Can we resuscitate it?

(This is related to the GATS thread, but I think it deserves airing in a separate thread):

I’m talking about Biodiversity – the variety of differing types within a species that keeps it viable. The less the variety, the more likely it is to be wiped out by disease.
Consider potatoes – in Ireland, at the time of the Potato Blight, they mainly grew only one type of potato countrywide. As a consequence, after two years of crop failure the nation was starving and up to one million died. The blight struck in other countries as well, but because they grew very many varieties of potato there was little damage done.
America has lost 86% of its apple varieties, 88% of its pear varieties. The huge variety of corn types has dwindled to just a few. The same is true world wide.
To prevent extinction of these limited crops we have to use chemicals that poison the environment and destroy other species we no longer see as ‘important. Incidentally, we are EATING these chemicals in ever greater concentrations. What is it doing to US? To our children and grandchildren?

You comments, opinions and related facts would be interesting.


------------------
http://www.ranchoweb.com/images/bg2guy/bitchingcopy.gif

http://www.ranchoweb.com/images/bg2guy/fljotsdale.gif

Dwindling biodiversity is already a concern to many, evidenced by the fact that so called 'gene banks' are cropping up all over the world, into which DNA samples are deposited. In the case of plants this takes the form of seed samples from all the variations of as many different species as possible.

Animal life is a little more difficult, but it has been proposed that cell samples are collected from the given species, and frozen indefinitely in liquid nitrogen. Thus, it would be possible to re-establish a living population from the frozen cells (via the 'Dolly' method).

The purpose of this conservation is twofold. The first is for the simple sake of conserving biodiversity, reasoning that just because a species (plant or animal) is no longer 'useful' to us, does not mean we should allow ourselves to be responsible for it's extinction. The second reason is to avoid a repeat performance of the potato blight. You will more then likely find that though the diversity of species seen on the crop field is very low, there is a gene bank to fall back on should the population come upon a similar disaster.

A final thought to bear in mind is that it is possible to regenerate 'older' forms of life (i.e. species from further back along the evolutionary route) by crossbreeding modern breeds with other stock. One of the most notable cases of this being the Auroch, the original cattle form from which it is believed modern domestic cattle are descended. So this ‘reverse selection’, is another route that can be followed to preserve biodiversity.

I would agree that general awareness of this problem is pretty low. I would also agree that those in the business of large-scale crop growth can be irresponsible.

However, this problem is by no means being ignored.


------------------
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure."

Regarding the conservation of seeds, etc:
How dependable are seed banks? As an example, I saw this quote from a book called 'Seeds of Change - The Living Treasure' about The National Seed Storage Laboratory in Colorado, USA: it has ..'suffered multiple difficulties, including power failure, broken refrigeration equipment, and understaffing that has left enormous, chaotic piles of seeds uncatalogued.'
Also, even in optimum conditions, seeds have a limited viable life. Some can last for centuries and still grow, though many in a weakened condition. Others die after relatively short time spans. Seed and genetic banks CAN be useful - but I suspect it is more in hope than reality.

------------------
http://www.ranchoweb.com/images/bg2guy/bitchingcopy.gif

http://www.ranchoweb.com/images/bg2guy/fljotsdale.gif

Partially true. In the case of preserving animal genetic code, the idea is that it can be used as a way to buy time while the reasons for the disappearance of the breed are addressed. It is safer to consider it in this manner, rather then some sort of saving 'catchall' for every endangered species, as the process by which a population could be resuscitated from a frozen cell is very fragile and simply not reliable enough at present.

As for seed storage, I am distressed to read about the example given in Colorado. However, I can't really comment on its validity, nor can I reasonably use it as a marker for the state of seed banks across the globe (Yes, I'm pleading ignorance http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...les/tongue.gif).

As for seeds having a limited lifespan, that's a fair comment, but I am sure the scientists charged with the care of such seeds are as aware of the problem as you are.

To summarise, I would say that gene banks should be considered more of a 'fall back plan' then anything else, but to label them simply a hope is to do them something of a disservice, I feel.

What would you prefer to see instead?


------------------
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure."

I agree on that one. They should definitely be a back-up plan. Even now you can see (as always) that humans take the easy way, instead of for once try the hard way, which is mostly the better way to take.
If you take a look at adoption programs, they're basically for a couple who want children, but either cannot "make" them or haven't got the time for it. Foster Parents (currently under fire for their misuse of money at Haiti), promotes the following idea, which i fully understand:
" Adoption exists only to give a child parents, not to give parents a child."
This simple sentence is of course true, but due to the fact that people become overworked and stuff like that, they fall back to plans, that eventually weren't started for that.

Gene banks are something that is more or less the same. It's a good thing (as with adoption: i'm not against adoption. It simply allowes children from third world countries to have a much better life), but it should not be a plan no. 1. It should be a back-up plan, which should only be used if there really ain't another option.

------------------
In the foul darkness one figure will emerge to save the world from evil and despair.... Light flashes as his sword comes down, and thunder rolls through the sky when he points his sword up to heaven to signal his victory....People whisper his name as he walks by, evil tries to hide as they sense his presence nearby.... His name? Link......

Hello? Any other takers? Nobody else drawn in by this issue?

*bump*

I will post on this issue when I get home tonight...have you read the "What about GATS thread"?



------------------
http://www.bestanimations.com/fantas.../dragon-04.gif

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time

<font color=lightblue>Since my other program locked me out and will take about 30 minutes to reload I though I would respond http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

First of all, I don’t like to use the generic word ‘Chemicals’. One must realize that everything is a chemical. Water, Carbon Dioxide, the food we eat…everything with a distinct chemical composition. Maybe this is nitpicking, but for those that have not had any chemistry lessons or have not had exposure to chemistry (reading/tv/internet) they might start to think that ‘chemicals’ implies ‘bad’. In this case I believe we are referring to Pesticides and Herbicides.

This is a difficult topic to answer b/c it is more complex than it seems. The reason we have dwindling varieties is simple. If given the choice of planting a high yield variety and a lower yield variety, a farmer is going to choose the former. His neighbor will choose the former, and his neighbor, and his neighbor and so on. Pretty soon we have everyone planting the high yield varieties, b/c no one in their right mind is going to plant a low yield variety if given the choice.

So what can we do? Can we force farmers to plant a lower yield variety just so we have a ‘variety’ of varieties? I don’t’ think so, they have the right to plant whatever will give them the highest possible yield. Could the government subsidize farmers that plant a low yield variety? Well they could, but that introduces a whole new set of problems (how much of a subsidy, who gets the subsidy, etc…). Could we try to find new high yield varieties? No, we have already done that through years of trial and error. Unless we genetically engineer new varieties, we are pretty much stuck with what we have.

I don’t think the solution to the problem is increasing the variety of crop, but rather to try and ‘improve’ the pesticides and herbicides that we use. There are plant species out there that naturally produce pesticides for protection. And suprisinly if it is a natural part of the plant, we don’t complain about it (even though most of the pesticides out there are based on these ‘natural’ pesticides, but since they are man-made, and applied to the plant, rather than produced by the plant, we think they are ‘nasty and bad’). So how about somehow making a species of, say corn, that produces it's own pesticides? I’m sure it can be done, but then people will just stop bitching about the use of pesticides and start bitching about eating ‘altered’ foods.

I think it is a lose-lose situation all around. A farmer naturally wants to use the limited space they have to produce the most food possible. To do so, they have to use a limited number of varieties that produce the high yields. This opens the doors for a massive blight, disease, whatever to come along and wipe out the entire crop. So to protect the crop they use pesticides and herbicides. But then people complain that they have to eat a crop with pesticides on it, or that the pesticides are polluting our water and soil. So where do we win? Ya got me!</font>


------------------
http://www.bestanimations.com/fantas.../dragon-04.gif

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time

The goose shall make a grand feast for my warriors.

------------------
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...o_ani_fire.gif
All your base are belong to us! How Are you gentlemen?

Fish?
***********************
Welcome to your doom!!!
***********************

But, Moridin, the farming profession is losing out as well! ‘World Watch’ journal says ‘Since 1950, the number of people employed in agriculture has plummeted in all industrial nations, in some regions by more than 80%.’

Why? Because farms have become ‘industrialised’, beholden to pesticide/herbicide producers. Only the large ‘industrial’ farm is surviving in the West – at what cost to the environment and to us?

And in any case, how long can we go on reducing biodiversity - essential to maintaining a viable biostructure (is that the correct word?) - and increasing consumption? We are leaving ourselves wide open to disaster on a world scale, in my opinion. Look at these figures, for example:
At the beginning of the 20th century there were over 100,000 varieties of rice cultivated in Asia. In India alone were 30,000 varieties. Now, 75% of India’s rice crop comes from a mere 10 (yes, 10) varieties; in Sri Lanka, only 5 varieties. Mexico has lost 80% of the varieties of corn formerly cultivated.

Why do farmers do this? Economic pressure. There were/are massive government and corporate campaigns to persuade farmers to replace local crops with high-yield monoculture (The Green Revolution).
But… the seeds the farmers have to buy are not cheap. They cost up to 3 times the price of local seed. And they have to buy pesticides and fungicides (the high yield strains are relatively weak and vulnerable) and expensive farm equipment. Paul Reaburn, in his book ‘The Last Harvest – The Genetic Gamble That Threatens to Destroy American Agriculture’, said:
‘While it (the green revolution) has saved millions from starvation, it is now threatening the world’s food security.’
The use of fertiliser encourages weed growth, thus demanding herbicides. Pesticides are needed to destroy local pests on non-resistant, non-native crops, thus also killing beneficial insects, frogs, fish, etc. (Natural pesticides within food plants are at FAR lower levels than sprayed-on pesticide, and they are aimed at specific insects, doing no harm to beneficial insects). Many farmers also suffer heath dangers from the chemicals they are using, even in countries where hazards are known and precautions taken.
Short-term gain, long-term loss.

Solution? A major shift in the attitude and thinking of both governments and the ‘man in the street’. I’m no environmental genius, but it seems to me that we need to gradually revert to older farming methods, the labour intensive type of farming, with a wider biodiversity, as Organic Farmers are making an attempt to do.
Will it happen?
Left to governments and corporations, no.
That is why WE have to tell ‘em, loud and clear, that we don’t want to play games with our future any more.

I'm old. What happens in the future will probably not affect me too much. But I have children, I have grandchildren. Within the next five years I might become a great-grandparent. I want my family to have as good a chance at life as I have had. I guess all of you want the same for your families/potential families.
------------------
http://www.ranchoweb.com/images/bg2guy/bitchingcopy.gif

http://www.ranchoweb.com/images/bg2guy/fljotsdale.gif



[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 08-29-2001).]