/lit/ - Literature

Future of science? I can only say its gonna get even more confusing with new discoveries and us trying to figure out how to fit that onto our current models and failing hard.

Will there even be new discoveries?

>>3499375
Are you confusing discoveries with inventions?

>>3499367

>>3499374
I'd like that future

Science is eventually going to be forced to concede the importance of philosophy, and it will likely get pretty interesting when that happens.

stop

>>3499376
No. We may be too weak as a civilization to make another step

>>3499379
Don't count on it.

>>3499378
I knew certain people will react on this

>>3499379
Care to elaborate?

>>3499399
Immortal jew cyborgs ruling over us.

>>3499399
They're talking about a technological singularity. A total merger of man and machine and an explosion in intelligence.

But that it assumes we will discover something new? I don't think so

>>3499408
Yeah. An incredibly naive vision.

Speaking of LHC, I don't think they will organize enough money to build something bigger. Sad.

>>3499419
So you're saying we've discovered everything there is to discover in science? Even though we've only mapped(not explored) less than 1% of the visible universe and have explored(robots) less than 1% of that 1% we have mapped.

>>3499422
Why? Technology is still advancing at an exponential rate. Biology is compatible with digital devices; both the nervous system and neurons. There is no reason why our incredibly primitive species couldn't potentially achieve something like that in the future.

>>3499429
No, I'm saying the reverse, but we are too weak to explore it

Do you think humans can advance making theoretical breakthroughs rather than experimental?

>>3499435

It is pretty easy to get carried along by Moore's Law, the technological singularity and Kurzweil's visionary futurism, without taking into account the way in which society will have to be reconstructed and remade in order to opitmise the potential benefits of technoscience.

The very real and very recent proposition of decentralization and distribution as a predicate for the most powerful applications of computing power is well-recognized by only very very few traditional institutions or private corporations. The matter of this technology's ownership is far less important than you might guess (especially compared to the importance of the question of ownership and leveraging of the data generated.) This is mainly because so few classically vertical organizations are even capable of conceiving or building these applications due to cultural allergy to sharing and collective valuation. Kurzweil, George Gilder and others need review and a rewrite.

>>3499438
Compared to what? Our intelligence has propelled our species to be the dominant one on Earth within few thousand years. Explosion of science from the scientific revolution led to tons of technological development. If anything our gains are quite strong, compared to other species.

>>3499447
Everybody knows Kurzweil is a bloody communist

a new paradigm shift coming up in respect to consciousness; might take a few decades but still, worth a mention.

material reductionists coming at me in 3, 2, 1...

>>3499438
What do you mean by weak? Biologically?

We have already decoded the whole DNA sequence for a human (you can even get your own DNA genotyped) and we can play around with gene splicing. We can hypothetically create a human however we want. Unfortunately there are strict laws saying organisms have to be terminated after a couple of weeks, but hopefully we will have customized genes soon. The ability to remove hereditary diseases like parkinsons, and ensure people aren't born with Downs or deformities is too great. Plus, it's your DNA, you should be allowed to decide what color your child's eyes are before they are born..

>>3499455
I'm not comparing to other species on Earth, I'm asking a question whether we - as a mankind - CAN, in principle, discover something completely new and fundamental

In physics, the top class is to test a hypothesis 50 years old

>>3499463
>you should be allowed to decide what color your child's eyes are before they are born..

Haha, that's cute that you actually see it happening. Got any more fairy-tales to tell us?

>>3499463
Ok, I didn't mean this meaning, but what you say is anyway still using current paradigms and techniques, right?

>>3499469
Not him, but name some reasons why we wouldn't see this happening.

>>3499463
>Plus, it's your DNA, you should be allowed to decide what color your child's eyes are before they are born..

And this, dear friends, is a textbook example of a non-sequitor.

>>3499469
sage

>>3499408
>and an explosion in intelligence.

Stagnation you mean.

>>3499487
How come?

>>3499468
We have many new theories to test, theories dont just become instafamous it takes decades of research/crosschecking to see if its valid enough to do test. Standard model was composed in 70s, and it is only just getting tested in 2012. QM was theorized in early 20th century, but wasnt tested until mid 20th century and late 20th century. Our current(newest) theory wont be tested until 2020s/30s. We are definitely making progress in science, it hasnt stopped.

>>3499494
This

We don't need the majority of people to understand new advancements; we never have. Just a few to understand it, and a lot of others to reap the benefits (plus maintain the civilization that allows researchers/inventors to push it forward).

>>3499469

The internet. But that one already happened, so you're inured to it.

How 'bout smartphones? It will soon become the norm in wealthy societies to carry an internet-capable computer with you at all times, and to be fluent with its use. No, it's not directly wired to your brain, but it's getting close. It extends your mental abilities.

Think of yourself, right now. If I demanded that you give me information on a particular subject, you could probably find a wealth of it within a minute. That's FUCKING AMAZING.

>>3499463
>Plus, it's your DNA, you should be allowed to decide what color your child's eyes are before they are born..

I've always wanted muh designer babby!

>>3499497
My state of knowledge is that theories beyond Standard Model are so crazy that we won't test it in nearest future

>>3499500
>Think of yourself, right now. If I demanded that you give me information on a particular subject, you could probably find a wealth of it within a minute. That's FUCKING AMAZING.

Incredibly though it may be it will also lack sincerity and ultimately be a rather shallow interaction ;_;

>>3499505
You're right but the future of science is quite fuzzy at the moment because we haven't completely figured out standard model yet. Before the QM was getting accepted, it was considered almost impossible to do test. Old scientists thought it was junk and didn't consider it correct.

>>3499500
Sure, it is fabulous, and fluffy in that curious sort of way, but only an application of KNOWN science

>>3499509
Ok, agree, but can the advance be made without Big Money? Other thing is, do you think that we are - as an animal - capable to make new discoveries?

>>3499500
>Think of yourself, right now. If I demanded that you give me information on a particular subject, you could probably find a wealth of it within a minute. That's FUCKING AMAZING.

confirmed. you are no older than a 16, and have never read a book in your entire life. the hyper-enthusiasm gave it away, kid.

>>3499522
If we analyze history a little we can see big discoveries take bits of time but we still make discoveries. I will side with history and say yes, we will make new groundbreaking discoveries but it might take a bit of time. One sure way a new discovery will be made is through a new revolution, if the so called LENR(current new cold fusion) guys succeed, science will once again make a leap. It happened with fire, steam, coal, nuclear, and it will happen with fusion.

>>3499540
You mean they will discover the one and only configuration of key atoms in the Universe? Sounds much like alchemy to me

GRAPHENE BITCHES

>in b4 the technology for batteries that fully charge in 30 seconds exists by the end of the year
>in b4 it revolutionizes the car industry by 2020
>in b4 none of this happens because of MUH CAPITALISM

>>3499555
>GRAPHENE
what in the flying FUCK is that?

>>3499567
New all purpose carbon material used for nanotechnology creations from solar cells to superconductors to invisibility cloak to super batteries to just about anything you can think of in terms of electric applications

>>3499496
The government should own your DNA?

>>3499591

But IT IS your DNA, so you can do whatever you want with it

>>3499501

Suppose it's not something frivolous like eye color, but instead genetic advantages in mental ability, health, longevity, as well as safety from various genetic diseases. We know intelligence is not just nurture; you can't raise a turtle to be as smart as your average human.

Doesn't a 'designer baby' sound more appealing now? Seems to me the only good reason to prefer a non-designer baby is if you think there will be unforeseeable drawbacks that outweigh the advantages.

>>3499567
http://vimeo.com/51873011

Enjoy.

>>3499608
But this leads to all sort of nasty things like inequality and racism

>>3499575
A couple years ago it was going to revolutionise the microchip and in a couple more years it's probably going to give you superpowers, and you'll still be creaming yourself over marketing hype.

>>3499530
>It will soon become the norm in wealthy societies to carry an internet-capable computer with you at all times, and to be fluent with its use.
>you have to be a sickly jaded cunt to be cool and adult
Confirmed for no more than 23 years old.

>>3499463

>We can hypothetically create a human however we want.

holy shit lel

confirmed for knowing nothing about biology of any sort. even hypothetically, we're still at the stage of figuring out how to knock down oncogenes. cosmetic modification of offspring genotype is fucking decades away if not more: even then the notion that we will ever be able to create a human ex nihilo is pushing it. we just don't know how most of this stuff interacts, and for some of it we may never be able to figure it out.

I wouldn't get pumped over designer babbies within my lifetime, is what I am saying. if fetal modification becomes widespread it'll be in attempts to deal with cancers, retardations, other extremely basic fuckups. the putative future age of gengineered aryan alpha-male übermensch is pop-science shite.

>>3499623
The problem back and the problem right now is largely the same. The ability to mass produce it. Its getting better and better but not by much. Once we have the ability to mass produce, it will kickstart the revolution

>>3499647
>The problem back and the problem right now is largely the same.
It also isn't as straightforward to make a prototype of these technologies in graphene as is made out. The stuff has a lot of quirks as a material.

>>3499608
>Doesn't a 'designer baby' sound more appealing now?
Pic related has a single mutation in the gene for a protein called myostatin. Just by inhibiting it, muscle production is doubled...

So now I walk into the clinic, give them a cheek swab and pay the kind doctor his extortionate fee to artificially inseminate my girlfriend.

We sit down together. I say I want the baby to have my eyes, my girlfriends nose, my hair. Fuck it, make it a girl, but her breasts need to be 36D. The doctor hands me a menu and tells me he can also do anything listed in it.

I pick the protection against Crones, Parkinson's, alzheimer's, DVT, and ten other diseases to ensure my child's healthy. But what's this? Myostatin? Fuck the girl with big breasts, I want a giant muscle boy now. Give him webbed feet so he can swim fast, and forked tongue with heightened smell. Sonar? You can do that too? Give the boy sonar. And a tail. You can increase cell mutation so he'll live 200 years, goddamn Doctor, give him that too, guaranteed IQ of 200 as well. What's the bill?

I'm kind of scared. Politics and general radical leftism is seeping in the cracks now at the college level. Quotas for female engineers and such are already being implemented, regardless of how few women want to be engineers. It can only get worse.

>>3499633

I didn't wanna say nothin', because it looks bad to defend yourself and we're anonymous anyway. But the most recent book I read was Contact by Carl Sagan, a dude as hyper-enthusiastic about science (and not sixteen-years-old) as you could ask for.

>>3499637

Hopefully by the time we can engineer übermensch, we'll have the sense to incorporate positive traits from all sorts of humans.

>>3499673

So, is your fear that greater power over their offspring will result in people who make shitty decisions? Or are you simply squicked out?

>>3499673
You are a silly billy.

Oh god, please keep doing your mental masturbation thingy because you're awful at any sort of actual science. Not to mention /pol/ routinely leaking on this thread.

>>3499673
Is your post supposed to be an argument AGAINST this?

>>3499604

>But IT IS your child so you can do what ever you want with it!

>>3499673

contain your boner, you fucking assclown, none of this will happen.

>>3499721
>none of this will happen.
Yes it will. Just not yet.

>>3499673

I thought that child was a child who had been strictly trained from birth by it's manically obsessive parents and given roids (implied) and what not?

There was a documentary about this kid and no where was it mentioned at all that he had a genetic mutation.

>>3499463
>We can hypothetically create a human however we want.

In the same way we can 'hypothetically' terraform planets.

>>3499725
Either way, the kinds going to be a tiny manlet.

>>3499724

What else can you tell us John Titor?

>>3499719

I expect there will be regulations restricting the range of parental choice in the genetics of a child. (There already are for various factors in raising children.) Every society has a vested interest in the next generation.

Wasn't Copernicus a Catholic clergyman of some sort?

Like, not quite a fully ordained priest, but something? A Deacon maybe?

>>3499730
The UK's credit rating will soon change from AAA to AA1 according to Moody's Investment Service.

>>3499725
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6065-mighty-mouse-gene-found-in-humans.html

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392292&cat=1_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin

>>3499732

Honestly, there probably won't even need to be regulations. This shit's EXPENSIVE, and it's going to stay that way so long as people believe genes are a satanic lie; and even if some douchebag shells out a few million to turn his kid into Wolverine, the kid will presumably obviate the problem when it dies because it's an inviable piece of shit.

>>3499719
True, but just modifying your own code should be allowed.

>>3499758

sure, i guess, in the same sense as "flying to the moon in a teapot" should be allowed. remember how i said designer babbies are at least a lifetime in the future? genetic enhancement for non-disease-related concerns is like another two lifetimes after that

>>3499758
>True, but just modifying your own code should be allowed.
Modifying your child's should be allowed. You can even murder your foetus if you're feeling destructive, so there is no reason you can't give it blue eyes.

Also, there is a difference between turning on/off genes it already has, and splicing in extra ones so it has tusks and antlers.

>>3499775

there's no reason to hinge the argument for genetic modification of fetuses on the false notion that they're persons. you're genetically modifying a fetus just by having it slopping around your insides anyway. genomic imprinting, etc. The only question is whether modifying your fetus' genome somehow becomes more evil when you do it intentionally. what tripe.

>>3499775
But maybe this is needed to avoid future stagnation? Our brains won't grow much larger, there is no hope for a breakthrough

>>3499787
>...fetuses on the false notion that they're persons

What? You are playing semantics here, based on a potentially variable definition of 'persons'. A foetus is just as much a living organism with human DNA as an adult. An anthropologist will tell you that a foetus is not a human, and a biologist will tell you it is. You are just choosing to subscribe to a particular linguistic model for the purposes of murdering a potentially unwanted child.

>>3499793

what on earth cognitive obstacles have we run up against that you think we need huge brains in order to deal with??

>>3499793
>Our brains won't grow much larger
Our brains are the same size as our mammoth-eating ancestors.

>>3499800
I mean making future progress

>>3499805
So? What I meant is there will be a limit at some point

it seems obvious to me that advancing technology will definitively expose the flaws inherent with ideals of universal egality, and with the idea that an unqualified market can somehow provide a place for all people in society.

libertarians and marxists are both on the wrong side of history.

>>3499812
>there will be a limit at some point
Too what? Our primitive ancestors were programmed by environment and social factors, as are we. in 500 years time our descendants will be too, and they will be conditioned by the environmental and social factors that they have. The 'limit' is that we are stuck in the present, trying to conceive of what a child in a potentially advanced time might grow up to be like. If they grow up in a different reality, they will be conditioned by that reality.

If you were taken 10,000 years back, you would grow up to be a hunter gatherer too. If you are transported 10,000 into the future, provided they haven't changed the DNA structure, you would grow up just like them.

>>3499374
yep, Robot Jesus is coming 100%, Raymond "Crank" Kurzweil predicted so from his wifes intestines. ITS HAPPENING

I am afraid of stuff that is less controlable.
Where is the line between social darwinism and aborting because of gene tests (as those get more precise and genetic design might be possible)
How about general control of thought through computers when we are able to transfer knowledge by wire?
etc pp

>>3499808
You don't think brain size has anything to do with intelligence, do you? I'm pretty sure that was debunked.

>>3499821
You know nothing John Snow

another thing that is 100% predicted: cyber sex with loli catgirls

this is certain, my Super Serious Pundit Uncle George predicted it last weekend

>>3499829
>How about general control of thought through computers when we are able to transfer knowledge by wire?
We don't need computers for that. My parents have their thoughts controlled by the daily newspaper and television. I actually have my opinions altered by the internet.

>>3499835

and gould himself was in turn debunked, so where does that leave us.

>>3499832
I'm thinking of scales of millions of years. Without radically changing itself mandkind will not progress

>>3499842
>cyber sex with loli catgirls
Settle the fuck down, Lawnmower man, I won't be fucking loli catgirls. I'll be 69ing a replication of myself.

>>3499846
I'm not talking about Gould. There are minor correlations which aren't enough to go around thinking its true.

Anyone else concerned that we need to increase our efforts to asure that cybersex catgirls will be Friendly? This is very serious issue that needs a lot of predicting, we should discuss it or risk angering Robot Jesus in the future.

>>3499835
I DO think brain size has to do with intelligence. You are smarter than a fly, aren't you?

>>3499732
>Every society has a vested interest in the next generation.

They sure do.

Why were the Nazi's 'wrong' to attempt what they did when it was literally the same thing just a different way of going about it?

Want know the future?

Remember 2000, and what you expected 2013 to be like?

Now, imagine 13 years from now, and 13 years from then.

Not that much will change.

The problem with predicting the future is everyone believes the future to just be an exaggeration of our current time, it most certainly is not, and with the arms race died down, I don't think technological progress will be anything but stale for most of this century.

Which is a shame because I want to see what happens.

I think an accurate idea of the future would be anything Philip K. Dick.

>>3499797

the falsity of the notion isn't bound up in what specifically we find "person" to mean, since everyone knows that everyone chooses definitions that suit their ideological presuppositions. the falsity is that "personhood" is considered to be a sufficient criterion for whether it is acceptable or unacceptable to modify DNA when really it has nothing to do with DNA modification at all, a phenomenon which constantly occurs in everything that is alive. my point is that there is no need to invoke value-clash over what "person" means in order to justify genetic modification because there is no need to justify genetic modification, any more than there is a need to justify wiping your ass after you take a shit. it's what is done. culture-warriors who want to force some big discussion of it are flatly ludicrous.

>>3499865

Want to know the future?

Remember 20 years ago, and 20 years before that!

So much changed!

>>3499863

Brain size variation is probably necessary to explain some variation in intelligence, but not sufficient to explain all of it.

>>3499865
>Remember 2000, and what you expected 2013 to be like?

I would never have imagined I'd be discussing shit with Europeans on a message board and ordering my food online. I wouldn't have guessed dubstep, streaming films, pirating music, ipads, touch screen public telephones. I would never have guessed that I can take a picture of a barcode with an internet pone in my pocket and order the item to my house with one click.

>>3499888
It's all about computing power

>>3499893
>hurr durr scientific change is about muh consumerist whoring

>>3499880

Except there was a steady flow of progress due to the arms race, tech filtered down from the military and NASA, and blew up in the early 90's with the internet.

Aside from Moore's Law, we're slowing down and reaching a steady equilibrium

>>3499893

Actually, that's less progress than 1970 to 1983.

>>3499902
Ok, thanks DARPA neuroscience Ph.d anon

they need you curing cancer now

>>3499909
What I mean: are people capable to understand the world completely with their current form?

>>3499863
>I DO think brain size has to do with intelligence. You are smarter than a fly, aren't you?

That of course is why elephants and whales are smarter than humans, because they have bigger brains. Brain mass = intelligence, it's as simple as that.

>>3499920

They also have bigger dicks.

I can only speak for Materials Science, Agricultural Science and energy research, but in those fields the revolutionary work that's been done in the last ten years will change the way everything works in the next ten.

>>3499919

not with their current form, nor any other, unless you want to assume that there is some mode of consciousness which exists so completely over and above reality that it can comprehend it on every level. but that would be fucking stupid so i hope you're not saying it.

>>3499966
This is not certain. 100 or so years ago people didn't know about quanta

>>3499863
Brain Size has very little to do with intelligence.

Whale's brain size is much bigger than human, doesnt mean they are smarter than us. Atleast not in the standard that you're using to judge the intelligence on.

Brain size amongst humans is also a non-factor for intelligence. Neanderthals had bigger brains than sapiens but no one says they are smarter than us.

A large majority of the intelligence is governed through how we grow up and what we learn in that culture we grow up in. Some minor details affect our ability to learn certain things at certain speed/aspects, but again thats minor in detail.

>>3499960

Like what?

That sounds interesting, you're on 4chan, break some NDAs.

>>3499920

its the ratio thats significant.

par example, cows and ravens have pretty small brains on a relative scale, but the ratio to body mass is very high, contributing to their disproportional inteligence.

>>3500000
damn, this was a really shitty get

>>3500006
I go to talks for the first two, and I can tell you there's not that much going on high technology wise. The biggest inevitable changes in materials is going to be a move away from concrete and steel in the next 50 years and the problems associated with producing plastics in that time. Most progress has been about quality in production and logistics in the past few decades, and that will continue to be the problem in the next few. Agriculture has been the move away from reliance on pesticides and the obsession with GM (that's really a money pit), to bio-activity in soils (which we still really know next to nothing about) and looking at older techs like grafting, breeding, crop management etc. The most interesting high tech sci fi stuff in either off the top of my head are the use of bacteria in things like repairing concrete and investigating the role of various wavelengths of light on different plants at different stages in development.

>>3500000
le 35m get face

>>3500088
>>>/b/

>>3500088

>>3500006

Copaifera langsdorfii Desf.

Although not specifically recommended as a firewood, the balsamiferouswood, with density of 700-900 kg/m3, should burn readily, perhaps even when green. Calvin (1980) reports yields of 40 liters of hydrocarbon per tree per year, which can be "used directly by a diesel-powered car." Calvin sent a sample to Mobil Corporation to obtain a cracking pattern. "It produces the same kind of mixture in general as the oil from the E. lathyris [mostly aromatics (50%), LPG (25%), and low-molecular-weight fuel gas (3 to 4%) and coke]." (Calvin, 1980). In his seminar at Beltsville, Calvin (1982) seems to favor the terpenes of Copaifera to those of Euphorbia and hopes, by somatic hybridization to develop a Euphorbia, suitable for our climates, which will produce the sesquiterpenes. Apparently N-fixation has not been reported for this species. "

we're working on a rapeseed that can make this stuff.
there's a hint.

>>3500075

>beacteria repairing concrete

Genetically modified Bacteria, or are we talking full blown nano-machines?

And what are some of the materials that are being looked to replace concrete?

This is fascinating stuff.

>>3500006
"Chase didn't give a whole lot more technical detail, but he seemed confident in predicting a 100mW prototype by 2017, with commercial 100mW systems available by 2022, implying that all global energy demands will be able to be met by fusion power by about 2045. No more oil, no more coal, no more nuclear, and not even any solar or wind or hydro will be necessary (unless you're into that sort of thing): fusion has the potential to produce as much affordable clean power as we'll ever need, for the entire world."

and materials wise, we now have ceramics that are better than most plastics and metals for, well, everything. And they're insanely cheap.

also, low cost aerogels (look them up)

>>3500000

actually, there are quite a few people who say that.

neanderthals were the first peoples to bury dead, and develop clothing against the elements, which shows greater existential consciousness, and imagination in adaption to externalities. when homo sapiens first spread out of africa, they couldent enter europe (presumably due to the neanderthals better tools and capabilities), and instead spread further into asia, but several ten thousand years later, with another migration, and even better tools this time somehow, the neanderthals were overrun.

theres a range of theories of extinction, some around their relatively limited speach capabilities (their larynx was only capable of ennunciating a small range of sounds), hindering dissemination of ideas over time. theres also the fact that the smaller cranium size of homo sapien babies made childbirth less risky, and the fact that neanderthals required almost twice as many calories, all of which helped contribute to the explosion of homo sapien populations after the ice age, and sublumation of the neanderthals.

theres evidence that there was some coexistence however, all non-african ethinicties have portions of neanderthal dna for instance.

>>3500120

nanomachines have nothing in particular to do with bacteria and have a more specific meaning than "really small machines". what he's referring to is these bacteria which secrete calcium lactate, and then you mix them into concrete with the hope that their secretions will paper over cracks. last i heard though, it kind of didn't work (although i'll admit it's not my field and i don't really keep up on it)

>>3500108

>2013

>using complex plants that take energy for diverse functions and not using algal culture for all your oil and carbon production needs.

shig.

>>3500138

Damn, I at least want commercial nano-mechanics in my lifetime, the possibilities for such tech are endless.

Even having the capability of eliminating all types of weaponry we have currently, just program a self replicating bot to devour a square area, or make a self-replicating bot that enters the blood-stream and quickly severs off vital apparatus within the body.

I don't expect that stuff for a while though.

>>3500075
Everything you say in this post about agriculture is nonsense, Twenty years of experience talking here, Where are you going to talks that are misleading you so much? The move has been to use GM to replace pesticides and to work in tandem with herbicides to eliminate the need for cultivation and preserve soils fertility, reduce erosion and soil evaporation. Literally all commercial crops are GM now. What money pit are you referring to? And we don't know anything about bio activity in soils? We have three hundred years of work,

>>3500075

move away from concrete and steel in what way?

some fancy new ceramic? rammed earth? itd have to be pretty great if itle replace those in making huge buildings.

>>3500160
Grancrete looks promising if they can work out the light sensitivity issues.

>>3500159

what about perennial polyculture?

>>3500178
Borlaug had some hopes for it. A perennial dwarf maize would be the shit wouldn't it? with squash and beans and some nightshade or other in the same paracommunity? that's the dream. The yield would have to be high though, and you're going to hit the phosphate limit hard if you don't at least top leach. it could do wonders in Rwanda and anywhere with good tilth and rainfall though.

>>3500159
Hi agriculture guy.

What do you think about the reality of huge aeroponic farms for certain GM produce being set up in multi story buildings?

I read an article about the increase in certain things (not cannabis) being grown in buildings because it's cheaper than maintaining a traditional farm and you get a higher rate of successful crops per sq meter. Do you think this will become a trend in urban environments as rural areas become increasingly built on?

>>3500120
The structural specialists in concrete I've spoken to seem to think we're going for traditional materials like wood, bamboo and/or novel polymers. Many are starting to focus more on research that can apply to lots of different materials because of this. Also, what concrete is is changing, with better admixtures and additives. It's less than 5 years since MIT published papers that finally showed the molecular structure of cement outright. As for the bacteria that repaired the concrete they were GM, the smartest thing was the changes in behaviour depending on where the were in the crack and forming molecular chains in the structure of the repairing cement. One issue was the biocement was carbon based, and having that in contact with the silicon based concrete I think would make the concrete chemically unstable over the long term, but if good carbon based cements can be produced, most issues with using concrete would disappear. The bigger issue is the move away from steel (because of how steel bonds to concrete), but for the most part it's a case that these materials will get more and more expensive and become unviable for construction. Oh, and one major barrier to concrete is that it requires certain quality of water. Anywhere where drinking water is a problem, construction in concrete is usually a problem, but places with problems in water logistics are going to be where a lot of construction is going to be in the future. It's also where a lot of construction occurs now, but with great cost and difficulty.

>>3500215
No. Rural areas are not being built on. since the thirties they've been going back to forest, which is why we have far more forests now than we did in the late nineteenth century. We just stopped using marginal; land for agriculture.

Indoor farming makes a lot more sense for animal crops than plant ones since sunlight and some water is free. Shrimp and tilapia, and swai are wonderfully easy to grow indoors. There are several good greenhouse crops too, but for the most part the only reason to grow inside is if the crop is a very high value. If i were selling tomatoes to organic sellers I might do it because it makes the pesticide and herbicide problems less of a factor maybe, But most organic buyers would rather somebody burned down a rainforest in Brazil to grow their beef the natural way than to do it in a feedlot. Bitter? Maybe a little.

>>3500196

i think incorperating tree crops as an over story would be ideal personally, things like bananas, coconuts, and oil palms are already huge producers even compared with annuals (which need energy for the constant cycle of growing from seed), but not really synronized with anything else at the moment, i think theres potential there for both better environmental conditions, and greater potential yields. at the very least it could increase input efficiency, and be more accesable to farmers without lots of advanced equipment.

>>3500159
>The move has been to use GM to replace pesticides
Doesn't work, monoculture is the fundamental issue in pest control.
>And we don't know anything about bio activity in soils? We have three hundred years of work
Much of the research in the last fifty years in soils came out of the reclamation of "dead" soils after large mining ops. We really don't know the first thing about the micro-organisms in soil and how they come together.

As far as GM goes, go to any conference with any speaker from an agricultural committee. The push for GM is really the push for patents, and outside the US very few GM crops are grown outside of government research/trials.

>>3500261
You can't grow maize, or any grass more hardy than creeping red fescue, with an overstory. And no tree is ever going to match the production of the grains, pulses and nightshades. The roses are the only ones with half a chance. remember how long it takes a tree, even a dwarf, to bear. your per acre per year yield is going to crash hard on all the tree crops. I exclude bananas which aren't a tree.

Just figure how many bushels (60 lb bushels) of potatoes you get per acre with minimal cultivation and trivial biomass investment in non-assimilable carbs. then weigh that against an acre of really high bearing apples. Do the same with Maize.

You will rage but... the future of science is God, just like the future of religion was science, the future of science is God.

You will become more and more butthurt as you find evidence suggestive of God, but it will happen and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Never reject the truth, never.

>>3500312

God?

Which one?

I prefer the Book of Enoch's take, that the God of the Bible is a spoiled child Demiurge and there is a God that made everything before him that is either infinitely wise or infinitely stupid.

You're never going to prove God because he can't be proven.

>>3500305
You might want to check the numbers for apple production in NZ and Aus, they're getting equivalent to potato crops in kg per acre in many places, and have been for a while. The current issue in apple crops is changes in varietal over time. People like their king Edwards from decade to decade, but Jonagolds and Katies or whatever may not be so in demand in 30 years.

"We really don't know the first thing about the micro-organisms in soil and how they come together."


We know tons of shit about this stuff, libraries full. it's a science unto itself.

And GM isn't about patents for god's sake. why do i keep hearing this? Patents expire in twenty years and it takes twenty years to prove a crop half the time. Seed patents are to give commercial farmers a competitive edge, and they know there are plenty of GM crops out of patent that are being used by everybody, all over the world (except Africa). There is not an agricultural crop grown at the moment that has not been extensively, massively modified into a thousand different strains in the last ten centuries or so. Kentucky alone has produced more types of beans than the rest of the world combined.

And you want the ultimate GM crop? Maize. Doesn't exist in the wild. Has NEVER existed in the wild.CAN"T grow in the wild, one hundred percent man made. and responsible for the best carbon to carbohydrate conservation ratio in the grains and practically in the food crops. GM is not a fad or a trend. it's the rule : Luther Burbank and Norman Borlaug are just the latest of a thousand year tradition.

>>3500312
Amen, brother.
Robot Jesus will grant you at least 50 catgirl fucktoys for your devotion. Don't forget you don't have to do shit for change and progress to happen. CUZ its teh truth!!!!!! itz happenin like that!!!!

>>3500334
Oh, another "GM is just plant breeding" idiot, nothing to see here I guess.

>>3499367
Science has no future. Techno-science as a social process is removed from both the pure ideological fantasy of science and the actual material fantasy of the practice of science today. Techno-science impedes science in ways that means that the social process of "science" is now dead under capitalism.

What we see instead is a system where value is reproduced through a process of arbitrary production of commodities of no particular use value. We patent software forms that were invented 70 years ago.

>>3500326
No, they're not: their biomass conversion excludes the mass of the trees and the replanting latency time. It also excludes the caloric loss to insects and rot, which potatoes are immune to. I teach this stuff. You're not going to surprise me.

You can get, in rain irrigated peat soil, 350 sixty pound bushels red potatoes per acre with no fertilizer, no cultivation and straw mulch in four months. Thats with a seven to one seed ratio. the apples, or any of the roses have never gotten close to that and never will. And apples are designed to attract insects and herbivores. potatoes are designed to be immune to them. and bu designed i mean evolved. Don't look at me like that Charles...

>>3500342
I do both of these things and have all my life. GM is if anything less altering than plant breeding, which should stand to reason. We're just not that good at it yet.

>>3500350
Patents expire. that's the point of them. the fact that they expire encourages innovation while at the same time rewarding it with a short term monopoly.

>>3500369
If we allow the repatenting of prior art, then no, patents don't expire mate. Also, take a gander at our neighbours in copyright IP territory. Sony-Bayer Patent Extension Act much?

A key form of bourgeois property is its security from seizure by the state or the public—and as with field redistribution so with patents. Already we've seen patents seized from the actual personal inventor by the corporation. (Miller, DP 'The Paradoxes of Patenting at General Electric: Isador Ladoff's Journey from Siberian Exile to the Heart of Corporate Capitalism', Isis 102 (2011): 634–658.)

>>3500356
>No, they're not: their biomass conversion excludes the mass of the trees and the replanting latency time.
Doesn't matter for yield, which is what I'm talking about.
>You can get, in rain irrigated peat soil
The kind of soil which is non-sustainable and at a premium in many places, gotcha.
>350 sixty pound bushels red potatoes per acre with no fertilizer
10 T per acre? Many places are getting more than double that yield from apples, with no need for crop rotation, no worry of nematodes.
>I teach this stuff.
What is with that line on 4chan.

>>3500364
>GM is if anything less altering than plant breeding
Considering the only real argument for GM is its ability to radically alter plants, you're basically admitting it's useless.

>>3500389
Patent extension laws and repatenting have been pushed in every generation and always fail. The run smack into the constitution, and if there's ever a significant challenge to the Bono legislation, it'll crack too. Without America backing it, patent legislation will always fail and it's the hearts blood of the American technological economy that they remain of limited duration. It's all sort of becoming academic anyway: how many technologies do you know of that don't get superseded by others a couple times in the twenty years that a patent lasts? I'm familiar with anti commons legislation and it really has nothing to bite on. I predict that the public domain will grow soon too. There's just no reason for it not to. It's just to easy to copy stuff.

>>3500402
Not useless. It's faster than selective breeding and it allows introduction of genes that don't exist in the parent stock. But no, it'll never replace a couple thousand years of culling and selection, that's certainly true. but it is much more efficient.

>>3500422
>It's faster than selective breeding and it allows introduction of genes that don't exist in the parent stock.
Wrong on the first part, the second part doesn't agree with what you've written above.

>>3500416
>The run smack into the constitution
I'm sorry, what? Are you serious? Firstly where the fuck are you talking about you cretinous nationalist clapistani? Do you not feel that the Imperial Clap needs an adjective anymore?

Secondly, I commend the actual history of your constitution to you, particularly examples such as FDR, Ike or Reagan's massive extension of federal power without oversight.

>how many technologies do you know of that don't get superseded by others a couple times in the twenty years that a patent lasts?

I've not seen supercession of technology in my life time. If you buy into the ideology of technoscience, that's all well and good, but it means you have no capacity to talk about praxis. The belief that any of these fripperies amounts to "change" is a core part of the ideology of the concentration of value circulation in the hands of imperial technoscience.

Compare vi and TeX to Microsoft Word. Now give me a date on vi and TeX?

Oh I'm sorry, did modal editing copy something IBM did in 1960? HOLY FUCK.

Read more HPS.

>>3500390
Do you know anything about carbohydrate yields in apples versus potatoes? I can't believe I'm having this argument. It's like I'm saying a steak dinner is a good source of nutrition and somebody else is saying oh yeah? what about a handful of jelly beans? Try this: the roses do not produce enough food value in terms of accessible yields per acre to in anyway compete with the grains or potatoes. Their culture is more intensive, their carbs are inferior and their c to carb ratio is a third lower and...

You actually didn't use the best argument for apples over potatoes: there's no caloric investment in preparing them. you have to cook a potato to digest it. But even taking that into account it's a carb win. A huge win. And that sort of soil is being used to graze horses in Ireland. It's not at a premium in Rwanda either. it's marginal for grain even.

>>3500434
I guess you're an idiot. I knew I'd run into one in one of these threads eventually. I had assumed most of you were trolling.

Pretty much all the technology used for communication, data transmission, reproduction and hell, transportation has been totally superseded several times in my lifetime. And that which is still used has been long out of patent. I use a hundred tools in my job throughout the year, and so does just about everybody. Ninety nine percent of those tools will have been out of patent for CENTURIES. And the processes for manufacturing them will have been for at least decades. you can look around any room you're in and just about everything you see will have been manufactured from a public domain design and patent.

i would think this would be obvious.

and stop with the nationalist-imperialist -statist whatever crap. i got tired of hearing it in the sixties and everybody else is now. it's all fairy tale boogeyman shit anyway. in twenty years nobody will even know what it means anymore.

>>3500479
Read more HPS. You're talking populist bullshit that has no academic standing.

>>3500447
>And that sort of soil is being used to graze horses in Ireland.
Where there are peat bogs. However, in UK and Eire there's been a move to boycott peat based soils. They're not even that great, they're just cheap.

>Do you know anything about carbohydrate yields in apples versus potatoes? I can't believe I'm having this argument. It's like I'm saying a steak dinner is a good source of nutrition and somebody else is saying oh yeah? what about a handful of jelly beans?
Man cannot live on bread/potatoes/steak/jellybeans alone. My only point was that apple yield in kg is now such that it matches potato yield per acre, and you came back with some crap about latency time (what is precociousness?), wastage due to insects (which isn't an issue in what I'm talking about), rot (what is appropriate storage? What are cultivars? and again wastage isn't a factor here), and with 10 T/acre which apparently apples have never and will never get close to (plain bs).

>Try this: the roses
Yes, let's try something almost completely unrelated so we can pretend you may have had a point.

>>3500488
Maybe you are trolling. You can't be serious.

And who the fuck cares about academic standing? Or ever has? That's a joke, right? We ARE talking about science here?

>>3500497
I'm sorry, but your comprehension of reality is so removed from the current scientific consensus on the nature of science that there is no further point talking to you because you refuse to be part of reality.

>>3500497
Oh man, this basement dweller post. Yes, the scientific world cares deeply what you think.

>>3500495
Apples are roses.

I threw in the other roses because you could actually make a case with a very few of the the others that produce better carbs than just simple sugars. potatoes are nightshades. they do it better. latency comes while the tree is growing and before it yields. it also yields one crop a year; you can get two with potatoes if you switch varieties.

simply put: the yield of apples per potatoes per acre will never be close without radical modification of the plant. The carbs produced are much lower quality and far fewer in terms of caloric release as well as being susceptible to storage and insect issues. relevancey arguable.

the peat soils are an example of a moderate soil which still produces well despite no fertilization or cultivation and is easily paralleled by other high tilth, well watered soils worldwide. Do you work for an apple marketer or something?

I admit I've only done grafting and maintenance orchardry though I've done some nursery work. nobody ever told me that there was any chance of getting an apple yield close to a potato yield. I've also never seen an example in the literature.

I might expect this kind of argument from Bill Best or one of the bean guys, but not for apples. Trust me: none of the roses stand up. Bush almonds? eventually maybe. With extensive GM.

>>3500513
Well I lived in a basement for awhile in the eighties. And a cabin in the sixties. Most of the time in labs and lecture halls and the field though. And the scientific community nods politely and even occasionally cites my work.

Although the fact that there's a "current scientific consensus on the nature of science" is news to me. You should probably tell the NAS.

>>3500563
Go play with your instruments, instrumentalist.

>thinking genetic engineering makes Ubermensch
>cults of science and utility all around me
>all this decline

spengler plz help

>>3500588
Science =good. calm down and have a genetically modified orange.

>>3500563
Post a pic of your ID. Blur out the sensitive parts.

You have fifteen minutes before your claim expires.

>>3500625
no way. it would take me longer than that to figure out how to keep the evul 4chan from figuring out stuff from it no matter what i blurred. but since I have had a lot more people lately challenging my age and credentials I'll try to come up with a way to demonstrate them in the future, without compromising the anonymity (and deniability) that i come here for in the first place. fair enough? and i certainly don't request blind acceptance of anything I say. Other than facts of my personal life, just about all the stuff I've said can be easily confirmed with a jstor password or a trip to the library.

>>3500540
Apples are in the rosacea family, but if you try an intergenus graft between roses and apples you'd be disappointed. And it's not even like that a bad family for intergenus grafting: grafts between quinces, hawthornes and pears are all very good.

>latency comes while the tree is growing and before it yields.
Yeah, again you should look up precociousness.

>the peat soils are an example of a moderate soil which still produces well despite no fertilization or cultivation and is easily paralleled by other high tilth, well watered soils worldwide.
And yet it is still non-renewable, and has still been boycotted by many different organisations. It also gets waterlogged easily. Have you not wondered why there's been a push for "peat free" products over the past few years?

>simply put: the yield of apples per potatoes per acre will never be close without radical modification of the plant.
Again, even a cursory look at yields per hectare per year will show this is is bs. Unless by "radical modification" you mean standard practice like grafting. For potatoes, apples, pears, all have high yields in the ~40T/(year hectare). If I wanted to make a point, aside from lack of rotation for trees, it's quite easy to compare the amount of machinery/work for each. There's more initial work in starting an orchard, but after setting it up harvesting is comparatively easy.

>>3500625
You can't be serious. Either their arguments and citations exist on their merits alone, or fail on their merits alone. The poster's argument from authority is as fallacious as your argument from their person.

>>3500647
Oh, and intensive vine farming can be imitated with espalier pruning/training, which is yet another important strategy in Dev. countries.

>>3500647
I'm not sure we're totally in disagreement here. I think you're confusing examples with recommendations however.

I used peat soil as an example of a marginal soil mostly because you can do so much better with a better soil, proper cultivation, and fertilizers. I don't advocate peat, or any other marginal soil for agricultural use.

And my yield for potatoes is per crop, not per year, which your apples are and the average over time is nowhere near that of potatoes. And precocial trees won't help you: you need four years from seedling to harvest and to full harvest even longer.

again i don't think you're setting up apples as a competitive food for potatoes, and maybe it seemed like i did think that.

Int he first two Food crop lectures we break the food plants down int groups, starting with the highest economic and nutritive importance and working down. First (of course) the grasses, by far, Second the pulses, third the nightshades (almost entirely due to the potato) Then Mustards, Roses, Cucumbers (including melons and pumpkins) etc, depending on climate and culture the significance changes a lot, but the grasses and pulses always lead, and the nightshades always come in third in temperate and a lot of tropical and subtropical environments. We base it most on high quality carb and amino yield percentages per acre and per unit effort (including cultivation, harvesting, storage and preparation)

I know that strawberries and apples and almonds aren't going into bouquets, I also know that tobacco (a nightshade) isn't going into salads.

I'm not a newcomer to this field. it was what I did for years as a commercial botanist. And I have had to keep up with it now that I'm mostly teaching. It's true that I have a northern hemisphere bias i guess, and a love for the potato and the pinto bean,

>>3500196

i googled perennial polyculture and found this site http://www.perennialsolutions.org/perennial-farming-systems-organic-agriculture-edible-permaculture-eric-toensmeier-large-scale-farmland.html

obviously the internet is full of pie in the sky solutions, but it seems to make sense, i mean obviously monoculture is limited in ways.

>>3500713
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV9CCxdkOng

i love this guy.

>>3499385

It happens, it just doesn't make much of a rustle. Take the history of phrenology as an example.

Science and philosophy doesn't need to get a room, they need to get a separate room and stay as they are.

>>3500682
>you need four years from seedling to harvest and to full harvest even longer.
You might want to check up on some of the dwarf rootstocks that allow the high yields, like the m9s, it's more like 2 years to harvest and 4 to full harvest. And the initial harvests are ~50% of the final yield (depending on scion). If you can wait (which for fruit you can) it's not a massive issue.
>And my yield for potatoes is per crop, not per year, which your apples are and the average over time is nowhere near that of potatoes.
It makes no difference, look up the numbers for annual potato yield per hectare and compare that with apples. The highest numbers are all about the same now. And that's all I was ever saying.

>I know that strawberries and apples and almonds aren't going into bouquets, I also know that tobacco (a nightshade) isn't going into salads.
>cannot into tomato salad

>It's true that I have a northern hemisphere bias i guess, and a love for the potato and the pinto bean
It really makes little difference. Apples have some variation with the local temperature (you get better dwarfing but worse quality in hotter regions), but most problems can be prevented with use of appropriate rootstock.

>it was what I did for years as a commercial botanist.
This might explain your bias towards GM, but I can assure you that the agri committees aren't interested. The arguments are always "but GM will give you crops like this (i.e. resist pests/salt/drought, or are vigorous)", and the committees tend to reply "We can already do those things cheaper and more sustainably than you can offer, it's education that's the issue". Traditional methods that are easy to understand are really the way forward here.

>>3500760
>We can already do those things cheaper and more sustainably than you can offer, it's education that's the issue". Traditional methods that are easy to understand are really the way forward here

This is the big mistake: I've worked traditional farms, organic farms and commercial farms. There is no way forward with traditional methods. The yields from the modified crops are as high as ten times what they are for traditional methods, and they yield higher nutrient content, better blight resistance, use fewer soil nutrients and less water. It's truly a revolution in every sense of the word, and it's already changed the world in ways most people don't even realize. not the least in freeing up so much marginal land to go back to wild. I wish I could convince people that traditional farming methods are killing them and the environment, but it's harder than you might expect. I don't want to teach the organic enthusiasts though: them I would line up and shoot for what they've done to the rain forests.

At least traditional farmers use hybrids and pesticides, and fertilizers. They're not all plowing up thirty acres to get the yields that one well-cultivated acre would give them.

>>3500800
>The yields from the modified crops are as high as ten times what they are for traditional methods
You're either shit at traditional methods, or you're living in la la land. Maybe both. Anything GM can offer can already be beaten with more practical technologies, the only reason anyone really has for GM is muh intellectual property and control.

>>3500824
Nope> in the last thirty years Monsanto alone has multiplied several strains acre yields by ten. We were talking it over just a month ago, It's an amazing thing.And as far as intellectual property rights, all but about ten percent of those changes are out of patent, and those still in are mostly herbicide resistances, specifically roundup, and not being prosecuted because of bad press. Believe me, nothing comes close to GM, either in traditional laboratory crosses or in actual gene implantation (which still requires extensive culturing) it can't be beat.

On a relevant note, why does anybody care? I mean it's only one of hundreds of techniques used to improve food production and it seems to show the most promise for the least investment.

>>3500840
I heard this all before in the 1960s in relation to crude oil derived fertilisers. And we still starved millions of people to death.

>>3500842
What universe are you living in? they predicted widespread famine in the sixties. A billion people were fed by the methods pioneered at texas A& M. Nobody has starved to death because of better (more modern) farming techniques. Quite the opposite.

In the sixties i was working on a farm. I was plowing with a team of mules and getting thirty seeded bushels of field corn per acre, I was crawling on my hands and knees in the mornings to pick cucumbers for paramount so i could buy school clothes and soaking manure in old washing machines to make tea for the grape vines.

Let me tell you something about traditional farming methods. Fuck them. Fuck them in the ass, With a two by four.

>>3500871
>Let me tell you something about traditional farming methods.

Yes, and fuck capitalism. What do you think starved those millions?

>>3500886
political unrest. and it it was mostly in china as i recall. So i guess you can blame capitalism and imperialism, which in retrospect is pretty much maoism to the core, But we didn't know that then.

>>3500901
People weren't used to thinking of ideological imperialism and human capital manipulations. It was a different time. We know better now.

>>3500840
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/09/genetically-modifying-patenting-seeds
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-10-10/hyderabad/34362468_1_bt-cotton-gm-crops-bt-variety
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.org/science/article/pii/S0167880901002638
ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/agp/ca/CA_CoP_June12/Rio20-Altieri.pdf

>>3500842
The fact is, most places have strategies for growing crops in their region. Corporations like to peddle the next big thing, and if that fucks up the strategies, who cares since they're now dependant on buying from your company. And they sell this shit aggressively, since production is expensive and the only way to justify it in the business plan is to be insanely optimistic about unit numbers. Where agriculture is new to the area, other strategies (such as breeding new cultivars, or novel irrigation methods) work better. As stated above, there are more practical ways to intensify production in sustainable ways without needing to resort to transgenics, and indeed I agree it's just the same old marketing hype attached to a new brand of snake oil.

>>3500901
We certainly knew about the people being starved in North Africa, India, Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central and Southern America because the price of their nutrition was below what the market from Western European and North American farmers could bear.

The pre 1945 and pre 1989 Chinese famines can be attributed to non-imperialistic capitalism without modern agrochemicals.

The point is: we starved millions with the last green "revolution," and we'll starve them again with GM. The problem isn't production of mass of nutrition, it is distribution in a capitalist economy.

>>3500915
Nobody wants sustainable agriculture and successful agriculture as much as corporations. They have product to sell, and they sell it by giving higher yields and cheaper methods than their competitors. and corporations aside, science and charitable missions have helped just as much in teaching farmers how to improve their yields and use and market their produce, with a few notable failures (sorry New Guinea)

.>>3500920

You can't hang Africa on us. they wouldn't let us (or anybody) in. And you have to admit that in china india and pakistan for every one that starved to death, a thousand lived and were healthy because of the work of Borlaug and his bunch. That's a thousand that would have starved without his work, a thousand to one ratio is damn good, though of course its never good enough.

All those people that lived, that are still living, because of modern agriculture. It's the most amazing thing in the twentieth century. And the millions you say starved ? i don't know how that happened. maybe they were in countries that the improvements couldn't get to. But if the green revolution killed millions and saved billions (which is undeniable: they're out there, still eating) that's a good trade, especially since most of those billions are in third world poverty stricken countries and the millions are mostly in china, arguably the most "civilized" country in the world.

>>3500987
And I'm betting Genetic Modification will save even more. Borlaug thought it would. He thought the carrying capacity of the earth at current nutritive levels was close to thirteen billion, but maybe ten to be on the safe side in 1985, and that was without even using any more land. (he based part of that on the fact that as much as half the food we grow is wasted).

And communism? Capitalism? Who the fuck cares? China is the biggest communist and the biggest capitalistic country in the world,

Grow it, as much as you can any way you can. Whoever can grow two stalks of corn where one grew before... well, you know the rest.

We are the vanguard of humanity. we farmers. It only takes one percent of us to feed the world where a hundred years ago it took thirty. A day will come when food will be as free as air, and it'll be us, the scientists and agricultural researchers and plain old farmers that did it. And you can be as capitalist as rockefeller or as commie as old marx himself and it won't matter.

You're welcome.

Did I mention the billions saved? Thanks Norman, from everybody.

>>3500987
>You can't hang Africa on us. they wouldn't let us (or anybody) in.
Capital flows say otherwise mate.

>And you have to admit that in china india and pakistan for every one that starved to death, a thousand lived and were healthy because of the work of Borlaug and his bunch.
This was a triumph. Should we congratulate Stalin on the amelioration of the Holodomor?—castigations all around for Stalin. Castigations for the loss of one. Though I'm not goint to hang this as a conspiracy on Borlaug, castigations all around for the agribusiness and bourgeois states' limitation of production and distribution to keep price points. I refer to your:
>Nobody wants sustainable agriculture and successful agriculture as much as corporations.
No, they don't want this at all, they want the enhancement of shareholder value—the circulation of the value form in an expanded mode. Selling seeds, fertiliser and pesticide is merely a route to value maximisation. If the price by volume that matches effective demand results in the starvation of millions, they don't care. They have a fiduciary obligation not to. And they effectively control the state's agriculture policy.

I'm singularly unwilling to murder Peter to feed Paul. The problem here isn't the content of manipulation of plant outputs. The problem is the social order that implements the agriculture based on plant manipulations. And "science" is caught up in that order, bound to it, science modernity and capitalism go hand in hand like children skipping down the road. Even if science is picked on for wearing glasses. Much of the actual content of science will probably still be conducted when we unfuck our economies and society—but it will have such a different context that these days will be looked upon as the dark days of science, technology and implementation.

>>3500987
>Nobody wants sustainable agriculture and successful agriculture as much as corporations.
Uh, the farmers do. Often moreso in fact.
>They have product to sell, and they sell it by giving higher yields and cheaper methods than their competitors.
And my patented tonic sells by curing your ails, bringing back your vigour and improving your love life. And it somehow makes you rich too.
>>3500991
>Borlaug
You might as well be saying Malthus for what you're saying about him. The whole green revolution was pretty myopic, but even so it's also only pre-green revolution farming styles that show any decent increase in production from GM as shown in the papers above. Read them.

>>3501017
Farmers want to grow more food and sell it, people want to buy food and eat it, monsanto wants to sell the seed to the farmers, so everybody wants the farmers producing more and better crops for their own reasons.

And nobody murdered anybody, Borlaug would have been fine with everybody Stalin and Mao killed sitting down at the table next to him. And youre right: science goes hand in hand with capitalism and communism and naziism and rastafarianism, because its sort of the universal solvent: it works and everybody needs it. You can't blame science because Hitler and Gandhi and Borlaug and Marx and batman use it. You're using it yourself.

We can save the world guys.

we're gonna.

With plows and microtomes and information.

>>3501102
>Farmers want to grow more food and sell it, people want to buy food and eat it, monsanto wants to sell the seed to the farmers, so everybody wants the farmers producing more and better crops for their own reasons.
Am I a good consumer yet? Feed me more ideological drivel Mammon!

>>3501102
>science works everywhere.

Oh lawd.

>>3501110
yah gotta eat guys. consuming food is the first type of consumption. and the science has no ideology. it makes the gas for Hitler's holocaust and the bandages for the wounded Jewish soldiers. it's just a tool. and yeah it works everywhere.

>>3501114
Well. maybe not in Narnia. Are you one of those neckbeards i keep hearing about?