Would you be okay with eating blue lettuce to combat global warming?

[DetlefK]

http://gizmodo.com/the-plan-to-feed-the-world-by-hacking-photosynthesis-1715525456

Plants stole the blueprints for photosynthesis from cyanobacteria 3.4 billion years ago. And haven't improved it ever since.
Photosynthesis was developed to work in a CO2-rich atmosphere. Which no longer exists.

- Geneticists propose to change the amount of chlorophyll in a plant to optimize yields.
- They are currently trying out different kinds of chlorophyll that have higher efficiencies with photosynthesis. Prepare for blue lettuce.
- The CO2-catching enzyme Rubisco isn't very effective. The so-called "C4-plants" (among them some kinds of grains, grasses and pest plants) have a biochemical mechanism to support Rubisco that the vast majority of plants has not. There is currently a project underway to genetically modify rice in this way. It will increase the harvest-yield by about 50%.
- Geneticists are also trying to modify plants in a way that won't make them see their neighbours on a field as competitors. This should prevent one plant from hogging more ressources than it actualy needs, like sunlight.



Imagine a world with blue lettuce and orange grass... A world where ordinary plants have been phased out in favor of GMOs that can feed more people and are better at sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

It is possible to do it.

Should we do it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Do I imagine a world of GMO'd humans at the same time?

We're not optimized for higher levels of CO2, so maybe we need some tweaking too?

[daleanime]

2. Discussion worth having....

because our backs are to the wall.

[99Forever]

3. No thanks.

The law of unintended consequences still applies.

[LanternWaste]

7. As does the fallacy of post hoc ergo -prompter hoc pretending to be am applicable law...

As does the fallacy of post hoc ergo -prompter hoc pretending to be am applicable law...

[Sunlei]

4. just like people they will have to evolve lettuce some color to survive the intense sunshine

of free energy from the sky.

[lame54]

5. What's my name - Ice-en-berg - You're goddamn right

[FrodosPet]

14. LOL

[bemildred]

6. It may be the only way to try to fix things, a biological solution.

Because any solution needs to work exponentially, to grow fast and yet be controllable, you need to make seas and oceans full, and then tamp it down at the right time, so you need a fast replicator, if you want to find a way to control global CO2 levels. But it won't be as lettuce.

They could look into sea life like clams that sequester carbonate too, not just microbes. They are dissolving in the acid sea, we need to help them so they can continue their good work of making carbonate rock.

[DetlefK]

8. But you wouldn't be able to control the super-algae once they are in the ocean.

You can control a forest of super-trees that grow super-fast by rapidly sucking up CO2. Or fields of super-grain.
But once you put those algae into the ocean, they will multiply massively and when they die, their decomposing bodies will suck up the oxygen and create dead zones underwater.

[bemildred]

9. Yeah, it's a problem to control it right, like I said.

But without fast exponential growth you don't develop capacity fast enough to affect the warming process, we need to deal in gigatons, so we are going to have to figure out something else to do with the dead stuff. Food comes to mind, if it's the right sort of stuff, which we could engineer these efficient genes into.

Edit: like something else to eat it at the right time, and something to eat them, a new ecosystem that manages carbon for us. Something to use sunlight to stuff all that carbon in the ground so we can mine it and burn it again.

[whatchamacallit]

10. We're doomed regardless

That we'd entertain any solution other than changing our behavior, points to our inevitable self destruction. Fuck addressing root cause, we'd rather treat the symptoms than the disease. The fact that some believe finding and migrating to a new earth-like planet is the best shot to save humankind, pretty much says it all. We will fantasize technological solutions while we continue to grow, exploit, consume, and destroy unabated.

https://m.

[LWolf]

11. No.

First of all, this article is about feeding the world, not about combating global warming.

I'd prefer to combat global warming by banning fossil fuels and reducing human population, to start with.

As far as feeding the world goes...

I want the seeds that grow the crops that feed the world to NOT be patented, and to produce plants that will reproduce truly; I want the world to have the freedom to save seeds, to share seeds, and for individuals to own the means of food production. Crops that won't interfere with wild plants in any way.

If those plant geneticists are creating new versions of plants that will do all of the above, then I'd probably support it. Why do I think this is not the case?

That, and a human population reduction would help solve a food crisis as well as a global warming crisis.

DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate for reducing the human population by any means but birth control.

[RobinA]

12. I Have a Rule

against eating blue food, so no. Nature did not make food blue. And don't tell me blueberry, they are purple.

[DetlefK]

13. What about blueberry-muffins?

Or a cookie-monster made from marzipan that has been colored with edible blue dye?

[GreatGazoo]

15. "If a unicorn came and could solve all our problems, would you be against solving all problems???"

"Stole the blueprints" ?? "Photosynthesis was developed..." ?? Slanted pro-GMO language that is not scientific.

Golden rice anyone ?

[hifiguy]

16. Didn't George Carlin once wonder

"where is the blue food?"

Sounds pretty unappetizing to me.

[KamaAina]

17. Erma Bombeck: "There is no known navy-blue food."

[KamaAina]

18. That would make for some very appealing-looking salads.

Thrown in some green, red and yellow peppers and you're looking good!