worse than other modern agricultural practices. I just hope they don’t want to replace wild forests with CRISPR trees.
