Coffea stenophylla - future Arabica replacement from the past... - Page 2

Want to talk espresso but not sure which forum? If so, this is the right one.
User avatar
GC7
Supporter ♡

#11: Post by GC7 »

LBIespresso wrote:Modern DNA tech is much more precise than blasting seeds with chemicals or radiation and then just hoping you get a good result.
Indeed. There is a lot of amazing, creative science out there. Genomics is at that cutting edge.

George Church wants to create Jurassic Park and help global warming. There are about 1100 relevant changes between Asian Elephants and extinct Woolly Mammoths. Crispr and related new genetic tools can in theory make a Woolly Mammoth from an Asian Elephant. Church wants to try. Here is a cool overview.

https://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/

User avatar
another_jim
Team HB

#12: Post by another_jim »

And for that triumph, the consequences are entirely foreseeable -- does the correct DNA include a few thousand square miles of ice age subarctic tundra?
Jim Schulman

Flair Espresso: handcrafted espresso. cafe-quality shots, anytime, anywhere
Sponsored by Flair Espresso
User avatar
GC7
Supporter ♡

#13: Post by GC7 »

:D

Jim - there are habitats around at least for now. This is not happening tomorrow. I believe the point I was making is that there is awesome technology available to adapt species quickly and non stochastically. The computer jock informatics people drive this as much as the lab bench people.

User avatar
another_jim
Team HB

#14: Post by another_jim »

Maybe, and I'm beginning to sound like Jeff Goldblum. But for instance, the young mammoths ate their parent's feces, presumably to get the correct microbiome to digest the arctic grasses. Yech factor aside, the gene codes that need to be restored is not just one species', but of entire ecosystems. Given the speed at which DNA decoding and encoding are being developed, this is probably on the horizon too.

But progress in the fundamental understanding of complex systems at the ecological level has been a great deal slower, to put it kindly, or utterly stalled, to put it more realistically. It may be that some neural net AI can handle these simulations, with their seemingly endless boundary conditions, and with their stable points crazy scattered in fractal patterns; but are you ready to trust the planet to an AI whose coding you cannot understand?

Seems to me a little less gee whiz, and little more cautious and humble common sense, may be in order.
Jim Schulman

User avatar
GC7
Supporter ♡

#15: Post by GC7 »

Jim -

I was around for all the debates about the safety of Recombinant DNA back in 1976 and onward. Of course for release of organisms that could impact entire ecosystems we must be cautious. There was even a huge debate about reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone Park and what they would do to the balance of the ecosystem after all those decades without them. That's not an altered organism but it turned out really well. While I may be more enthusiastic about the wonders of genetics, I don't believe our goals or need for responsible, cautious actions to solve problems is very different.

DamianWarS
Supporter ♡

#16: Post by DamianWarS » replying to GC7 »

I get this is all hypothetical but I don't believe coffee has crossed into a GMO space (or has a plan to) and hybridization is still done using conventional methods. Coffea stenophylla is a solution to continue outside of a GMO sandbox and hybridize with some classics out there like bourbon, typica, and heirlooms. It also helps contribute to some genetic diversity among coffee since a lot of the worlds coffee are from 1 tree back in the 18th century