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

Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

longnow.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#101

Post by thriftwy »

kubb wrote: post #100
thriftwy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't view the creation of Russian Empire in a bad light - quite contrary, most other historical options would likely been worse, up and until 1917 at least. And as a Russian I believe that Russian Empire is a part of essential legacy of the humankind. Same with USSR despite its tragic and cruel history. With the assumption that "imperialistic" policy is an inherently bad thing you should not be entitled to those s…

You think that the EU was doing rocket strikes in Syria? I understand that Russians need to have a story to claim that their aggression on their neighbors is justified. But how contrived the story is is baffling.

EU was doing civil war in Syria, by astroturfing, endorsing, arming and financing "democratic opposition". It's not even the case of me doing the thinking.

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#102

Post by Qem »

groby_b wrote: post #68
chefkd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be a little tangential (sorry) how is the planet's carrying capacity calculated? The malthusian school of thought never made sense to me

Super-simplified explanation: Three things matter for carrying capacity. 1) How many calories does a human need to survive? 2) How many calories can we squeeze out of an acre of arable land? 3) How many acres of arable land are there? The first one is pretty much immutable. The third one is maybe somewhat mutable, but to a very limited extent. We can squabble how much, but let's assume it's fairly immutable. Large ch…

Did you take into account we waste a lot of resources planting crops to feed cattle?

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#103

Post by vbezhenar »

thriftwy wrote: post #92
jacobolus wrote: post #8

I recently came across the videos of Oregon State horticulturalist Andrew Millison, who is an amazingly clear presenter about permaculture: https://www.youtube.com/@amillison/videos For example, he has nice videos about chinampas in Mexico https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86gyW0vUmVs , a medieval Indian canal tunnel of a style found throughout Iran https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kplvq0C-cdE , efforts to return a Hawa…

Interestingly enough, the century XX saw a tremendous shift of agriculture from northern, wet lands to southern, sunny land. You could drain your aquifer but you could not add extra sun up north. I wonder if the trends reverses as aquifers are done with, and agriculture in places like US's original 13 colonies or middle Russian lands or Prussia or northern France becomes trendy again.

If global warming is real and weather will change, it's possible that some shifts. Cold places will become warmer.

It's also important to think about predictability. Issue with many lands is unpredictable weather. You put your grains in the soil, month later you've got -2C and grains are dead. I feel that global warming will not help here, but rather will make things worse: weather will be less predictable, even if average temperature goes up, local extremums will occur often.

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#104

Post by meristohm »

groby_b wrote: post #47
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want my own small farm, but I think that I want to make food instead of money. It's a different proposition, I suppose.

This is likely not an answer. Small-scale sustenance farming is not enough to support humanity at scale. (Without ag-industry methods, we're about 4 billion people past the planets carrying capacity) Also, if that small farm is something you dream about, I strongly suggest actually working on a farm for a while. It is surprisingly not fun. I know "I'm gonna have a farm" is a popular escapist things for many folks in…

Yeah, our population is in a petroleum-fueled boom and, as with all other species, it's okay that we go bust eventually. We could control that drawdown, or leave it to the wind. Or try to claw our way towards technological solutions, which feels like we consider ourselves gods. Or some combination; what technology can we reasonably keep through a population bust cycle?

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#105

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

cjk2 wrote: post #6
waynecochran wrote: post #4

How far are we from just saving the genetic code digitally and then synthesizing the seeds by arranging a sequence of amino acids to instantiate viable nucleotides? Is this still science fiction?

Seeds are more than just a program. They are more an embryo than a cell.

At least with plants we have a sufficient understanding of them that it's possible to propagate them from a single cell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropropagation

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#106

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

groby_b wrote: post #47
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want my own small farm, but I think that I want to make food instead of money. It's a different proposition, I suppose.

This is likely not an answer. Small-scale sustenance farming is not enough to support humanity at scale. (Without ag-industry methods, we're about 4 billion people past the planets carrying capacity) Also, if that small farm is something you dream about, I strongly suggest actually working on a farm for a while. It is surprisingly not fun. I know "I'm gonna have a farm" is a popular escapist things for many folks in…

> Also, if that small farm is something you dream about, I strongly suggest actually working on a farm for a while.

I've both done that, and I sit in an office chair 8 hours a day. Anyone who prefers the latter has a different set of maladaptive personality defects than I do.

> This is likely not an answer. Small-scale sustenance farming is not enough to support humanity at scale.

It's ok. No one really needs to think about that anymore. When fertility rates went sub-replacement, humanity became functionally extinct, at least in those regions. Everyone's planning a future for their species which it no longer has.

> I know "I'm gonna have a farm" is a popular escapist things for many folks in tech - it is for me as well, the fantasy is great

Not a fantasy. I'm a few weeks/months away from buying a combine. I have a particular model in mind (John Deere model 42), but the used market is a little difficult to deal with. I may end up paying a few thousand to have it shipped from out of state (or even Canada), but no one can tell me if it's narrow enough to fit on a flatbed trailer.

I have less of a clear idea about what tractor to pull it with, I really need something up around 100hp, something gen ii probably. A 4230 with a cab sounds nice, but it's like 9 gallons of diesel an hour. I'd grow sunflowers for the fuel, and I'm experimenting with a chloralkali machine for the soda lye (there are places not far away with salt springs, so I'm looking for real estate like that for salt). Currently assembling a larger machine I've got half-designed. Would use butanol instead of methanol.

Not sure I could survive in a place where all I can do and hope for is "a balcony with some houseplants". Sounds soul-crushing.

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#107

Post by MostlyStable »

genewitch wrote: post #88
MostlyStable wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant dead end in the sense that their genes aren't going anywhere. 90+% of home gardeners don't save seeds, and the few that do are almost certainly not preserving the strains they think they are since, most gardeners grow multiple varieties at the same time that are all getting cross pollinated. It was not meant to imply anything about the viability of the strain they are growing, many of which are fantastic heir…

even if they do get cross pollinated, if the seeds grow, who cares?

I'm not saying anyone should, but in the context of preserving particular strains and particular genetic diversity (which is what this article is about), if you are breeding willy nilly (which there is nothing wrong with, and can, as the other commenter mentioned, help you select for your very particular micro-conditions), you almost certainly aren't preserving whatever strain it is you started with.

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#108

Post by MostlyStable »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #83
MostlyStable wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant dead end in the sense that their genes aren't going anywhere. 90+% of home gardeners don't save seeds, and the few that do are almost certainly not preserving the strains they think they are since, most gardeners grow multiple varieties at the same time that are all getting cross pollinated. It was not meant to imply anything about the viability of the strain they are growing, many of which are fantastic heir…

I keep and grow as much seed as possible. It is the only way to adapt plants to your local environment and farming methods and needs. I get plants that are much easier to grow, then breed for taste or other features. Thats how the heirlooms were created. If you are growing grains and harvesting by hand eat the seeds from shorter plants. Taller plants are easier to handle. And give more straw for animal bedding. Talle…

Yes, I didn't mean to say it was impossible. Merely that the vast majority of home gardeners aren't doing it. If you have enough space to grow enough of something to keep a decent genetic pool going (which already excludes the vast majority of home gardeners), then it is certainly possible to either/or preserve a given strain or adapt a plant to your very specific micro conditions.

Most home gardeners can much more easily support the maintenance of old strains by buying heirloom seeds from breeders.

However, if one has the space, time, skills, and interest to do what you are doing, then by all means go ahead.

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#109

Post by [deleted] »

_yb2s wrote: post #82
groby_b wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is likely not an answer. Small-scale sustenance farming is not enough to support humanity at scale. (Without ag-industry methods, we're about 4 billion people past the planets carrying capacity) Also, if that small farm is something you dream about, I strongly suggest actually working on a farm for a while. It is surprisingly not fun. I know "I'm gonna have a farm" is a popular escapist things for many folks in…

Farming is easy and pays $$$$: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ysxzCoiu2gQ Actually, I love farm work. I grew up in the country and did quite a bit of farm work when I was younger. It felt great to be outdoors, and not have the constant massive stress I now have as a knowledge worker with ADHD. But it pays poorly and is hard on your body.

[deleted]

Re: Gene banks aren’t enough to save the world’s food

#110

Post by groby_b »

Qem wrote: post #102
groby_b wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super-simplified explanation: Three things matter for carrying capacity. 1) How many calories does a human need to survive? 2) How many calories can we squeeze out of an acre of arable land? 3) How many acres of arable land are there? The first one is pretty much immutable. The third one is maybe somewhat mutable, but to a very limited extent. We can squabble how much, but let's assume it's fairly immutable. Large ch…

Did you take into account we waste a lot of resources planting crops to feed cattle?

You see the "super-simplified" at the beginning of the explanation?

So, no.

Neither does that explanation account for overconsumption, food waste & spoilage, crop mixes, erosion & desertification, water supply shifts, etc...

It's a very basic upper bound. The number of people who could be fed in the best case.

Post reply on HN