Re: [DIYbio] Re: Biosecurity

>species grown in higher  density 3D arrangements (i.e. hydroponics, etc)

I see you immediately revert to suggesting using random options with little or no safety testing... as long as they're not GM.

How many decades of actual safety testing have been done of the health effects of plants grown in unnatural warehouses, grown in a [patentable] ]nutrient broth running through [patentable] hydroponics systems, under banks of [patentable] LED's and all the random biochemical changes that leads to... compared to the safety tests applied to most GM crops? 

I'm just gonna start replying to every one of your posts with the words "ISOLATED DEMANDS FOR RIGOR"

Because it describes them perfectly.

>" in contrast to raising existing species which provide little to no ability for patents "

but which do include plant breeders rights, which are functionally equivilent except for having a longer term than patents.

It's like you spend half your post railing against patents and lack of safety testing... and your alternative is a system suffused with vastly more patents and other IP rights with basically zero safety testing.

Seems like a poorly though out and basically undefendable position.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:43 PM Jonathan Cline <jcline@ieee.org> wrote:

On 6/14/19, Andreas "Mega" Stuermer <andreas.t.stuermer@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Also, I am doubtful this biosphere will stand another 20 years. If we don't
> grow our food more sustainably (that is - genetically engineered), I can
> preety much guarantte you that it will certainly not stand 100 more years

Switching to a plant-based menu of existing species grown in higher
density 3D arrangements (i.e. hydroponics, etc) would sustain the
future global population and ecology just fine, more easily in terms
of financial investment, and with less impact regardless of genetic
engineering.   Your comment is simply using fear as rationalization
for use of untested technology.  The sole reason that this legitimate
avenue is not employed in large scale is that the new technology can
be patented and thus investment returns are far higher, in contrast to
raising existing species which provide little to no ability for
patents.  The creation of a wide economic moat by applying new
technology regardless of test history is what is rewarded.  Safety and
in-depth study prior to deployment are not rewarded.


--
## Jonathan Cline
## jcline@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAAhtNQuWvKw1r1TK5vs66gHN-HCD0aNsyBLsbSsMxQRDBx9t_w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.