@freemo I was doing some reading on 'wild escape' from some types of GM Corn and Wheat, and typically they are out competed by wild strains because of how they're engineered- like to have herbicidal resistances.

Those resistances suck up energy and in environments where there aren't any herbicides the environment those plants without the resistance out compete the others.

But, you are correct. Domesticated species do not, typically, survive well in wholly wild environments.

@Surasanji Yes the bigger problem is from interbreeding early on. The scenario would be, say, a modified species where one of many modifications is beneficial in the wild and the other factors is not. It passes on that gene through interbreeding on one of its children but not the other qualities. that child may pick up that gene and spread it.

Again this hasnt been much of a problem yet, and generally most species arent at high risk of this like corn (which rarely even grows in the wild). But it is the only legitimate concern I can think of.

@freemo @Surasanji

I more or less agree... I mean, GMOs could be a pretty good tool, but they have often been used in combination with fertilizers and pesticides which are harming the soil and making it a desert quite quick. Other issues seen have been that GMOs have been heavily implemented, leading to the loss of biodiversity, and at the same time a more frail crop.

But this are problems with the implementation, not with gmos themselves, which so far haven't shown a single health or ecological hazard, AFAIK. So i agree, just wanted to toss couple of consideration more =)

@arteteco @freemo @surasanji  the GMO may not kill ya, but the glyphosate might. Technological salvation is a faith based proposition. The burden of proof on safety of novel organisms are on those introducing it. Cannot decouple the test of time.

@js290 @freemo @Surasanji

glyphosate is not related to GMOs by themselves, I think this is getting a bit out of track.

As I stated before, main problem for me is soil degradation and loss. There is no GMO right now that helps the soil, and that means that is not sustainable or regenerative in any way, so I'd look elsewhere for solution, ATM. But excluding as a matter of principle a technology is something I wouldn't do.

Where do you see technological salvation in this exchange of ideas?

@arteteco @freemo @surasanji  Monsanto seeds are "Round-Up Ready" so glyphosate is very much in the mix. There have been reports that that GMO yields are not better. Soil degradation is what annual, monocropping agriculture does. GMO & workerless farms are the technological next steps in an unsustainable and non-regenerative process.

@js290

That is why I said "by themselves". It is a matter of a certain kind of GMOs right now present, it's not how GMO has to be, it's just an example of it.

There are reports of GMOs giving better crops, there are reports of GMOs giving worse crops. It highly depends on what the person doing the report considers "good", what data s/he has and how it is evaluated. There is no consensus on what is the "right" way of doing it, just saying "gmo is better" or "worse" doesn't say much.

Why toss the workerless farms in the conversation? Isn't it difficult and big enough as it is? =D

@freemo @Surasanji

@arteteco @freemo @surasanji  GMO tries to decouple time. As the best engineer I studied with said in grad school, "coupled systems cannot be magically decoupled." Everything in Nature is coupled to varying degrees & definitely to time. Decoupling of coupled systems amounts to alchemy. It's important to be able to discern when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes using terms like "science", "progress", "technology" etc.

The solution to these difficult problems may be orthogonal to the direction we're headed in now.

@js290

Sorry, I don't understand what you just wrote... what do you mean by "decouple time"? And by "orthogonal to the direction"?

I'm not native English, or I just may be too ignorant on the matter to understand you =)

@freemo @Surasanji

@arteteco @freemo @surasanji  Here is an example of a system of first order, linear differential equations.

x′1=x1+2x2
x′2=3x1+2x2

We call this kind of system a coupled system since knowledge of x2
is required in order to find x1 and likewise knowledge of x1 is required to find x2. We will worry about how to go about solving these later. http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/SystemsDE.aspx

@js290 @freemo @Surasanji

Before calling myself out of the conversation, I'd like to at least understand the equation.

x'1 means x'*1? x1 is x*1? Why the *1?

@arteteco @freemo @surasanji You only need to know that all the variables affect each other to varying degrees and cannot be treated independently. This is fundamentally why GMOs are problematic. They are being treated independent of time (i.e. survival).

@js290 @freemo @arteteco In Math Orthogonal means right angles.

If you mean statistically independent that is a different kind of Orthogonal.

I do not believe that GMOs are being considered independent of nature. It is a part of the nature we create. According to this study, GM crops tend to use less herbicides and have higher yields, one would assume this would result in a less extreme environmental impact: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries."

@Surasanji @js290 @freemo

Thanks, I know what orthogonal means, I just don't understand it in the context.

I'd say couple of things here though. As always, I may be wrong, forgive me in that case, not looking for a fight and I am quite tired =D

This study is comparing, as I understand, the same crops with and without GMOs. Now, that is leading to a false double road, as we have many methods of cultivation. I have yet to see a comparison between an holistic managed grazing farm with silvopasture and a GMO corn crop. That I think would say far more.

The soil degradation is not taken into account, because in that case a few harvests won't do, you'll have to project it into 30, 50 years and see how much carbon you are going to need to produce the fertilizer, for new resistant weeds and how much more water, since the soil will likely be unable to keep it properly.

Nature is pretty, pretty complex. I wouldn't trust a statistical model that affirms it can predict with satisfying accuracy what happens when something so new as a GMO is injected in an ecosystem... let's be humble about this, we are still trying to understand the basics of how everything works.

@arteteco @js290 @freemo I do not know, for certain, the very long term effects of GMOs- but we are 25 years in now, and these studies are hitting that point.

Is there a better way? Yeah, probably. Is it viable to feed the population? Maybe.

I'm pretty in the school of GMOs are mostly good.

@surasanji @freemo @arteteco  "Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed." http://bit.ly/1ck0tnM

@js290 @freemo @arteteco Eh. I'd take what that guy says with a grain of salt. He's selling a book- and a product.

@surasanji @freemo @arteteco and you're not selling GMOs?

@js290 @freemo @arteteco Nope. I make no money from GMOs.

@surasanji @freemo @arteteco so you freely advocate for GMOs... sounds like something a useful idiot would do...

@surasanji @freemo @arteteco  "The Middle East today is what annual ag does."  http://bit.ly/1K3otw2

@arteteco the equations are derivatives. FODE implies that the derrivative contains the original function. In this case the derivative of x1 on the left and x1 on the right. The notation he chose is a bit confusing though.

A good real world example where that would occur would be a tall tower or bucket with water draining with a hole at the bottom. The volumn of water can be represented as V, the rate of change of the volumn of water (its derivative) would be V', which represents the rate at which water is draining from the bucket.

Because of the weight of the water the more water there is the faster it drains. So the value of V' depends on the value of V. Thus it would be represented by a FODE.

@js290 @Surasanji

@freemo
Thank you, now is way more clear! :)

@js290 @Surasanji

@arteteco @freemo @js290 Yes, that is a lot clearer when it comes to the math.

@arteteco @freemo @surasanji  For a given system, you cannot have optimal solutions that are orthogonal to each other. You made the right observation... anything that does not improve soil health cannot be part of the solution set. Orthogonality (mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality

@js290 @freemo @Surasanji I agree on the soil part, that is my main personal interest, but I think my training in math is too low to understand you...

I appreciate that you have taken to the time to explain your opinion to me nonetheless, it's clearly something you thought a lot about =)

@arteteco @freemo @surasanji  It was 20 years ago in grad school when the best engineer I studied with said, "coupled systems cannot be magically decoupled." It's only been within the last 5 years that I finally understood fundamentally what that meant. He also said "We don't study enough math" which is when I knew I was not going to survive a PhD program.

Understanding and observing the soil is the root/radical solution. Our health is coupled to the health of the Earth/soil. GMO is technological salvation, a faith based proposition.