Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

sierraclub.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#81

Post by m0llusk »

zeristor wrote: post #67

So did this play a part in the demise of the Passenger Pigeon? It seems the pigeons ate the nuts, and the also plummeted in numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_chestnut

There are multiple factors involved with both collapses. Chestnut trees were planted in dense clusters in parks and along streets so their growth intermingled. This extreme unnatural density enabled pathogens to spread.

Carrier pigeons were delicious and easy eating. Rampant hunting had already crashed the population at that time.

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#82

Post by Kalium »

acomjean wrote: post #75
samatman wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, engineering corn to produce Bt toxin, which is harmless to mammals, such that less broad-spectrum insecticide must be applied to get the crop to harvest, seems like a straightforward win. The toxin only affects insects which actually eat the corn, so it shouldn't be contributing to the alarming crash in insect population we've been seeing worldwide.

They added BT-toxin to potatoes years ago. I think major buyers didn’t like it, organic growers were worried insects growing resistant to it (they spray it). But compared to the really toxic chemicals used in “regular” farming it seems like a win. A little old but pretty interesting piece on gmo crops, different farming techniques: one question the piece brings up, which is who is who if anyone is regulating these th…

> which is who is who if anyone is regulating these things for safety

Great question! Perhaps it's been asked before: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php

This seems like the most relevant bit:

> The FDA regulates the safety of all human and animal food products in the US (other than meat, poultry, and eggs), as well as drugs and biological products.

As to licensing:

It may be worth considering that while a quite jarring experience for a home gardener, the prospect of buying seed anew every year is likely a familiar one to most modern farmers.

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#83

Post by lxmorj »

Swizec wrote: post #55
teruakohatu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all mosquito spread disease or bite humans and the ones that do are not a major part of important ecosystems. When DEET was used heavily it didn't collapse any ecosystems. If we eliminate those species, the non-spreaders will fill the niche while eliminating major human suffering. It is not comparable to killing any sparrow sized bird.

As far as we know. My argument is that large chaotic systems are often poorly understood by us and we have gotten it wrong many times in the past. I agree that erradicating bad mosquitos feels like a win, but I personally don’t know if there’s any unforeseen effects.

We could maintain a few populations in labs and/or isolated areas. Inspects repopulate hella fast, so it’d be easy enough to undo such a project if we found that they were a lynchpin of some kind.

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#84

Post by lxmorj »

njharman wrote: post #79
nullserver wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a core reason many are freaked out by too much government. If a company screws up. It goes out of business. Others will take its place. If a government screws up, oh well.

Companies screwing up has caused way more harm than gov. Bhopal, lead gasoline, asbestos, tobacco industry, strike busting layoffs company towns, oil spills, ozone hole, greenhouse gases. On and on. Anyone who thinks gov is the enemy has been bamboozooled by corporate propaganda.

They are both collections of flawed humans. Accountability is necessary regardless of the collective noun you use.

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#85

Post by leipert »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #10
leipert wrote: post #6

Interesting, because in Europe we have Cameraria ohridella [0] which wreak havoc on horse chestnuts. The moth replicates like crazy and the only recourse is collecting and burning fallen leaves every year. Luckily it looks worse than it is for the trees, they loose their leaves in August, but by then most of a years photosynthesis is done ( just losing like 17%) Anyhow American chestnuts are bad hosts for the moths,…

Horse chestnuts and chestnuts are different genera, though both have "American" and "European" species. The American horse chestnut is often called the "buckeye". The nuts are vaguely reminiscent of each other, but the horse chestnuts and real chestnuts aren't closely related. This may seem pedantic, but it's sort of important, as real chestnuts are edible (and delicious), while horse chestnuts are toxic to human bei…

You are right and I should have known better. Didn’t read the former article.

In German we make the same distinction, sometimes referring to the real chestnut as Esskastanie (Food/edible-chestnut).

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#86

Post by XiJInPaddington »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #77
XiJInPaddington wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something is worth doing it's worth doing. I'm glad for example the people trying to cure various diseases don't have the characteristic that you call humility but I reckon is something else entirely.

Risk vs. reward Never risk the thing you can’t afford to lose to gain something you don’t need. Different when it comes to life ending sickness.

Now you're talking about something completely different than what you were talking about initially.

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#87

Post by imtringued »

njharman wrote: post #79
nullserver wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a core reason many are freaked out by too much government. If a company screws up. It goes out of business. Others will take its place. If a government screws up, oh well.

Companies screwing up has caused way more harm than gov. Bhopal, lead gasoline, asbestos, tobacco industry, strike busting layoffs company towns, oil spills, ozone hole, greenhouse gases. On and on. Anyone who thinks gov is the enemy has been bamboozooled by corporate propaganda.

>Anyone who thinks gov is the enemy has been bamboozooled by corporate propaganda.

This is how we get starving people and hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. Because the government repossess farms and gives the farm land to people who don't know or don't care about farming. The lack of food forces the "good" government to import food by printing money. Since the excess money is not being invested into food production it is causing stagflation and since the obligation to import food never goes away the rate of printing has to keep going up which ultimately results in hyperinflation.

If anything, governments are fully responsible for causing bad incentives and encouraging destructive behavior by companies. It's absolutely laughable that people think that setting the wrong incentives should be compensated by cooperative goodwill of 7 billion people when greed is a much more effective way of achieving good outcomes if the incentives are right. Especially since there aren't 7 billion selfless people on the planet.

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#88

Post by skillpass »

I hope similar efforts at genetic modification can save American ash trees, which are being wiped out by the Emerald Ash Borer.

In my childhood town in the Midwest my street was lined with massive 80 year old ashes that shaded and sheltered the neighborhood. Most of them have now died and been cut down.

Re: The demise and potential revival of the American chestnut

#89

Post by diggernet »

Swizec wrote: post #55
teruakohatu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all mosquito spread disease or bite humans and the ones that do are not a major part of important ecosystems. When DEET was used heavily it didn't collapse any ecosystems. If we eliminate those species, the non-spreaders will fill the niche while eliminating major human suffering. It is not comparable to killing any sparrow sized bird.

As far as we know. My argument is that large chaotic systems are often poorly understood by us and we have gotten it wrong many times in the past. I agree that erradicating bad mosquitos feels like a win, but I personally don’t know if there’s any unforeseen effects.

Importantly, the mosquito that is the major spreader of malaria is an invasive species in most of the world. So wiping out that species is actually correcting the ecosystem. Win-win.
Post reply on HN