Alliance for Science

Just because you can improve your chances of surviving a nuclear exchange doesn’t mean it’s desirable. I don’t want to live through the subsequent famines and slow death of everyone I know and love. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/what-the-science-s…

If you believe the science, being opposed to GMOs is being in favor of mass starvation. See https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/unfairly-demonized… for some of that information. Also note that separate lines of research show that higher CO2 results in crops growing faster, but having fewer nutrients. And therefore GMOs are our best hope of having not just enough food, but food that compensates for CO2 increases.

> What saved us was the invention of Haber-Bosch process, chemical synthesis of nitrogen fertilizer from air nitrogen. Of equal importance is Norman Borlaug, who bred new wheat and corn varieties that were able to make use of the fertilizers and grow large harvests. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/04/norman-borlaug-leg…

> Publishers != Authors I agree! Perhaps you should actually read the criticism of this study, which also came from one of the authors[1][2]. So now we have Yale (the lead author's institution), the journal itself, and a co-author who all say that the conclusion in the paper is false. What is a false statement that someone makes despite knowing that their data does not support it? It is a lie. 1. https://www.science.org/content/article/dissent-splits-authors-provoca… 2. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/09/speculative-scient…

An article on the subject without a paywall: https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/12/a-lab-stage-mrna-v…

It seems like many GMO crops can actually have more (or in some cases just different?) Nutrients. In any case, it would a balance of some sort-- 20% increase in crop yields would more than offset 10% reduction in nutrients. Though I have no idea what the actual balance is. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/unfairly-demonized…

I'm worried about undue influence of Tech Billionaires. If you hold the belief that "Global warming is real", "and the world has too many people." How pernicious those two beliefs put together could be. You couple that with some Eugenic beliefs in creating a super human race. And find out that Epstein had those views, and then you find out about the flight logs of people that visited his island. It just breeds distrust. [Edit] Some proof: Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.h… Bill Gates: Gene editing can help humanity https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/04/bill-gates-gene-ed…

I have a degree in CS and minored in BioEngineering. I’ve also kept up with the field and regularly drop in on classes. Finally, this isn’t some conspiracy idea. Here’s from Cornell https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/12/yes-some-covid-vac… They’re using genetic material to have your body create proteins. Some people like to argue it’s not “gene therapy” because it doesn’t make lasting gene edits. But (1) the definition is disputed and (2) that’s also not clear because we haven’t studied if it changes gene expression. We also don’t know how long the mRNA lasts, so it can keep generating the cytotoxic spike proteins for an unknown length of time. You’re the only arrogant one here.

> It wasn't really the media doing that. [1] - https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/06/covid-lab-leak-the… [2] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/coronavirus-lab-theory-yan-ban… [3] - https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/

"Yes, some COVID vaccines use genetic engineering. Get over it." - Cornell Alliance for Science. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/12/yes-some-covid-vac…

This article seems to suggest GMO crops reduce pesticide use. Maybe we need to collect the data for both GMO crops and non GMO crops on pesticide use. But who should we trust to collect that data? https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/07/new-study-gmo-crop…

- American farms are 4 times more productive than African farms. We need to develop seeds for the African environment so the Africa no longer needs to import food [1] - After Joe Manchin bailed on the big infrastructure bill, Bill Gates personally lobbied him (secretly) to turn him around so he finally signed the revised version [2] - Rich countries emitted the carbon dioxide that contributed to global warming. Poor countries did not but they are being most heavily effected by global warming. We need to help them by developing seeds in a hotter climate [3] - We've reinvented the toilet so it processes it's own waste so you don't need a sewage plant [4] - When asked about the role of government vs private foundations, he said you need both, because where government falls short private foundations can step in. [5] - When asking Gates about the future, Ari asked him about the Metaverse and if would become a big part of the economy. He redirected the topic and didn't answer the question. He said virtual reality was fine, like a video game, but he said artificial intelligence was far more significant and where the most advances will be made. [6] [7] - When asked about being the largest private land owner in America he said his investment group is investing heavily in farms and increasing yields from those farms. [8] [1] African farmers want GMO seeds to help weather climate…

All data indicates that climate change will diminish crop yields [1] and ocean life harvests [2] [3] [4]. If there is data to the contrary, I am open to consuming it to update my mental model. > Researchers combined a global dataset of field warming experiments conducted at 48 sites to estimate decreased yields of 7.1 percent for maize, 5.6 percent for rice, 10.6 percent for soybean and 2.9 percent for wheat. Their estimates were 95 percent probable for the first three staples and 89 percent for wheat. > In response, “technological and adaptive measures, such as northern expansion of the croplands, will thus have to increase yield by 1.8–2.0 percent per year to meet the conservative estimates of a 70 percent increase in food demand,” the researchers wrote. > However, that required rate is higher than the historical yield increases in the late 20th century, “which is both challenging and alarming, considering the stagnating yield increases widely observed for the past decade,” they concluded. [1] https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/11/global-crop-yields… [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/climate/climate-change-ocean-fish-i… (Warming Waters, Moving Fish: How Climate Change Is Reshaping Iceland) [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/climate/fish-climate-change.html (The World Is Losing Fish to Eat as Oceans Warm, Study Finds) > If current population trends continue at the same rate, the…

> Instead of growing cabbage in prime real estate in Copenhagen, why don't we invest in Africa, give them some huge machines and then buy their produce? Do we really need a repeat of the supply chains breaking down again to answer this question? African farmers were dismayed when their bumper crops were rotting in their fields because they couldn't export the crops or even sell the excess locally [0]. Livestock farmers also saw this as well [1]. It's hard to imagine that people haven't learned the value of having a robust local food supply chain, which is the one thing that I had hoped we had learned after the shortages and panic buying created during the 1st wave of COVID. I agree that vertical farming has limitations, but it could be a useful adjunct to meet demand the typical soil based farming cannot deliver. Moreover, much like Holland's greenhouse farming the chances are most of it will be exported in exchange for other goods. Also, remember Denmark has a limited growing season that could in theory help them plan for larger scale operations, which they can partner with for Mars colonization as things develop in both sectors. > I imagine it would work quite nicely in Iceland, with abundant energy and little (any?) arable land. It’s arguably better than mining Bitcoin with that energy. Why not both? The excess heat from the mining could be used to have heated greenhouse/nurseries while still utilizing the excess heat and energy. This was working rather well in…