Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Genetic Engineers Barking Up the Wrong Trees? 336

Rick the Red writes "In a commentary titled 'Genetic engineering for better suburbia', Vincent Barnes says, 'Cures for diseases and feeding the world with genetically modified foods is well and good but the real money is in solving the problems of homeowners, the vast silent majority of Americans who toil away every spring and summer fighting pests and every fall injuring their backs and falling off ladders.' Should Monsanto bring us designer maples that don't shed leaves? Would you buy designer grass that grows two inches and stops? Even if you won't eat GM food?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Genetic Engineers Barking Up the Wrong Trees?

Comments Filter:
  • Personally... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IcEMaN252 ( 579647 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:37AM (#11652046) Homepage
    ...I think curing disease would be pretty good.
    • and I think that never having to worry about cutting the grass, bugproofing the house, trimming the trees, shooing snakes and such out of my yard, etc would be pretty cool.
      • Re:Personally... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum@@@gmail...com> on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:49AM (#11652147) Homepage Journal
        so why don't you just move into an apartment, then?

        sheesh, i can't help but despair at the utter decadence of some people. whats wrong with cutting the grass? its a grand activity, supposed to remind you of the vigors of life.. same with chasing snakes! i do that for fun!

        honest, are we all becoming cyborgs? ew!! get a life!
        • I personally hate mowing my lawn, however killing pests is a great opportunity to bring out the ol' katana and have some fun... it's like a small party and it really freaks out the neighbors.
          • by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:49PM (#11652550)
            I personally hate mowing my lawn, however killing pests is a great opportunity to bring out the ol' katana and have some fun... it's like a small party and it really freaks out the neighbors.

            Agreed. Nothing like a warm Sunday afternoon with a beer in one hand and a katana in the other, chasin' after gophers. Hell, not even the damn Jehovah's Witnesses pester me anymore! 'Course, my lawn is littered with baseballs, frisbees and other toys that the neighbors kids are too afraid to come and get...

    • Certainly better than the author's bad ideas. E.g.

      The genetic code for the mass suicide of the lemming could be introduced to the most dangerous species of mosquito

      What mass suicide? That idea is based on a stupid Disney film. What genetic code? Lemmings aren't programmed to all die simultaneously.

      He has some interesting ideas, but not much science. I think people would be willing to pay a bit more for not dying.
      • Another area that he is plain wrong is non-deciduous trees not dropping their leaves. Go into a pine forest, or just under a pine tree somewhere. What do you see? Needles. Conifers etc all lose their leaves, just not all at one time. Would you rather have to rake a whole lot at once, or a little bit every week.
    • Plastic.

      It's really that simple.
    • Re:Personally... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Luxifer ( 725957 )
      hmm.. curing disease..

      First of all, IAAGE, (I'm a genetic engineer)
      Whether the article is facetious or not, I think it brings up a valid approach

      OK, let me relate this in historical terms: During the space race, the U.S. spent billions trying to put 3 guys on that big vaccuous rock in the sky. In the end, they got all the glory, but more importantly, they got a world of new technologies that benefitted all mankind (and girl-kind too).

      This technological bootstrapping would have never happened without t

      • Is this particular "story".

        For example, the Americans spend millions to design a pen that will write in zero-g, the Russians use a pencil. The russians have an elegant solution, but the Americans now have a new understanding of chemistry, a new understanding of flow-dynamics, perhaps a new manufacturing process for fine detail, plus detailed experience of zero-G. The Russians have invested nothing and gained nothing in their solution.

        I know you didn't state it, but you implied it, and it's not true - NAS

  • Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Should we focus our money on massively increasing food production, making backup organs, and fighting diseases or should we make some nice trees?

    Idiotic.
    • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The sad thing is that the rich people don't want to fund food production for the poor or fighting other countries' diseases, but they'd probably jump at the chance of paying millions to get a yard that will let them fire their minimum wage lawn service.
    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Theatetus ( 521747 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:28PM (#11652413) Journal
      Should we focus our money on massively increasing food production

      Why? We already produce about 5 times the world's caloric intake with current agricultural techniques. This is one of Monsatan's huge lies: that people are starving because not enough food is being made.

      Lack of food production is not why people are starving. People are starving because corrupt government use food as a weapon against their own population. Increasing food production won't help that; it may even make it worse because the food supply will be even more centrally controlled.

      • Bravo!

        I wish people wouldn't bring up this lie. It's not that we're stingy with our aid that people are starving. In fact, at some point, the more aid we give, the worse the situation gets. It undercuts local businesses, driving them away, and making the ones that stay incapable of producing. In the long term, that ruins an economy.

        (Please note that I am not against giving aid altogether.)

        One problem Theatetus didn't address is subsidies. When we subsidize our own agriculture too much, it drives the pric
        • Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)

          If you want to help world hunger (and simultaneously end terrorism), support spreading freedom - whether it's Bush, Blair, Howard, or Iranian student protesters.

          I beg your pardon, but Bush unconditionally supports psychopaths like Rashid Dostum of Afghanistan and the truly horrendous Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. And if you hate having your fingernails pulled out or your genitals electrocuted for political dissent, then by all means stay away from U.S. client states like Egypt and Jordan.

          While I laud your

      • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)

        We actually pay farmers not to produce food. America is capable of producing more than enough food to feed the planet, but WWI / WWII messed up our agricultre. Part of the reason for the Depression was that food production was at war levels during peace. Immediately after WWII the government began paying farmers NOT TO FARM so that they wouldn't be faced with that masive overproduction.

        We should be weaning the agricultural community off of this, but instead our tax $ pay so that we can have more expens

  • Barking?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:37AM (#11652051) Homepage
    "Genetic Engineers Barking Up the Wrong Trees?"

    If those scientists are going up to trees and barking, I think they've been doing a little genetic engineering on themselves on the side. Woof!

  • by BobPaul ( 710574 ) * on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:38AM (#11652058) Journal
    This article isn't really worth your time. The blurb really says it all. His only really good idea is that genetic engineering could be useful closer to home, but his examples are really nothing more than wishful impossibilities.

    For example:
    Surely some genetic feature of a non-deciduous tree could be implanted in maples so that one may enjoy all the reds and yellows but not the stupefying task of raking and cleaning out gutters. In the spring, the leaves could turn green again and the cycle would repeat so that a sense of seasonal change isn't lost, only my backache.

    He obviously understands the process by which die, causing them to turn colors and fall off, since he knows that if leaves don't die and turn colors then plants would loose devastating amounts of water durring the winter period. However, he somehow wants those leaves to come back to life when spring hits. I don't care how many genes shift around, it's going to take nothing more than voodoo magic to both kill the leaves so they change color, and make them come back to life.

    The best you could do is get a nice waxy coating on the leaves so they can stay green all year without drying the tree out, or make them stick tighter to the brances so they fall off slowly throughout the winter rather than all at once in the fall, with stragglers falling out like loose teeth as new leaves budded underneith them.

    From this point the article goes completely downhill. He doesn't even mention actual possibilities, like removing the gene that causes cat to produce dander people are allergic to (something that already is recieving lots of research money.)
    • yeah and besides..

      we got plastics already if you just want a) plastic-like lawn or b) forever green trees.

      fuck, they don't even have to look like real trees.. add some pest killing slow-release chems and voila - no more fucking pests either.

      sure it isn't natural but i wouldn't care that much - and zero possibility for the trees to spread to neighbouring forest and me getting sued by monsanto for farming their trees without a license.
    • Indeed, this is the sort of thing Homer Simpson would come up with after about 5 minutes of flipping through Popular Science.
    • by cyocum ( 793488 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:54AM (#11652180) Homepage

      I think you miss the irony of the column. The last paragraph says it all:

      Surely it would not be difficult to shift this gene here and that gene there and come up with permanently blooming azaleas, rhodies, and camellias. Then, the only difference between winter and spring would be the temperature. But not to worry. Global warming will take care of that, too

      This was a subtle satire of the suburbinite mentality about technology. It was not ment as a serious set of ideas.

    • "his examples are really nothing more than wishful impossibilities."

      Maybe, but I like the idea of a grass that only grows two inches and stops. Where I am from there is a native grass that only grows four inches and stops. It is also the first to turn green in the spring and the last to turn brown in the summer. Unfortunately it is a prarie grass and does not form much of a turf. It does a pretty good job of choking out weeds, but cannot compete with turf grasses like bermuda. Even so my parents hav

      • So you produce that grass that stops growing after 2" - it gets used everywhere - it's genes get out so it competes with and mixes with the general gene-pool for grasses around the world. Maybe because it needs less nutrients (since it's only renewing itself instead of actively growing) - so it out-performs all other grasses.

        Grass around the world stops growing - ruminants have nothing to eat - so they strip the leaves off every bush and tree - then they die. Six months later, we all die of starvation.

        G
        • Screw that. How about a lawn with a high THC content?
    • He obviously understands the process by which die, causing them to turn colors and fall off, since he knows that if leaves don't die and turn colors then plants would loose devastating amounts of water durring the winter period.

      I used to believe this was the reason that trees lose their leaves as well, until one season it snowed in late September and every tree in the city suffered damage. If the tree's don't lose their leaves their snow carrying capacity will easily overshoot the weight thier branches c
      • I'm not biologist, but I know you are wrong. Red Oak is fair common in the north, and it holds onto (dead) leaves until spring.

    • You could engineer the leaves so they turn to dust rather than simply die and fall off. This way you don't have to rake stuff up. Of course that could cause a breathing hazard so how about leaves that die and then dissolve when it rains?
    • Leaves aside...

      It would be nice if we could avoid stuff like this pest [emeraldashborer.info]. Or maybe this one [fs.fed.us].

      Random thought:

      I recently lived in a Michigan subdivision that was built in the 50s and 60s. The developer, back then, thought that it would be a good idea to litter the subdivision with Ash trees. 50 years later, it appeared to be a wonderful idea, as the streets of this subdivision were now canopied by beautiful ash trees. And then the emerald ash borer became a problem. The trees were all clearcut and dispos
    • Does anyone ever stop and think, "gee, where did all the fireflies go?"
      or the frogs, chipmunks, birds, salamanders, butterflies, ... I could go on.
      How many people know what a firefly is these days? We've decimated our ecology by removing the natural vegetation from our front and back yards in some stupid quest for the perfect lawn: uniform, monoculter, weed and pest free.
      Then we wonder where all the wildlife went (we killed their homes and removed their food) or why the summers keep getting hotter ever
  • and besides, the sheer fact that such research might pay-off is a sure sign of the decay of our civilisation.
    Already, little or no research is done in areas where little or no profit is expected (malaria e.g.), thereby killing millions every year.
    • The Gates Foundation just donated $46 million to a research group / company in Berkeley so that they could research the genetic engineering of a malaria drug and produce enough to make the drug super cheap.

      I think civilization is doing just fine.
  • Missing the point (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:43AM (#11652088)
    ....I think the above posters (and probably most readers) are missing the point that the article is clearly meant as satire - not very well-executed satire, but satire nonetheless.
    • by mrraven ( 129238 )
      I thought that too. The tone seemed sarcastic. However, if he was serious then he is very stupid.

      Risking contaminating the gene pool of Maple trees with leaves that don't fall could have devastating ecological effects. It could reduce the survival and reproductive effectiveness of wild maples if it out-crossed thus drastically changing the food chain and species composition of effected eco-systems.

      This seems to be a general problem with GM people don't think of the consequences of what would happen if t
    • Yeah, it reads like someone trying to imitate Dave Berry. The only thing confusing is that it is in "opinion" and not "humor".
  • by YankeeInExile ( 577704 ) * on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:45AM (#11652105) Homepage Journal

    Get them working on producing a GM human-female that thinks that stanky basementgeeks are supersexy. They can come in several variants -- the scrawny goth, the buxom blond, the dominatrix redhead ... They'd make a billion....

  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:46AM (#11652114)
    Should Monsanto bring us designer maples that don't shed leaves? Would you buy designer grass that grows two inches and stops? Even if you won't eat GM food?

    The answer is still NO. The issue with GM plants is that GM corporations have proven time and time again that they are not being in the remotest bit responsible for what they are producing. They take GM plants that have not been anywhere near adequately tested, and let them out in the wild, where they crossbreed with other plants freely. They have absolutely no clue if they are about to create the next kudzu, and they don't appear to give a damn if they do, either. (Heck, they'd probably see one of their plants getting out of control and taking over everywhere as a gold mine! [bbc.co.uk]) And don't forget that it's Monsanto that gave us the Terminator Gene.

    No thanks. My life depends on plant life, so I'd prefer if people didn't wantonly muck with it. What was that old saying about people who live in glass houses throwing stones?
    • Breeders have been creating new plant variations for millenia. Do you think these new variations use entirely old DNA? Not on your life. Unlike GM organisms, breeders rely on random mutations to create changes in the DNA. Yep. They're just rolling the dice and hoping they get lucky. So along with one desirable new trait, they end up with perhaps dozens of recessive traits that may not be expressed until they hybridize their new wonder with another plant having different silent mutations. It's altoget
  • by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:46AM (#11652123)
    "Should Monsanto bring us designer maples that don't shed leaves?"

    I love to wade through the leaves that cover the sidewalks, you insensitive clod. If they remove my town's glorious autumn splendor, I'm moving to Canada.
    • Take a number.

      Mr. Bush has made this place quite popular. Used to be in this very rural neo-artic wasteland that I live in the first thing you'd say to somebody moving in was "So what part of tronnoare you from?" but now we're getting peopele from Georgia, Indiana, Maine, you name it.

      Oh and bring Euros. Your dollar is near worthless now.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    its caused by greed, ignorance, bad education, capitalism, war, land mines, etc etc etc.

    its not caused by 'we dont have a magic melon'

    if u can genetically engineer humans with emotional health, then you would stop world hunger a lot faster.

    • You're not going to fix what does cause hunger without:

      A. killing a LOT of people and causing a LOT of disruption in hunger-stricken areas. Even if those governments aren't distributing food properly, they are doing things like trying to keep people from running down the street shooting everybody.

      B. Fundamentally changing human nature. Sorry, if threat of hell and promise of heaven by a thousand different prophets didn't do it, you're not going to.

      Now, however, the idea of GM food for these areas is some
    • Hunger is a very natural thing. It's what keeps populations in check in ecosystems that can't support them.

      Quite understandably, and for good humanitarian reasons, we try to 'cure' hunger. That results in more people surviving - which results in even more hunger in subsequent generations.

      Like any other species, humand breed until they hit the limits of their environment.

      What is needed is birth control of one kind or another (education, condoms, drugs, laws) to keep the population below what the environ
  • Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imuffin ( 196159 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:47AM (#11652135)
    Of course I would! I really don't understand those who fear GM food. It's not like the cows, or even the corn we eat now, is "natural." Most of our food has been selectively bred for centuries. The result is the same mucking-with-genes, just much more slowly than genetic engineering promises.

    If you refuse to eat beef because of moral reasons (I understand that there are lots of legitimate reasons not to eat beef--but I'm concentrating on the "oh, poor cow" reason), then would you be willing to eat beef grown in a cow body that was born with no brain whatsoever and kept alive by machines? You'd be eating beef, but it would've been grown like a vegetable. Most of the vegetarians I've asked say they would sooner eat a real cow than my genetically engineered monster. But why? How is it really any different from any of the food products we're created for ourselves over the centuries?

    Personally, I'd much rather have GM food than beef that has been fllled to the brim with hormones to to make the "natural" animal perform better. And I'd be first in line to buy trees and grass.

    The lameness filter is complaining about junk characters. What are junk characters? Did that question mark just count? Will this block of text make this message ok? ---------------------
    watch funny commercials. [tubespot.com]
    • Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dmayle ( 200765 ) * on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:30PM (#11652421) Homepage Journal

      The problem with GM food has has nothing to do with fear of mutant food. The problem with GM food is the introduction of this horrific system of intellectual property.<sneer/>

      America has become less and less of an industrial producer and more and more based on the service industry. How does a service industry nation support itself? By living off of other industrial nations. How do we get them to support us? By convincing them that our ideas are worth paying for. We've been doing this with TV, movies, and music for some time, as well as technological ideas, but as these industries are maturing in other nations, we need more things that foreign countries will pay us for.

      This is why the U.S. is so insistent on giving G.M. food as aid. Once it's in the country, the poor farmers will have no choice but to be beholden to the IP owners for the rest of their lives, something which I find particularly disgusting.

      Monsanto (a Canadian company) has been trying the razor/blade model (GM food/pesticide), but they've hit the jackpot! They've invented a razor that turns all neighboring razors into the same kind of razor!

      Once you drop the IP restrictions on GM food, there are no complaints, but there are also no reasons to try and force it on anyone either, and it becomes a moot point. Life IS open source, and most people want to keep it that way.

    • Re:Yes! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gnuman99 ( 746007 )
      Of course I would! I really don't understand those who fear GM food. It's not like the cows, or even the corn we eat now, is "natural."

      Bullshit. You can selectively breed humans to be stronger, or whatever. You cannot selectively breed humans to grow 10 arms and be green.

      Selective breeding is "natural". In many ways that's what nature does as well with natural selection. In many species only the most suited do breed.

      Sticking spider genes in people so they piss cobwebs is not natural and only attainabl

      • Bullshit. You can selectively breed humans to be stronger, or whatever. You cannot selectively breed humans to grow 10 arms and be green.

        The difference between the two is only a matter of breeding generations, or if you prefer, time. I can selectively breed a bacterium into a human, given enough time - so I don't see what's so impossible about something as trivial as skin colour or limb count.

        (Unless you were trying to start up a micro/macro evolution debate, which I don't think was the case)
    • Re:Yes! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by msblack ( 191749 )
      Genetically-modified foods are extremely dangerous. Traditional (1000s of years) farming practice is to hold back part of a crop for planting in subsequent seasons rather than to be eaten. The brilliant folks at Aventis (now owned by Monsanto) invented a "killer gene" for their corn product so farmers couldn't continue that practice. Rather, they would be obligated to purchase new seeds from the Aventis/Monsanto seed banks rather than using seeds from their crops. An unfortunate and untested side effect
  • by Leroy_Brown242 ( 683141 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:50AM (#11652154) Homepage Journal
    So, people start using grass and other pants that are geneticly engineered plants. What sort of impact is this going to have on the local insect population? YOu might not care if there are less bugs, but the fish in your local streams and rivers might care quite a bit. Also the other critters that eat the fish could be impacted.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Would you buy designer grass that grows two inches and stops? Even if you won't eat GM food?

    Personally, I have no problems with genetic manipulation of things. Howerver the sort of people who whine about GM food, will probably throw a fit about any GM product. Example: 'GM grass will be bad because goats will eat it ant grow tentacles!'
  • by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:55AM (#11652188) Homepage Journal
    I mean, could rumanants like cows eat the grass, and would it cross pollenate with normal grass, to create another weed? Would it invade gardens?

    There are oodles of ethical questions to be answered BEFORE releasing a GM product into the wild. Profit is not the bottom line in the real world.

    Microsoft is well known for making software that is popular in suberbia, but it's also known for being insecure, and a scourge on the Internet if plugged in unpatched. Releasing "perfect height" grass into the wild is much more dangerous than releasing an unpatched operating system. The consequences to the ecosystem aren't as simple as unplugging every Windows computer from the Internet and cleaning the worms off of them, or blocking ports.
    • I mean, could rumanants like cows eat the grass, and would it cross pollenate with normal grass, to create another weed? Would it invade gardens?

      Perhaps. But it is probably much less likely to do so than a wild-type plant simply transported from one part of the planet to another.

      People who worry about engineered plants taking over and displacing natural varieties have an exaggerated notion of the prowess of engineering. The likelihood that some plant that a human engineer has mucked with for some special
    • Profit is not the bottom line in the real world.

      Neither is protecting the environment (pardon me for calling suburban desert "environment").

      However, scientific and technological development are the bottom line. If we can learn something and if it's cool, it should be done, and damn the torpedoes.
  • Not if its patented (Score:5, Interesting)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:57AM (#11652198)
    The problem isn't genetic technology, it is who controlls genetic technology. If you get rid of that unhealthy controll (PATENTS!), then lots of good things will happen with it naturally.

    I don't have a problem with uning genetic technology for anything, what I have a problem with is that if someone controlls a specific piece of genetic technology - then they have a strong incentive to push/impose it even if it is not in my best interest. People are what they hold themselves accountable to, if Acme company has a patnet on a technology that sucks - they will push that technology even if they have the capability to make something far safer or better - that's just the way it is in a patent world. You can see this hapening in the pharmacutical industry all the time nowdays.
  • by thpr ( 786837 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @11:57AM (#11652202)
    Would you buy designer grass that grows two inches and stops? Even if you won't eat GM food?

    No, but I'd be the first on my block to buy an Elm tree resistant to dutch elm disease or an American Chestnut tree resistant to blight.

  • Crap, there are people out there who just barely know that milk come from cows, and couldn't describe one if asked.

    In an evermore artificial world, a person can go an entire day without seeing the sky, a tree or any animal, or touching cotton, wood, or anything *real*.

    I know that there are kids that live in cities that have never seen the stars, and have no clue to the connection between the stuff that magically appears in the supermarket and the dirt that it's grown in. Gen-modding everything for the sake of fattys who don't want to care for their living landscape is only going to leave us with plants and animals that are not adapted to the natural world, and a weakened ecosystem.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back on my horse so I can cry at sunset when somebody litters.

  • by InternationalCow ( 681980 ) <mauricevansteens ... m minus language> on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:03PM (#11652243) Journal
    See all of the above. As a geneticist, I'm actually an avid proponent of genetic engineering. Hell, we should engineer anything we can get our hands on as long as it is for something that we can profit from: plants producing enzymes that cure otherwise incurable disorders, plants that do not need pesticides, animals that carry humanized organs... People who fear genetic engineering do so out of ignorance mostly. They do not realize that our efforts are piss-poor compared to what Nature is doing to all genetic material of all living organisms every day.
    That said, I do not believe for a single second that genetic engineering will reach the home owner any time soon. Having to do something in the garden can actually be enjoyable, you know. But seriously, however useful it may be, you can betcher sweet *ss that green activists (Greenpeace comes to mind) will sow such fear and hate that GE organisms will not be available for common use for a long time to come. Who do you think came up with the term "Frankenfood"? Go tell to the poor kids who eat Golden Rice that genetic engineering is bad. And, to any fanatic who might be reading this post, before you embark on yet another hate-trip, please check here [disasterrelief.org] for a well-balanced discussion of the issue. Hunger is caused in large part by issues other than innate defects in Nature's gifts, but many of those are issues that are not going to be solved any time soon. You can be fundamentalistic about this or you can be realistic. Poor people loose in the first case.
    • Hell, we should engineer anything we can get our hands on as long as it is for something that we can profit from

      And you wonder why people oppose GM?

  • the real solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by asr_man ( 620632 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:06PM (#11652261)
    How about genetically engineered humans that can appreciate nature without having to compulsively twist it into something considered "beautiful" by the chemical industry?
  • by squarooticus ( 5092 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:07PM (#11652264) Homepage
    ...you can spend lots of money fixing your roof when a NeoMaple branch cracks under the weight of the snow on it and crashes through. Good idea!

    I lived through this crap back in 1995-96 (I think) in upstate New York when there was a heavy early snowfall. There was much damage, both to trees and to buildings.
  • Genetic Marketing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:07PM (#11652271) Homepage Journal
    Genetic engineering is just like any other engineering: companies promise features, features, features, and ignore the bugs. GM's fundamental bugs, like proliferation, unintended consequences, ecosystem competition and unknown risks, have never been adequately addressed. The difference is that this engineering is messing with our ecosystem, upon which all life, especially ours, depends. We can't just roll back from a failed rollout. More GM marketing, rather than science to eliminate those risks, shows that the danger is just increasing.
  • Absolutely! (Score:4, Funny)

    by TodPunk ( 843271 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:12PM (#11652294) Homepage

    Should Monsanto bring us designer maples that don't shed leaves? Would you buy designer grass that grows two inches and stops?

    Yes, and um, yes. Please even. While they're at it, lets get some trees that make more oxygen so I can stop feeling bad for cutting down the rain forest. I'd also like a dog that doesn't have to eat or poop, ferns for the house that I don't need to water so often, and a gerbil that can power my PC as long as I give it some sugar every now and then.

  • Nope. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:21PM (#11652358) Journal
    I have spend the first 5years of homeownership burying, removing and killing my lawn and other popularily cultivated plants.

    they have all been replaced with stands of a variety of indigenous plants, shrubs, grasses and trees.

    My brownstone-townhouse has a 'small' corner lot, but ive got mayapples, ferns, jackinpulpits, many trees, shrubs, etc etc etc etc.

    not in a million years would i buy such stupidity. Im trying to diversify the plant life to support a greater diversity of insects, birds and animals.

    This idea is as stupid as the moron who waters, fertilizes and mows his kentucky-blue-grass wasteland.

    Absolute stupidity.
  • I already did... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:25PM (#11652386) Homepage Journal
    Would you buy designer grass that grows two inches and stops?


    I already did - it is called "Buffalo grass" [google.com], and is a native grass of the midwestern region. Once established, it needs little water, and will not grow very tall.

    In this particular case, there is little need for gengineering, just for people to realize that the brilliant green of fescue grass is not needed, and the more muted green of buffalo is just as good.
  • by evenprime ( 324363 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:26PM (#11652395) Homepage Journal
    Companies don't really care if they fix things. It is foolish to think that they will do anything but seek profit. The only genetic engineering they will conduct will be to create organisms they can continue to get money from. Consider the case of monsanto, the makers of the popular roundup herbicide/weedkiller. Monsanto funded genetic engineering of crops, but they didn't create crops that were resistant to pests and disease. Instead, they created crops that are resistant to their Roundup weedkiller. The idea is that now farmers who want to control pests can use more Roundup on their crops than they could before, without the crops being harmed as used to happen.


    Do you want more info? If so, just google for "Starlink", the marketing name for Monstanto's chemical resistant crops.

    They could have created a crop that would have reduced the amount of poisons we dump into the environment. Instead, they created one that allows us to use more poisons. Why? Well, you don't expect a chemical company to help us reduce the need for chemicals, do you?

  • by bigredmed ( 699538 ) on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:27PM (#11652410)
    Don't need genetic engineering here. Already got that by breeding in the conventional manner.
    Buffalo grass varietal called "Tatanka". Great grass for lawns. Left to its own, it will grow about 3 inches in a season, so it usually gets mowed once or twice a year.

    Alternatively, we could always get the good folks in Ca, Nev, AZ, and NM to realize that they are living in Deserts and blue grass just doesn't belong there.
  • by bluemeep ( 669505 ) <bluemeepNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 12, 2005 @12:33PM (#11652444) Homepage
    What happens if these plants reproduced and got into the natural order?

    If leaves didn't fall, wouldn't that eliminate a lot of the nutrients in the ground that come from them? Even if any new trees grew from the deprived soil, all the herbavores would be eating their young shoots instead of the itty-bitty grass blades. Once all the young trees are gone, the plant eaters'll die off and there'll be no meat for the carnivores! And then society will fall into disarray as we battle each other in post-apocolyptic wastelands for rations and gasoline with our superpowered death cars, seeing only by the light of cinematic explosions!

    Yeah. Think about it.

  • I've never understood peoples desire for a "perfect" green lawn. Its a uniform ugly. One color, not variation. They rarely use it for any other activity, it doesn't support as much nature, yet they must have it.

    Grass is fine on a golf course or a ballpark. It is worthless in front of your home.

    • You've never had kids have you?

      That patch of grass has traditionally been the perfect place for kids to play, romp with the dog/friends and camp out on summer nights.

      Even if you don't have kids, surrounding your house with grass has a measurable cooling effect on hot summer days (non-humid climates, of course).

      It's also, on an hour per square foot basis, one of the lowest maintanence groundcovers. Yes it has to be mowed weekly and weed-and-fed a couple times a year but consider the alternatives:
      Decorati
  • Would I like grass that grows to 2" tall and has built-in resistance to weed killer?

    That all depends...

    Will Monsanto sue me if I don't use their brand of glyphosate, that cost 10x as much?

    If it does grow to more than 2", just very slowly, will they sue me for not using their brand of lawnmower blades, in their brand of lawnmower, running on their brand of gasoline, all of which cost 10x as much as normal?

    If I go away for the summer and this grass actually goes to seed, with they sue me for millions
  • I've virtually no moral problems with genetic engineering as such. But when it comes to what you do with it, I favour genetic engineering in big mammals over "lower" life. If you modify a cow and it escapes, well, you'll probably get it back before it breeds and spreads its genes uncontrolably (Also, because it is more expensive per piece, you'll be more careful with it). The lower the life form, the faster things may go wrong, and it might happen in very "unexpected" ways. For example, AFAIK taxol and taxo
  • Read a newspaper. Today. Now. Then do it again tomorrow.

    The fact that so very many people, presumably intelligent and educated people, could not realize this article is satirical bodes ill for the ability of geeks to digest and influence popular culture and opinion.
  • This reminds me of GloFish [glofish.com], genetically engineered zebrafish which fluoresce light. Does anyone know if those are actually selling well?

    I want one, but they're banned in California. Gah!
  • doesn't cross-polinate the organic products that I buy. Best of all, keep it in complete isolation, in hot houses, wherever you want. When people start dying of weird diseases 30 years down the road I don't want to be affected.

    This reminds me that "lead is OK" stuff pushed by the oil industry, or "asbestos is fine", or "chlorine and benzene are not a danger", or "PCBs don't cause cancer", or "cigarettes aren't addictive". Quite frankly after all of this I'm surprised that some slashdotters place so much tr
  • by Embedded ( 105939 )
    Few People realize this but a Grass varient called Banff for the meadows it started from has been established by Agriculture Canada.

    Yes I once had a full lawn of it and it does grow to 2 1/2 inches and pretty much stays there. And it is a pretty, fine wonderful barefoot grass to boot!

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...