Survival Seeds? Really?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Ok, so I just happen to notice this link about 'Survival Seeds'; seeds that's not been 'tampered with by man'. They're not hybrids that'll be sterile, buy our seeds in case of a 'meltdown'.

What really started making me think is reading it it goes on to say 'developed by so and so in 18XX'. Wait, that was tampered with. In fact, most vegetable foods have been bred for wanted qualities since man decided he was tired of mammoths trampling them and decided to farm.

They didn't just stop doing it in the 1800's, they've continued on, and as far as I'm aware they aren't all sterile, or even close to it. There should be plenty of breeds out there that make big, bountiful, hardship and insect resistance food.

So, in case of apocalyptic situations or the destruction of civilization I want to invest in OLD-style vegetable seeds, that haven't been bred for greater yield, hardiness or insect resistance because they haven't been improved for a couple hundred years?

Am I missing something?

[CynicalAvocado]

too bad the building they store them in will be underwater in event of polar meltdown

[Zexion]

Well the idea is that they haven't been contaminated.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Well the idea is that they haven't been contaminated.
...by? :smallconfused:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The idea is that new stuff = teh evuhls, so you obviously buy things from the industrial revolution, when the skies were cleaner. After all, London was famous for it's air at that time, wasn't it?

[The_JJ]

...by? :smallconfused:

A lot of GM seeds (e.g. most everything grown in bulk) are sterile. Almost all are under patent.

What, you think a company is going to spend millions to research a new breed of better/faster/stronger growing rice and then settle on selling one packet? Bah.

[Moff Chumley]

This is true, although it is possible to find good, more modern seeds that aren't sterile.

[Demon 997]

I believe that a bunch of modern seed types have been genetically modified so that they will not produce seeds, forcing farmers to buy new seeds every season. It might also be the idea that in a dangerous situation you want that is proven to not have any long run health effects.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I believe that a bunch of modern seed types have been genetically modified so that they will not produce seeds, forcing farmers to buy new seeds every season. It might also be the idea that in a dangerous situation you want that is proven to not have any long run health effects.
Ok, I don't want to start playing the X-files theme here, but do you have a link? I'd be very interested to read about that sort of thing.

[Zexion]

...by? :smallconfused:
Nuclear radiation, etc. Basically, if our ecology collapses, these seeds will allow us to hopefully restart from before everything screwed up.

[Innis Cabal]

Ok, I don't want to start playing the X-files theme here, but do you have a link? I'd be very interested to read about that sort of thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/us/saving-seeds-subjects-farmers-to-suits-over-patent.html

There's some stuff on it. Not the dead seeds, but on the patents

[Tirian]

Ok, I don't want to start playing the X-files theme here, but do you have a link? I'd be very interested to read about that sort of thing.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sterile+seeds&l=1

[Ego Slayer]

Contaminated by Monsanto walking in and buying the patents and creating GMO'd seeds out of freaking everything. :smallannoyed:

"High yield" and "resistant" speak to the demand of commercial agriculture... the variety of species used is ridiculously small compared to what is possible.

The Future of Food (its on Hulu I know) talks about this stuff, btw.

[Coidzor]

This is true, although it is possible to find good, more modern seeds that aren't sterile.

So how the heck are they getting into other people's fields and hybridizing to form the basis of patent/copyright violation then? :smallconfused:

[Ego Slayer]

So how the heck are they getting into other people's fields and hybridizing to form the basis of patent/copyright violation then? :smallconfused:
One, literally, the original seeds get blown into another field. Or, cross-pollination, making the offending gene findable should they feel like testing your damn field.

blah invisible text because the forum is all like "wtf doublepost wat"

[Quincunx]

The '1800s' bits are marketing ploys, since that's when you can start finding pulp-paper catalogues extolling the virtues of these (takes a deep breath for the Victorian marketing flourishes) seeds of unparalleled fecundity, scientifically selected from parent crops. . .(gasp!) ok can't go on, but the point is what was the peak of evolution then makes for 'heirloom' credentials now, just because it was in print.

It's not all bad, X-Files-style conspiracy marketing aside. If you're going to go to all the effort of gardening, why not grow something you can't just buy from the supermarket? Why not look for a seed that was bred for something other than crop yield and long shelf life? Why not try planting a seed of a plant your great-great-great-grandparents never even knew existed?

[Amiel]

Nuclear radiation, etc. Basically, if our ecology collapses, these seeds will allow us to hopefully restart from before everything screwed up.

The good thing about this is, if the food-bearing plants are irradiated enough to achieve a limited sapience yet retain their malleability, they could be their own sowers and harvesters. We could then farm the farmers.


In the near future, we probably wouldn't even need the concept of seeds; everything will be soylent green.

[742]

The '1800s' bits are marketing ploys, since that's when you can start finding pulp-paper catalogues extolling the virtues of these (takes a deep breath for the Victorian marketing flourishes) seeds of unparalleled fecundity, scientifically selected from parent crops. . .(gasp!) ok can't go on, but the point is what was the peak of evolution then makes for 'heirloom' credentials now, just because it was in print.

It's not all bad, X-Files-style conspiracy marketing aside. If you're going to go to all the effort of gardening, why not grow something you can't just buy from the supermarket? Why not look for a seed that was bred for something other than crop yield and long shelf life? Why not try planting a seed of a plant your great-great-great-grandparents never even knew existed?

because that would be cool, and cool things are bad*.
*to the type of people who buy overpriced emergency seeds for the coming apocalypse that will absolutely occur in 2012

[Ravens_cry]

So they are selling G.E.C.K's now?

[Mathis]

If you are scared about a loss of a survivable gene pool for seeds, you need worry no more. Us norwegians got your back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault

[Fri]

And well, isn't the problem with a lot of new cultivars of plants is that they're too uh... what's the phrase? uniform?

Like cavendish banana. Nowadays, it's most, if not all bananas that's produced in the world. Cavendish banana tastes good, resistant to disease, and so on. But the problem is, when one disease manages to get into them, it'll ruin all cavendish bananas in the world because they all are basically like clones or something and we'll face worldwide banana shortage.

Old varieties of bananas are more... varied, if you get what I mean.

[Teddy]

And well, isn't the problem with a lot of new cultivars of plants is that they're too uh... what's the phrase? uniform?

Like cavendish banana. Nowadays, it's most, if not all bananas that's produced in the world. Cavendish banana tastes good, resistant to disease, and so on. But the problem is, when one disease manages to get into them, it'll ruin all cavendish bananas in the world because they all are basically like clones or something and we'll face worldwide banana shortage.

Old varieties of bananas are more... varied, if you get what I mean.

Well, the disease has to get into all of them to ruin all of them. Sure, a lot of banana plantations could be ruined, but I doubt it would take long before they would be up and running again. Several years for the new plants to grow, sure, but not longer than that.

[Tirian]

Well, the disease has to get into all of them to ruin all of them. Sure, a lot of banana plantations could be ruined, but I doubt it would take long before they would be up and running again. Several years for the new plants to grow, sure, but not longer than that.

A banana comes from a tree. If a banana plantation is wiped out, it takes at least as long as it takes to grow a tree to maturity before you have more fruit. And if it's a disease that wipes out every banana plantation in Brazil before it is brought under control, then you'd better find another source for your potassium for an entire generation.

And that's probably not as rare as you'd like it to be. Fruit flies get everywhere, moths and locusts get everywhere. Even if it was something that wasn't particularly mobile, there is significant transportation going on even between rival plantations -- the trucks that drop off the fertilizer and pick up the bananas, the outsourced teams of workers when the harvest is ready, and so on.

Curiously, most of these risks won't exist after the apocalypse, so there might not be a reason why you wouldn't want to grow a modern freakshow turkey instead of one of the ones that could survive in the wild. You'll appreciate the better yield and the drought-resistance and you don't have to worry about the things that keeps agribusiness executives up at night.

[leakingpen]

Doesn't exist. Every plant we use for large scale food production has been crossbred for exactly those traits. GMO is simply a quicker way to do so, to bring in just the positive traits and not negative. But we've been doing it since we started agriculture. Truly wild plants have low yields, and worse taste.

That said, any veggie seeds or herbs that you buy in the store are more than likely to be breedable seeds. The gmo seeds get sold wholesale to food producers, not the home gardener.

Also, there ARE gmo seeds that are not breed locked. Not every GMO company is Monsanto. In addition, there are groups out there looking to make their own GMO plants for free distribution. Its one of the subgroups of the DIY Biotech movement.



Ohh, just noticed that you were using sarcasm in the first post. I was reading your post as a request. never mind.

[Trog]

Yup! You needs the seeds if you want to survive:


http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100328043014/zelda/images/e/e9/Ember_Seed.png http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100328043009/zelda/images/b/b2/Scent_Seed.png http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100328043011/zelda/images/f/f2/Mystery_Seed.png http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100328043005/zelda/images/4/49/Pegasus_Seed_%28Oracle_of_Ages_and_Seasons%29.png http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100328042961/zelda/images/4/4c/Gale_Seed.png

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091118232032/zelda/images/thumb/7/77/Link_with_Ember_Seed.png/346px-Link_with_Ember_Seed.png

Careful... the Ember ones are hot. :smallwink:

[Tirian]

So, in case of apocalyptic situations or the destruction of civilization I want to invest in OLD-style vegetable seeds, that haven't been bred for greater yield, hardiness or insect resistance because they haven't been improved for a couple hundred years?

Am I missing something?

I generally agree with you that progress is good, but you are missing some things. In case of TEOTWAWKI, there will be no need to grow plants that are specifically resistant to Round-Up, because there won't be any more Round-Up. And, in general, you will probably want a diverse selection of strains in your garden instead of a single breed that is specifically sold to you to prevail in expected 2010 conditions, because you're about to be going back to the olden times of the plants doing their own natural selection to adapt to the specific environment of your garden and how it changes over time.

Long story short, in our civilization we are sufficiently privileged that we have outsourced our plant breeding to experts, and if our fields suffer a TPK then we can just go to the store and buy new seeds next season. In a dark and unknown future with no experts and no stores, learning that NONE of your seeds will grow would be a catastrophe, and so it makes some sense that you want to cover your bets to minimize the chances of that event and trade some yield for diversity.

[leakingpen]

If our fields suffer a TPK. Awesome. I'm now using that term when I lose a crop. (Backyard/container gardener)

Heavily agreed on the diversity though. A single line of seeds is likely to be genetically identical enough to cause inbreeding problems down the line, if we had to rebuild civilization from scrap.

[Ravens_cry]

A banana comes from a tree. If a banana plantation is wiped out, it takes at least as long as it takes to grow a tree to maturity before you have more fruit. And if it's a disease that wipes out every banana plantation in Brazil before it is brought under control, then you'd better find another source for your potassium for an entire generation.

Not really, Bannaa grow on, well it's not a tree. It's as BIG as a tree, but it grows much, much faster. Still, it would be a few years at least to get everything sorted out, but banana stalks grow very quickly.

[Teddy]

Heavily agreed on the diversity though. A single line of seeds is likely to be genetically identical enough to cause inbreeding problems down the line, if we had to rebuild civilization from scrap.

That would require almost all the seeds to carry the same faulty gene. If there is something the breeding should have taken care of, then it's faulty genes. I don't think inbreeding would be your main problem.

[Vizzerdrix]

Problems gonna be finding someplace to grow them seeds. Digging up a parking lot ain't gonna be enough space to feed more than a few families. And that dirk is gonna be dirty. Bucket farming has its problems too. Someone could just sneak in and take your plants.

[Don Julio Anejo]

The thing is... fertile GMO seeds are dangerous because of cross-pollination. Monsanto isn't just doing it to protect their patents (and by the way, they're not as much of an evil company as people make them out to be, hippies who go around saying how evil they are omit half the story, like how farmers who claimed "cross-pollination from neighbouring fields" have 95% of their crop as Monsanto seeds).

They're also doing it to make sure GMO corn doesn't interbreed with non-GMO corn, which can have consequences down the line that we have no way of predicting (i.e. mutant plants toxic to humans or something). This way were anything to happen, the seeds will breed themselves out in at most 2 generations.

It's the non-locked seeds that are a bigger danger to the environment.

[Jimorian]

That would require almost all the seeds to carry the same faulty gene. If there is something the breeding should have taken care of, then it's faulty genes. I don't think inbreeding would be your main problem.

Here's the thing: we THINK that we've bred new strains that don't have any faults. But if we find out that we made a big mistake that makes most of the modern wheat varieties vulnerable to a new disease for instance, it's MUCH better to be able to start creating new hybrids from "original" seed stock sources, rather than building off of more recent sources that may have some of the same vulnerability traits.

Or we may find out that a gene we've been working to get rid of might be more important than we thought, so we need to be able to get it back into new strains.

So dismissing the need to have as many old strains as possible in our library of seed/gene choices is extremely dangerous and shortsighted.

[Teddy]

Here's the thing: we THINK that we've bred new strains that don't have any faults. But if we find out that we made a big mistake that makes most of the modern wheat varieties vulnerable to a new disease for instance, it's MUCH better to be able to start creating new hybrids from "original" seed stock sources, rather than building off of more recent sources that may have some of the same vulnerability traits.

Or we may find out that a gene we've been working to get rid of might be more important than we thought, so we need to be able to get it back into new strains.

So dismissing the need to have as many old strains as possible in our library of seed/gene choices is extremely dangerous and shortsighted.

Well, on post-apocalyptic Earth, crop diseases would be a much smaller problem, as they would have it significantly harder to spread. Therefore, I would much rather be in possession of a modern seed that is resistent to pretty much every disease that we know of, but might be vulnerable to some unknown one, than a less resistant but more divesified seed when the first seed also is more draught resistant and produces greater yields.

In our modern western world, such a disease would strike much harder, but we aren't actually using only one type of seed. And the western world would probably survive such a blow pretty well anyway. Now, if it happened to one of the poorer countries, then it would be a catastrophy, but on the other hand, they haven't got the same thoroughbred seeds as we do, for better or worse.

[skywalker]

The thing is... fertile GMO seeds are dangerous because of cross-pollination. Monsanto isn't just doing it to protect their patents (and by the way, they're not as much of an evil company as people make them out to be, hippies who go around saying how evil they are omit half the story, like how farmers who claimed "cross-pollination from neighbouring fields" have 95% of their crop as Monsanto seeds).

You know, I know way too many farmers who have beef with Monsanto to believe this offhand. I agree that not every crazy on a crusade against the company knows what they're doing, but some of this stuff really is wacky.

The issue is that they are being allowed to patent something that cannot be easily controlled. You can't accidentally print someone else's book as your own. You can easily have Monsanto seed blow into your field and start growing. While obviously some people are off their rockers, it's also pretty cut-and-dried that suing someone over a wayward corn crop is simply predatory behavior.

Your argument about "95%" doesn't really make much headway because the hybridization going on is exactly what those farmers are decrying. To find Monsanto markers in your crop doesn't require your crop to have started from Monsanto seeds at all.

The other issue is with the "dead seeds," whose crops produce unusable seed. I again respect Monsanto's right to earn profit from their hard work and research, but they are going against a paradigm that is literally ancient, and it is easy to correlate as another symptom of "modern consumer culture."

I'm not saying Monsanto are evil per se, but the desire to control something that can't easily be controlled, and the sort of "colonialism" they seem to be involved in seems less than scrupulous. On top of that you have a group of people (farmers) who are notoriously independent. Any attempt to screw with tradition (including the tradition of gathering next year's seed from this year's harvest) or to make them pay more, or both, is going to piss these people off.


Well, on post-apocalyptic Earth, crop diseases would be a much smaller problem, as they would have it significantly harder to spread. Therefore, I would much rather be in possession of a modern seed that is resistent to pretty much every disease that we know of, but might be vulnerable to some unknown one, than a less resistant but more divesified seed when the first seed also is more draught resistant and produces greater yields.

There are also a number of "intermediate scenarios" in which we experience partial societal collapse, but not anything like an apocalypse. In this situation, you could see a more powerful Monsanto pushing the government (or private contractors, depending on the severity of your intermediate scenario) to make life hell for those who use their seeds in any manner they deem unfit. That's scary to a lot of people.

There is also the issue (as has been discussed) of reusability. In a truly post-apocalyptic scenario, a seed that produces really crappy food for... potentially ever is a lot more useful than a seed that produces rather tasty food for a year.

I know several really smart people who are investing in heirloom seeds, not just because of their potential use as a food source, but also as a trade good, in a potential "situation." No one will be interested in your gold bar, they argue, but everybody's gotta eat.

[Maelstrom]

The difference is hybrid and heirloom/open-pollinated seeds, not necessarily GMO.

Problem with many hybrid plants/seeds on the market today (f1, f2, etc -- where f stands for filial) is the fruits/vegetables they produce have seeds that will generally not pass on the same characteristics of the parent plant -- so you most likely will not get what you are expecting.

So while you may be getting great harvest/disease control/pest resistance/etc from the hybrid seed, in the long run it is not sustainable.

Heirloom seeds breed true to type without fail (though a mutation is always a possibility) and are a source for your own possible hybrids.

BTW, these "survival seed" packs are generally over priced/over hyped scams, but I can tell by your tone that you know that (rocket science and all that)...

[Teddy]

There are also a number of "intermediate scenarios" in which we experience partial societal collapse, but not anything like an apocalypse. In this situation, you could see a more powerful Monsanto pushing the government (or private contractors, depending on the severity of your intermediate scenario) to make life hell for those who use their seeds in any manner they deem unfit. That's scary to a lot of people.

There is also the issue (as has been discussed) of reusability. In a truly post-apocalyptic scenario, a seed that produces really crappy food for... potentially ever is a lot more useful than a seed that produces rather tasty food for a year.

I know several really smart people who are investing in heirloom seeds, not just because of their potential use as a food source, but also as a trade good, in a potential "situation." No one will be interested in your gold bar, they argue, but everybody's gotta eat.

Of course I'm not talking about genetically modified seeds that produce sterile plants. Not everything that we plant in our soil is GMO, you know. I really hope no one decides on using sterile seeds on post-apocalyptic Earth (unless, of course, I get to inherit the land after he/she's starved to death... :smallwink:). Also, I think there are a lot better things to do than to prepare for the apocalyps, like, trying to prevent it or something...

[Kislath]

Well, that's all very nice, but preventing it simply isn't an option anymore. It's gonna happen, and precisely because no one has the stomach to do what must be done to prevent it.

[Teddy]

Well, that's all very nice, but preventing it simply isn't an option anymore. It's gonna happen, and precisely because no one has the stomach to do what must be done to prevent it.

I sense a lot of misanthropy here. :smallamused:

Well, I'm more of an optimistic person over all, and I don't think that there will be this apocalypse that people imagine. Sure, there will be hard years ahead of us, but as the problems grow more threatening, the actions to prevent them will speed up as well. We might not succeede at it completely, but I'm pretty optimistic that we'll win at least a Pyrrhic victory in the end.

After all, humanity has repeatedly shown its inability to wipe its own existence off the surface of Earth, and I don't think we'll manage to do that any time soon.

[skywalker]

Also, I think there are a lot better things to do than to prepare for the apocalyps, like, trying to prevent it or something...

Haha, the silly little meatbag thinks it can have an impact on its greater surroundings! Ah, how cute.

But seriously, these people have long ago given up trying to affect the future. They just want to be ready for it. That's what survivalism is: even if you hope and work for the best, you should still prepare for the worst.

[leakingpen]

For example on sources, I just made pumpkin pie with some sugar pie pumpkins (they get about 4-5 pounds, smaller than a basketball. ) and kept some of the seeds to grow vines next year.

Teddy, no no, by inbreeding I'm referring to the fact that many plants WON'T. The pollen won't fertilize unless its genetically dissimilar enough.

Vizz, should all this go down, most people using said seeds will have run for the hills. the City is the WORST place to be when it all goes to hell.

One issue with stockpiling seeds, though, is that they are good for a few years TOPS in storage. you need to change them out every now and then.

[Teddy]

Teddy, no no, by inbreeding I'm referring to the fact that many plants WON'T. The pollen won't fertilize unless its genetically dissimilar enough.

Then you might try to explain to me how we get any grain to harvest at all, since what we harvest is fertilized seeds. :smallannoyed:

Now, I understand that you might be talking about infertility appearing somewhere down the line, which, if this is the case, you might care to explain anyway, since, apparently, I'm too lazy to google it. Yes, I am inviting a lmgtfy link. :smallwink:

[HalfTangible]

Well, that's all very nice, but preventing it simply isn't an option anymore. It's gonna happen, and precisely because no one has the stomach to do what must be done to prevent it.
No, the world is going to end because everything ends and nobody can teleport the planet to the Goldilocks Zone of another star.

... Yes, i'm serious >.>

That's about the only way you can actually stop the world from ending, and that's assuming you can prevent the 8 billion other ways the world could end, like an asteroid, volcanic activity, etc etc.

Hell, the environment would've killed us on it's own too. Ice Age, anybody? It's not like that happened only once.

It could NEVER have been prevented. And i am sick of hearing people say it could have been and it's all our faults that we're going to die.

[raitalin]

Oh yeah, there *will* be an apocalypse of some sort at some point.Without human input there's asteroid impact, supervolcano eruptions and climate change.

And then there's all the other crazy things that can happen nearby in space and kill most of us, like supernova, rogue planets and gamma ray bursts.

And humans have nuclear and biotechnologies that could do the trick as well.

[leakingpen]

Then you might try to explain to me how we get any grain to harvest at all, since what we harvest is fertilized seeds. :smallannoyed:

Now, I understand that you might be talking about infertility appearing somewhere down the line, which, if this is the case, you might care to explain anyway, since, apparently, I'm too lazy to google it. Yes, I am inviting a lmgtfy link. :smallwink:

The fact that you plant fertilized seeds from several different plants. its called cross pollination.

[Teddy]

The fact that you plant fertilized seeds from several different plants. its called cross pollination.

So, where does the infertility appear then?

[leakingpen]

if every plant in the field is genetically identical enough, then they wont fertilize each other. (which means no wheat. and no seeds for the next generation. )

honestly, its usually not a problem for grains, unless you are only growing one or two, UNLESS, you have genetically identical seeds (ie, manufactured).

but if you start with only a handful of seeds, its likely to happen after a few generations.

[Obrysii]

and by the way, they're not as much of an evil company as people make them out to be,

Actually, they're evil because of the stuff they do with licensing and farmers in other countries. 'Use our seeds, which you must buy yearly, or we'll sue you into the ground' sort of stuff. And the other political stuff they do. It's not a good company morally or ethically.

But that's neither here nor there.

OP, those seeds you mention have come out of the fear that the genetically modified seeds are not viable long-term, which if you're gonna go by the studies - they aren't. They don't tend to maintain viability through multiple generations (wouldn't be profitable to monsanto if they were).

Natural, ie, modified through selection rather than genetic tinkering, seeds tend to maintain viability through generations.

[Ravens_cry]

Natural, ie, modified through selection rather than genetic tinkering, seeds tend to maintain viability through generations.
<expletive redacted/>
Those seeds are NOT natural. Selection, though a slower process, has had HUGE impacts on the plants they were derived from.
This plant is thought by by scientists to be corn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teosinte), naturally, before we tinkered with it by the processes of trial and error and selective breeding. Just because this is an ancient technology doesn't make it any less artificial.
Now, one can debate and discuss the ethics and morals of genetic engineering, one can certainly discuss the ethics and morals of the companies using it in their products. But do not misuse the word 'natural' by calling human efforts plant domestication that.

[Obrysii]

<expletive redacted/>
Those seeds are NOT natural. Selection, though a slower process, has had HUGE impacts on the plants they were derived from.

You must have misunderstood me.

"Natural" being using natural mechanisms of natural selection - in the same sense humans are naturally selected and thus evolved from our ancestors.

Genetically modified plants, however, as such as sold by Monsanto, are not the same.

[Ravens_cry]

You must have misunderstood me.

"Natural" being using natural mechanisms of natural selection - in the same sense humans are naturally selected and thus evolved from our ancestors.

Genetically modified plants, however, as such as sold by Monsanto, are not the same.
My point is pre-GE plants are no more natural then the GE varieties, and the undomesticated plants they were based on are useless for agricultural purposes, except as possible stock for further breeding.
So saying the undomesticated plants maintain viability is irrelevant.

[Maelstrom]

My point is pre-GE plants are no more natural then the GE varieties, and the undomesticated plants they were based on are useless for agricultural purposes, except as possible stock for further breeding.
So saying the undomesticated plants maintain viability is irrelevant.

I beg to differ.

Selecting strains of plant and interbreeding them is a naturally occurring process that we, as man, have used to our advantage.

When you take snippets of DNA from a different *KINGDOM* of an organism (for example, a BACTERIA) and merge it with say, corn...that, my friend, is unnatural, no matter what jokes may reference the offspring of a fungus and a rabbit...

[Kislath]

For reasons unknown, I can only make very short posts here, which is a problem. There IS one HUGE fundamental difference that makes all the difference, and it's BAD. Alas, I can't fit it in this post, so watch for a later post.

[Obrysii]

My point is pre-GE plants are no more natural then the GE varieties, and the undomesticated plants they were based on are useless for agricultural purposes, except as possible stock for further breeding.
So saying the undomesticated plants maintain viability is irrelevant.

Terminator seeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Technology) are not natural, and cannot exist in nature (for more than one generation, at least).

This is what makes Monsanto evil. The usage of such technology essentially forces consumer to buy seeds yearly from them.

Yes, I'm aware they claim they do not employ such technologies but considering the controversies they have in other countries, and the fact they have implied continued development of said technology, strongly implies that it is in fact in usage.

These Survival Seeds produce viable offspring and can continue to reproduce - they aren't essentially sterile.

[Kislath]

Their method of gene insertion is sloppy and haphazard at best, resulting in a lot of broken genes giving wonky results, many of them quite harmful. People have died.

[Ravens_cry]

And as o thers have pointed out, letting GE plants crossbreed with other plants has it's own dangers. Also, they put a lot money and and effort into the other features as well, they have the right to a return on that investment. Many of this comp And it's not much different from Hybrid seeds that lost a lot of their vigour when they were planted 2nd generation..
Also, you seem to be swinging between natural as meaning non-domesticted, which I can agree with, but these 'Survival Seeds' are not that, and non-GE domesticated plants, which is a disgusting misuse of the word 'natural'. Humans came along and started breeding plants and animals, artificially selecting traits that a suited them, with no thought to any suitability for a wild creature. It's no more natural then a nuke, it's just really old technology.
There is no herds of Wild Bassets, and these survival seeds are, while certainly important for providing genetic diversity, are NOT Natural, and never existed in Nature.
Whether the company that makes them does other evils is not the point I am arguing here. I am saying your misusing the word natural.

[Obrysii]

I am saying your misusing the word natural.

I am not sure on the definition of 'natural' you are using.

Natural = through natural processes, such as selective breeding, a new crop appears.

Not natural = through splicing and altering DNA within a generation to create specific wants that could not have come about through selective breeding.

If you want to argue based on your definition of natural, humans are not natural. Nothing on earth is natural as everything has been selectively bred.

[Ravens_cry]

I am not sure on the definition of 'natural' you are using.

Natural = through natural processes, such as selective breeding, a new crop appears.

Not natural = through splicing and altering DNA within a generation to create specific wants that could not have come about through selective breeding.

If you want to argue based on your definition of natural, humans are not natural. Nothing on earth is natural as everything has been selectively bred.
Selective breeding is not a natural process. It is technology, the technology that allowed us to build cities, civilisations. You're confusing selective breeding and the survival of the fittest, where the creatures 'decide' what traits get carried forward by the laws of survival. Survival of the fittest is nature blindly breeding traits that allow the creature to survive, a faster runner, a stronger bite, better eyes. Selective breeding is selecting the traits that serve US, better yields on crops, tastier fruit, more milk fat for more butter.

[leakingpen]

You must have misunderstood me.

"Natural" being using natural mechanisms of natural selection - in the same sense humans are naturally selected and thus evolved from our ancestors.

Genetically modified plants, however, as such as sold by Monsanto, are not the same.

They were not naturally selected, they were human selected.


Also, there are NO known instances of people dying from GMO seeds. Not ONE that was verified. If you have a source on such a thing, please provide it.

[Kislath]

Seeds Of Deception is a nifty little book that everyone should be forced to read. The part about the Flavrsavr tomato alone will make you want to have someone executed for crimes against humanity. All of these new food allergies so many are having came from somewhere.

[leakingpen]

kislath, intolerance, not allergies.

They were always there, people just dealt with it most often. Also, the rise of formula and lowering of breastfeeding plays a BIG part too.

[Teddy]

Selective breeding is not a natural process. It is technology, the technology that allowed us to build cities, civilisations. You're confusing selective breeding and the survival of the fittest, where the creatures 'decide' what traits get carried forward by the laws of survival. Survival of the fittest is nature blindly breeding traits that allow the creature to survive, a faster runner, a stronger bite, better eyes. Selective breeding is selecting the traits that serve US, better yields on crops, tastier fruit, more milk fat for more butter.

Actually, selective breeding is a form of survival of the fittest. The fittest in this case being those who we humans like the most. It's not entirely unlike how flowers have adapted to the likings of insects by producing sweet nectar: the ones that produces the sweetest nectar gets visited by the most pollinating insects.

[Ravens_cry]

Actually, selective breeding is a form of survival of the fittest. The fittest in this case being those who we humans like the most. It's not entirely unlike how flowers have adapted to the likings of insects by producing sweet nectar: the ones that produces the sweetest nectar gets visited by the most pollinating insects.
It is still a technology, even life has done before on instinct, considering it can produce things that can 'never survive in the wild', like seedless grapes and bananas.

[Teddy]

It is still a technology, even life has done before on instinct, considering it can produce things that can 'never survive in the wild', like seedless grapes and bananas.

But they do. They survive in the wild parts of the world where the humans roam. Nectar producing flowers would never survive in the wild if they didn't carney to the insects, modern seeds wouldn't survive if they didn't carney to us humans.

To be honest, and in some slightly weird definition of the word, the plants (and animals) are exploiting us just as much as we exploit them, by making us strive for their survival. Yeah, I know that evolution doesn't work that way, but still.

[Obrysii]

To be honest, and in some slightly weird definition of the word, the plants (and animals) are exploiting us just as much as we exploit them, by making us strive for their survival. Yeah, I know that evolution doesn't work that way, but still.

It does, to some extent, work that way. Plants exploit taste buds to move their seeds - fruits are sweet to entice animals to eat them; the seeds pass through the digestive tract and are deposited elsewhere.

A fun factoid is peppers. The spicy flavor we taste is capsaicin. Most mammals find this taste to be terrible, and that's intended - pepper seeds can't survive being smashed up by molars.

Birds can't taste capsaicin - they don't have the taste buds for them. They don't have teeth that can smash up the seeds, either.

[Tirian]

But it's not that the plants are motivated in a conscious manner to have seeds that have different tastes to different species. It's the the plants that didn't have that adaptation didn't survive long enough for civilized humans to decide that they were tasty enough to be included in agriculture.

[Teddy]

It does, to some extent, work that way. Plants exploit taste buds to move their seeds - fruits are sweet to entice animals to eat them; the seeds pass through the digestive tract and are deposited elsewhere.

A fun factoid is peppers. The spicy flavor we taste is capsaicin. Most mammals find this taste to be terrible, and that's intended - pepper seeds can't survive being smashed up by molars.

Birds can't taste capsaicin - they don't have the taste buds for them. They don't have teeth that can smash up the seeds, either.

Well, this is what I was referring to, but as opposed to us selectively chosing the seeds which we like the most, evolution creates both good and bad individuals, where the bad ones gets killed and the good ones gets to reproduce, statistically speaking. Any given individual hasn't got any option to alter wether it wants to exploit us or not, it just does (or doesn't).

[Ragitsu]

Dude, your avatar looks like the lovechild of Meatwad and Jaws.

[chiasaur11]

So they are selling G.E.C.K's now?

The military is working on PIP boys and power armor.

I don't know about you, but when Vault Tec goes public, I am INVESTING.

[Thes Hunter]

Plants are boring... what I really need for any upcoming apocalypse (Zombie, snow or otherwise) is animals untouched by man!

I can't truck will all that unnatural animal husbandry stuff, making pigs so big they can barely stand, and horses big enough to accept a man in FULL PLATE, I mean that just ain't right.

So it's time to go back to wolves, because dogs just won't be good enough with the end times come.

[Teddy]

Plants are boring... what I really need for any upcoming apocalypse (Zombie, snow or otherwise) is animals untouched by man!

I can't truck will all that unnatural animal husbandry stuff, making pigs so big they can barely stand, and horses big enough to accept a man in FULL PLATE, I mean that just ain't right.

So it's time to go back to wolves, because dogs just won't be good enough with the end times come.

Plants aren't boring. When the zombies come to my garden, they will defend my house, not some lousy dog or the like.

Also, a true heavy warhorse should be able to carry a full plate barding for itself too, just saying...

Now, undomesticated wolves aren't that fit for us humans, since they won't follow commands and be generally agressive. There are bound to be dog races that are better fitted for the post-apocalyptic Earth (but it certainly won't be the chihuahua).

Also, the apocalyps won't turn Earth into dangerous wilds with ferocious animals roaming around everywhere. Animals will still be shy of humans at least a few years in advance, and old tested concepts such as fire or fences will still keep them away. Your initial issue wouldn't be surviving wild animals but rather finding a reliable source of food.


Dude, your avatar looks like the lovechild of Meatwad and Jaws.

And I'm wearing Oddjob's hat. Now, die. :smallwink:

[faceroll]

Am I missing something?

Yes.
The genetic diversity of crops has declined dramatically in the last 100 years. With the advent of industrial fertilizers and pesticides, there's been no need for plants to have genes for self defense or efficiency. In fact, they've been actively selected against in favor of maximizing yields. Much of the gene tampering has been in increasing resistance of crops to insecticides, not resisting insects.


A banana comes from a tree.

Not a real tree. Just a very tall herbacious plant. No wood, no vasculature like a tree. Much like bamboo is a grass. Banana "trees" grow quite rapidly.

Regardless, it's not like the diseases will disappear as soon as the banana trees do. Trying to replant in a few years will likely fail, as nearby reservoirs wreck whatever you're trying to go. Google American Chestnut for a good idea how monocultures could ultimately fail.


That would require almost all the seeds to carry the same faulty gene. If there is something the breeding should have taken care of, then it's faulty genes. I don't think inbreeding would be your main problem.

Most seeds are virtually clones of each other. The amount of genetic variability in a wheat field is about an order of magnitude less than the difference between you and your siblings.


Well, on post-apocalyptic Earth, crop diseases would be a much smaller problem, as they would have it significantly harder to spread. Therefore, I would much rather be in possession of a modern seed that is resistent to pretty much every disease that we know of, but might be vulnerable to some unknown one, than a less resistant but more divesified seed when the first seed also is more draught resistant and produces greater yields.

In our modern western world, such a disease would strike much harder, but we aren't actually using only one type of seed. And the western world would probably survive such a blow pretty well anyway. Now, if it happened to one of the poorer countries, then it would be a catastrophy, but on the other hand, they haven't got the same thoroughbred seeds as we do, for better or worse.

Plant diseases include pest insects and fungi, which don't care much about your species concepts. They will readily jump hosts. And the basic plant defense have been strongly selected against. Modern crops are like AIDS patients without bones compared to the ancestors we derived them from.


Then you might try to explain to me how we get any grain to harvest at all, since what we harvest is fertilized seeds. :smallannoyed:

What you're eating is basically plant placenta. The seeds are incapable of proper maturation and growth. They're like stillborn babies. You should troll wiki or take a botany class before you start getting huffy with those emoticons.


When you take snippets of DNA from a different *KINGDOM* of an organism (for example, a BACTERIA) and merge it with say, corn...that, my friend, is unnatural, no matter what jokes may reference the offspring of a fungus and a rabbit...

Retroviruses do this stuff all the time. It's going on right now in your own body with retro-tansposons. And an ancestor gobbled up the mitochondria that serve as the power stations of your cells.

But you know what isn't natural? World of Warcraft. Dungeons & Dragons. Your computer.


Terminator seeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Technology) are not natural, and cannot exist in nature (for more than one generation, at least).

This is what makes Monsanto evil. The usage of such technology essentially forces consumer to buy seeds yearly from them.

Yes, I'm aware they claim they do not employ such technologies but considering the controversies they have in other countries, and the fact they have implied continued development of said technology, strongly implies that it is in fact in usage.

These Survival Seeds produce viable offspring and can continue to reproduce - they aren't essentially sterile.

Or they could choose not to use Monsanto products....


Their method of gene insertion is sloppy and haphazard at best, resulting in a lot of broken genes giving wonky results, many of them quite harmful. People have died.

[citation needed]


Not natural = through splicing and altering DNA within a generation to create specific wants that could not have come about through selective breeding.

Actually, virtually all current genetic technology used for real-world applications has been borrowed from bacteria and viruses. They've been swapping genes with each other and just about everything else for around 3 billion years. Carl Woese recently published data that shows lateral gene transfer and the subsequent horizontal evolution was the only way for our degenerate amino acid code to be as efficient as it is.


Seeds Of Deception is a nifty little book that everyone should be forced to read. The part about the Flavrsavr tomato alone will make you want to have someone executed for crimes against humanity. All of these new food allergies so many are having came from somewhere.

Yeah, it's coming from oversensitization of the immune system due to cleanliness and lack of exposure to pathogens. The kids that grow up on farms rolling in Monsanto and Round-Up ready crops? Lower rates of allergies, due to exposure to more germs. Look up "allergy" on wikipedia if you don't believe me.

Force is an ugly word.

[leakingpen]

Everything just said by faceroll

Wow. I like this dude! ::exaggerated fourth wall breaking by talking to the tv screen while waving my thumb in his general direction.::

[Tirian]

Not a real tree. Just a very tall herbacious plant. No wood, no vasculature like a tree. Much like bamboo is a grass. Banana "trees" grow quite rapidly.

Regardless, it's not like the diseases will disappear as soon as the banana trees do. Trying to replant in a few years will likely fail, as nearby reservoirs wreck whatever you're trying to go. Google American Chestnut for a good idea how monocultures could ultimately fail.

My point is that a cataclysmic failure in a banana crop is different from a cataclysmic failure in a soybean crop. With the latter, you can start over next year from different seeds. With the former, if you have something that attacks the plant, it's going to keep on attacking that plant.

Historically, we've been there. When Americans think of bananas, we're thinking of a cultivar that was unknown to us before the 1950's. Our previous stock of bananas was wiped out by Panama disease which has spread throughout the tropical world. You know the song "Yes, We Have No Bananas?" That's because there was a long period of time when we didn't. If the Cavendish cultivar ever fails in the same way, it'll likely be decades before we find something that can thrive in its place.