this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
282 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59207 readers
3307 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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:
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.