Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let’s Talk About Our Feelings about the Let’s Talk About Our -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (3434)	8/16/2006 11:45:04 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5290

Crichton is right on, I think. I know a little about genetics, and have dealt in eugenics a little by establishing a tree improvement program where I worked in Oregon. That program used the same principles discussed in your quotation. But for trees, not people. Trees are completely promiscuous. They cast their pollen to the wind, and the coneflowers open themselves up to anything that comes along. No eugenics program could ever become a dominant force in the general population of trees. It's much too labor intensive, except for specific applications. Besides, messing with genes, even in trees, can have dire consequences. Say you get ten times as much wood out of a particular genotype (as with Monterey pine as farmed in New Zealand). You go merrily along until a bug that wipes out that one genotype comes along. Then you are completely out of business.