Monsanto develops super fast growing pines (includes black and white pines)

[barrosinc]

This could really work for bonsais!

Cut the growing time 3X

www.monsanto.com/pages/increased-growing-trees.aspx


awesome!

(THIS WAS AN APRIL FOOLS DAY JOKE)

 

[GrimLore]

The link takes me to an error page... Looked around on the site and do not see reference to what you might mean

Grimmy

 

[Poink88]

Personally, I stay away from Monsanto as much as possible. I just do not like how they do business. It is close to impossible avoiding their GM products though.

 

[barrosinc]

ok... lame joke, back to work everybody

 

[jkd2572]

Personally, I stay away from Monsanto as much as possible. I just do not like how they do business. It is close to impossible avoiding their GM products though.

Without them we could not feed the world.

 

[Cypress]

Without them we could not feed the world.

Not true... Overproduction of food in first world countries (of course the US) actually increases the populations of third world countries thus increasing the number of people that need food thus increasing the number of people starving to death.

It's ok if you don't believe me, don't expect you to unless you feel compelled to actually educate yourself. "Ishmael" is a great read that addresses this issue, I highly recommend it. Great read. Population dynamics is a huge part of what I've studied, you should look into the concept of "carrying capacity" and how it relates to resource availability. Also, I'm unsure of what you mean by "world"??? I'm assuming the people living in this world? A world that provides for them and gets abused in return?

Before monsanto existed I'm pretty sure humans existed and most were able to feed themselves. And feeding Agent Orange to the entire country of vietnam and a good number of our own American soldiers that fought over there doesn't seem like a very beneficial thing to be feeding the world

Open your eyes. Think critically.

 

[Cypress]

But also! Great april fools post.

 

[brewmeister83]

Not true... Overproduction of food in first world countries (of course the US) actually increases the populations of third world countries thus increasing the number of people that need food thus increasing the number of people starving to death.

Don't forget inequalities in resource distribution. We can produce all the food we want, but if it doesn't get to where it needs to be then the heighten production means nothing. Wanna see what I mean? Take a trip to NY's produce selling district at the end of the day and look at the mountains of "fresh produce" that people, retail, and restaurants didn't buy just sitting in dumpsters b/c they weren't "pretty" enough to take home. I'd bet you $100 there's thousands of starving people around the country who wouldn't turn up their noses just because the strawberries weren't shinny and plump and perfect that day.

 

[Specialkayme]

I'd bet you $100 there's thousands of starving people around the country who wouldn't turn up their noses just because the strawberries weren't shinny and plump and perfect that day.

There are probably thousands of starving people in NYC, or the surrounding area, that wouldn't turn up their noses at those strawberries.

But then again, if the salesman gave away whatever strawberries he didn't sell at the end of the day, eventually fewer and fewer people would buy any strawberries, because they'd know they could get them for free at the end of the day. That would put the farmer out of business, and end up producing NO strawberries. Which, theoretically, would increase the price of the strawberries at the stand next to him. Which would limit the availability of strawberries to everyone.

So in a sense, having that salesman throw out his left over strawberries actually helps feed more people. At least in theory.

 

[brewmeister83]

There are probably thousands of starving people in NYC, or the surrounding area, that wouldn't turn up their noses at those strawberries.

But then again, if the salesman gave away whatever strawberries he didn't sell at the end of the day, eventually fewer and fewer people would buy any strawberries, because they'd know they could get them for free at the end of the day. That would put the farmer out of business, and end up producing NO strawberries. Which, theoretically, would increase the price of the strawberries at the stand next to him. Which would limit the availability of strawberries to everyone.

In theory, perhaps. But as we all know economic theory and reality can be two different things... I wonder what those starving people would think/say if you tried explaining to them that giving them the food no one else wants (and is going to waste anyway and is never going to be sold) is counterproductive to actually feeding them...

So in a sense, having that salesman throw out his left over strawberries actually helps feed more people.

You do realize the irony in what you said, right?

 

[barrosinc]

But also! Great april fools post.

hahaha thanks I bet you are the only one that found it funny LOL



But back to the issue, it would be awesome if this was true... imagine growing a pine that grew like weed! I mean three years and you could have a decent 10 year old tree.

 

[Specialkayme]

I wonder what those starving people would think/say if you tried explaining to them that giving them the food no one else wants (and is going to waste anyway and is never going to be sold) is counterproductive to actually feeding them...

The puzzle piece very rarely understands it's place in the puzzle.

You do realize the irony in what you said, right?

I realize the irony. But ironic or not, it doesn't make the statement incorrect.

 

[jkd2572]

Not true... Overproduction of food in first world countries (of course the US) actually increases the populations of third world countries thus increasing the number of people that need food thus increasing the number of people starving to death.

It's ok if you don't believe me, don't expect you to unless you feel compelled to actually educate yourself. "Ishmael" is a great read that addresses this issue, I highly recommend it. Great read. Population dynamics is a huge part of what I've studied, you should look into the concept of "carrying capacity" and how it relates to resource availability. Also, I'm unsure of what you mean by "world"??? I'm assuming the people living in this world? A world that provides for them and gets abused in return?

Before monsanto existed I'm pretty sure humans existed and most were able to feed themselves. And feeding Agent Orange to the entire country of vietnam and a good number of our own American soldiers that fought over there doesn't seem like a very beneficial thing to be feeding the world

Open your eyes. Think critically.

Exactly,
That's what I said. They feed the world. Of course if we let populations starve that would decrease the population. If that's your idea of population control then rock on. I was just stating something I have studied for 20 years, which is through science we have been able to grow more lbs of food on less acreage. Something that has to be done to survive. I'm not some hippy that says we should not be doing this, because if we did not people will starve to death. We have also been able to do the same in animal production. Of course with people starving to death the population would not grow. I guess we could also just bomb those countries we deem need less population. "Open your eyes. Come on every one knows we are running out of space. I'm just not into planned mass genocide. Hope you and your family eat well tonight. Mine will.

 

[Cypress]

Exactly,
That's what I said. They feed the world. Of course if we let populations starve that would decrease the population. If that's your idea of population control then rock on. I was just stating something I have studied for 20 years, which is through science we have been able to grow more lbs of food on less acreage. Something that has to be done to survive. I'm not some hippy that says we should not be doing this, because if we did not people will starve to death. We have also been able to do the same in animal production. Of course with people starving to death the population would not grow. I guess we could also just bomb those countries we deem need less population. "Open your eyes. Come on every one knows we are running out of space. I'm just not into planned mass genocide. Hope you and your family eat well tonight. Mine will.

Woooah there bud, before we get into bombing things and calling each other 'Hitler' lets just slow down here. You obviously missed the entire concept I was trying to introduce to you. It can be difficult to wrap your head around, for sure. And I'm not going on some bizarre idealistic rant either... I was just stating the reality of the situation. If you want to twist it into something ugly then it is apparent that you are looking at the world through some jaded lens. I'd rather seek the truth than bundle myself up in a warm lie.

Here's a couple paragraphs I pulled out of Ishmael where they are talking about food production... read them if you'd like. Makes you think at least.

"Famine isn't unique to humans. All species are subject to it everywhere in the world. When the population of any species outstrips its food resources, that population declines until it's once again in balance with its resources. Mother Culture says that humans should be exempt from that process, so when she finds a population that has outstripped its resources, she rushes in food from the outside, thus making it a certainty that there will be even more of them to starve in the next generation. Because the population is never allowed to decline to the point at which it can be supported by its own resources, famine becomes a chronic feature of their lives."

another paragraph from a few pages after that one:

"You need to take a step back from the problem in order to see it in global perspective. At present there are five and a half billion of you here, and, though millions of you are starving, you're producing enough food to feed six billion. And because you're producing enough food for six billion, it's a biological certainty that in three or four years there will be six billion of you. By that time, however (even though millions of you will still be starving), you'll be producing enough food for six and a half billion—which means that in another three or four years there will be six and a half billion. But by that time you'll be producing enough food for seven billion (even though millions of you will still be starving), which again means that in another three or four years there will be seven billion of you. In order to halt this process, you must face the fact that increasing food production doesn't feed your hungry, it only fuels your population explosion."

 

[jkd2572]

Reread my thread I'm not reading is mahal. Im in the business of feeding hungry people. Yes we will run out of room at some point. But those that care will keep increasing food production per acre of land available. Simple as that. If killing off a whole bunch of folks is not what you want please let me you know what your solution is? There actually is not one. The only reason for my first post is that there are companies that have been working on this problem for 50 years. I own farm land that has increased its yield by 50 % in the last 40 years. This has been done by good folks at good companies trying to solve the worlds problems. Even in your first world countries as you call them. OURS. USA. We could not be able to feed people what they want without what I'm talking about. Sure if we would have less people to feed it would be so much easier. We could all grow chickens and apples trees in our back yard. I would love to to know where you live and all of the products you hunt and grow to feed your family. Then ask a guy in down town any big city how he finds/ hunts and gathers the food for his family. And hunger and famine to animals i not special to humans. With animals they slowly die until their population dies to a population that survives their environment. This would happen to humans in the early 80's if left to nature. Even in the great USA. Fortunately we have figured out how to produce more per acre both plants and animals. As you go to the grocery store tomorrow to feed your family thank those that who not, but created. Feed uor your family. They worked very hard and it took very invested people to to such things.

 

[gergwebber]

Exactly,
through science we have been able to grow more lbs of food on less acreage. Something that has to be done to survive.

I thought we did this to boost profits and make peoples lives better? It is easy to say now, after 70+ years of the ag revolution, that we are doing it to survive, but that is too simple. It is not fair to ignore how we got here, or that our cheap grains depress' the markets of many under-developed countries making it cost prohibitive to grow their own food.

I don't like the idea that there is no milkweed growing in any grain field. It means im lucky to see one monarch in a season. ONE, where it was once taken for granted that there were thousands.

I also don't like the idea that monsanto can corner the whole grain market, and sue farmers whose seed was contaminated by round up ready genes blown to their fields on the wind.

but i don't like people starving either... so how do we serial engineer our way out of this one?
probably round up ready 3 will help?

 

[Cypress]

With animals they slowly die until their population dies to a population that survives their environment. This would happen to humans in the early 80's if left to nature. Even in the great USA.

Yea, the early 80's were a rough n tumble time weren't they?

 

[Poink88]

I also don't like the idea that monsanto can corner the whole grain market, and sue farmers whose seed was contaminated by round up ready genes blown to their fields on the wind.

This is the one that I hate about them the most. They should be made responsible to make sure their GM pollen doesn't leave their area! But they are bullies and have the funding to muscle their way through the political and legal channel....and squash small farmers to submission.

 

[edprocoat]

This is the one that I hate about them the most. They should be made responsible to make sure their GM pollen doesn't leave their area! But they are bullies and have the funding to muscle their way through the political and legal channel....and squash small farmers to submission.

That and maybe the fact that these new seeds are engineered so as not to leave the farmer with viablle seeds to replant the next year. This way its guarantees they have to buy new seeds each year to plant crops. In a worse case scenario farmers cut off from seed companies (war, natural disaster in a world crisis situation) there would be no crops.

ed

 

[brewmeister83]

"Famine isn't unique to humans. All species are subject to it everywhere in the world. When the population of any species outstrips its food resources, that population declines until it's once again in balance with its resources. Mother Culture says that humans should be exempt from that process, so when she finds a population that has outstripped its resources, she rushes in food from the outside, thus making it a certainty that there will be even more of them to starve in the next generation. Because the population is never allowed to decline to the point at which it can be supported by its own resources, famine becomes a chronic feature of their lives."

another paragraph from a few pages after that one:

"You need to take a step back from the problem in order to see it in global perspective. At present there are five and a half billion of you here, and, though millions of you are starving, you're producing enough food to feed six billion. And because you're producing enough food for six billion, it's a biological certainty that in three or four years there will be six billion of you. By that time, however (even though millions of you will still be starving), you'll be producing enough food for six and a half billion—which means that in another three or four years there will be six and a half billion. But by that time you'll be producing enough food for seven billion (even though millions of you will still be starving), which again means that in another three or four years there will be seven billion of you. In order to halt this process, you must face the fact that increasing food production doesn't feed your hungry, it only fuels your population explosion."

And yet, as deep and serious as this is, all I can think of is this...

" I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus." -Agent Smith, The Matrix

Sorry, couldn't resist