I don’t follow. Surely GM seeds are just another variety. Monoculture isn’t a property of the seed, but of the application.
1 Like
No. Monsanto is interested in you buying their specific GM feed corn,
engineered for your rough global area (up to and including country-scale or
larger). ALL of your feed corn, as well as their glyphophosphate
herbicide. And so it goes, for every GM crop and its proprietor,
human-edible or not. Their products cover vast swathes of cropland.
Nor are many modern GM crops really appropriate for a "disaster-proofing"
setting. What, exactly, is glyphophosphate-resistant corn going to do for
anyone, in such a situation? You apparently have an inflated impression of
GM’s actual uses. Most disease resistance, for example — in fact, nearly
all — comes from traditional breeding and/or splicing methods, not GM
techniques, as well as most increases in yield.
1 Like
I understand that the corporate interests may be served by monoculture, but how is this a the property of the seed itself, and not of the application? I don’t have any particular “inflated impression” of the the benefits (or otherwise) of of GM seeds, but simply posit that they are another set of varieties that may warrant preservation, rather than ideological exclusion from seed banks.
1 Like
If the cause of the “disaster” is a pest that is only controlled by glyphospate, maybe quite a bit.
Nope. So far, the glyphosate “train” has resulted mainly in rapidly elevating usage of glyphosates; the pests simply become resistant over time, as as both plant and animal pests always have, I’ll note, to ANY poison. Over time, you end up needing astronomical amounts of the stuff, simply to “break even”. Even worse, it turns out weeds even trade genes between different species at times — much like bacteria are known to — thus spreading resistance even faster.
We haven’t come across your hypothetical weed, yet; in fact exactly the opposite, so it’s not a wonderful justification for that vicious cycle. Plus glyphosates very likely causes cancer (although that’s not certain) -.-’ . Even if not, it ends up being a net negative to a farmer’s bottom line.
Additionally, the technology and infrastructure to manufacture w/e witches’ brew is speced for any given GM’d, poison-resistant resistant crop (the vast majority of GM products) is something you’re assuming will be in place, if this seed bank is ever truly needed. That’s a very bold assumption.
Here’s a reasonably good general overview re: the glyphosate “train” from Harvard’s “Science in the News”: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/
I like this tidbit from the article:
[quote]Additionally, because many of the superweeds can still be killed by glyphosate if it is sprayed in higher doses, many farmers are spraying more glyphosate and other herbicides to combat the weeds. The attraction is that this is much less labor intensive than plowing and handpicking weeds out of the soil [9]. Consequently, the US Department of Agriculture has estimated that an additional 383 million pounds of herbicides have been used than if Roundup Ready crops were never introduced [6]. This increased use of glyphosate heightens the likelihood of higher concentrations of the chemical running off into nearby ecosystems. At these elevated concentrations, glyphosate may be capable of causing environmental damage.
[/quote]
So, everyone involved acting exactly as expected and predicted. The farmers are overusing the chemicals in violation of the vendor instructions with currently unknown consequences, the weeds are adapting faster than the business cycle, and the whole thing was always just a way to eliminate agricultural labor (i.e. jobs for people) from the git-go.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
