@cmuratori Does that include old-fashioned cross breeding/hybrids too? GMOs aren't written from scratch the way software is.
-
-
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc Cross-breeding is not nearly as dangerous because of the drastically reduced scope of possible short-term outcomes.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori Randomly combining a shotgun blast of genes is *more* predictable than selectively combining individual genes?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc Yes, because the species _have to be able to mate in the first place_. Modern GMO crosses organisms that could not have bred.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc The possibility space for GMO is infinitely larger than that of cross-breeding.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori I don't think so. Combining *all* genes from 2 individuals vs. all from 1 and *one* from the other: 2**N > N+M.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc GMOs can use any number of genes from any number of organisms. There's no law saying they can only pick 1 gene from 1 organism.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori So given a GM seed containing 1 selected, studied, foreign gene, and a cross-bred seed, I'd label the second one first.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc Labeling isn't the problem here, although obviously more information is always good. It's catastrophic consequences in the wild.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc And there is no way to "study" that beforehand. You cannot know what ecological effect your gene insertions are going to have.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@taradinoc And they can be radically different from the kinds of effects you could have by cross-breeding, since that requires mating.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.