CRISPR-edited trees reduce the energy and water required to make paper

I mean, why not use hemp instead of engineering a new species of tree?

can't patent that
- You've been able to patent asexually reproduced plants since 1930, so if a new paper production centric hemp breed was primarily reproduced by cuttings it would be patent-able. If said hemp breed were reproduced via seeds, then you'd need to use the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 which allows very similar legal protections.
Poplars are probably the best way to get a lot of biomass quickly. I doubt hemp is a competitive alternative.
And they're not engineering a new species of tree, they just modified the trees to reduce the lignin content so the cellulose can be processed easier and less resource intense.
Trees provide habitat for wildlife, can grow in areas less conducive to farming, and require little to no care after planting.
- While what you're saying is generally true about trees, they're creating poplars for the paper industry. They will grow in big monocultures and get mowed down after just a decade. That's pretty much worthless as an ecosystem.
  They're grown in a similar way for biomass for the energy sector. Poplars are probably the easiest way to build up a lot of biomass.

kudzu is very fibrous it can be made into paper and it grows so fast we can’t eradicate it in the southern united states. It grows like a foot a day. I worked with a guy in mississippi he cut it back 7 feet every saturday or it would overtake his backyard.

I’ve been fighting kudzu for years that keeps encroaching my property from the neighbor’s yard
by far the fastest growing plant matter I’ve ever seen
the way it can grow underground and then pop up 10 feet away it’s like those whack-a-mole games but far less fun
not to mention it wraps around any thing it finds so it can quickly choke out a tree

I, for one, am grateful for science and what we can do with it. It's crazy awesome that people figured out how to edit genes. I really liked Unatural Selection (2019) TV series.

I'm concerned about the first application of crispr to make super soldiers.

A few genes flipped and the army coming out the other side would be terrifying.

Strong soldiers are cool and all but I feel war has progressed way passed that, what with all the drone vids of the ukraine war and such.
unless we have gene edited people that are pro gamers, in which case id cry a bit when I run into them online ;w;
Modern wars are won with technology. Tanks, planes and drones. Super soldiers wouldn't make much of a difference these days.

CRISPR? I hardly know her.

Your argument is if you can't do it then nobody should be able to? That's an interesting hill.
Here you go https://www.the-odin.com/diy-crispr-kit/

Capitalism always finds a way...

From all the uses one could find to CRISPR, this is probably one of the dumbest.

Is it? This seems like one of the most beneficial and least controversial uses
Making paper? Capitalizzum. Marx would have cried if he heard people equate economy and production with capitalism.
- Here's my point. We live under global capitalism. It's just how things are, right?
  And capitalism, just like, say, life, has its ways. It creates an environment where certain outcomes are more likely than others.
  Making an observation about it does not make me partial to other systems. I have no such preference. What I observe is just that capitalism, just like life, always finds a way—its way.
  I heard someone mentioned the danger of using CRISPR to make better soldiers. It's crazy, right? But why isn't crazy to tinker with a tree? Yes, it may make those trees a better product. And all seems good. But once you do that to the tree, and it becomes profitable, the incentive is there to make that true for everything else.
  I think it's dumb because such power (CRISPR) should be treated with great care. Curing a disease? Go for it. But be careful. Now, to make a better product? I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way.
  Perhaps I'm not seeing the whole picture. Or maybe I should take some bioethics class again.
  But whatever may be the case, my point is not there all proletariat the world over should unite.
Did you read the article? They're just reducing the lignin content in the wood so it's easier to process cellulose. I don't understand where you see the difference to let's say selective breeding to produce bigger and sweeter fruits. CRISPR is just an optimised and probably better results promising alternative to the massive amounts of trial and error we had to go through to isolate promising genetic traits.
- Thank you for engaging! This is what makes Lemmy such a great platform. It’s people like you who engage in a meaningful way.
  Now, you raise a good point. Did I read the article? Well, I’ve cut the middleperson, and went straight to the paper. The Editor’s summary has this to say:
  This work demonstrates that genome editing can be harnessed for breeding more efficient trees, which will provide timely opportunities for sustainable forestry and a more efficient bioeconomy.
  Which means ‘more efficient’ to us. To our understanding of efficiency. At face-value, I’m sold to the benefits. Economy-wise, it looks great. But it still bothers me. Something something about ‘the greater picture’. That’s why I mentioned in another reply that I probably have to update my view on bioethics. It’s been a while since I gave it a careful consideration. I may be missing the the forest for the trees… (dad joke).