Tree lifespans

[JamesTX]

"How ridiculous to even consider that the earth will be a eutopia".

The Earth will be a Utopia - eventually. We are nothing to the Earth, merely an annoyance. Someday, we'll be gone and the Earth will shrug off all the damage done by humans and repair and remake itself.

Then it'll be Utopia. Unfortunately, we won't be around to enjoy it.

 

[Ekka]

Hey James, geez this reminds of another thread ... you're not "trolling" are you?

 

[JamesTX]

What other thread? And, no, I don't troll.

I just asked about my oak. Someone else turned it into a discussion on philosophy and genetics!

Interesting thread though.

 

[treeseer]

But we are changed. And we have been changing for millions of years and will continue to change. In the next thousand years or so we may likely become the prime mover of our changing. Darwin is grinning.

Dan, there is evolutionary change and then there is manipulative change. I see a big distinction there.

James, please pass along the results of your soil test and we will try to help.

Lights are fine if they don't damage tree tissue.

 

[Ekka]

No worries James, I troll a bit here and there.

And this thread's a good one as no-one can be around the day that the oldest tree was planted and the day it died ... no-one can be proven right or wrong ...

Now lets have a look at Treeseer's argument. His argument holds strong if you believe that the existing genetic code of say us "humans" is 100% exact and nothing we do will make it any better.

On the other hand if you believe that we have evolved and our genetic code is shaped by a bump here and there and we're not bad but have room for improvement well ... then there's every reason to believe in genetic manipulation.

The problem is no-one knows for sure if there will be any long term consequences of gene manipulation ... what if in 3 generations time the entire family blood tree gets some horrible disability traced back to a altered or removed gene?

The old what if.

But, as a species we have advanced this far because we look that "what if" in the face and take the risk knowing that the idle alternative in many instances also has dire consequences. A family tree riddled with genetical disabilities already has nothing to lose ....

.... nothing ventured nothing gained.

Personally, I'm all for science with appropriate control methods built in and sample volunteer cases. I believe the evolutionary process is flawed with errors, if we have the technology lets use it. I'll put my hand up right away.

Oh, and as far as trees go, bonsai would have to be the most intense form of control measures on health etc. An ancient art practiced for over 1000 years, yet not one bonsai is that old, some claim to be hundreds and some several hundreds ... but nothing can be proved. It's not like we can carbon date them or count the rings!

 

[JamesTX]

I believe that one day we will understand the genomes of organism including our own so well that it will be considered inhumane to not manipulate.

The problem I see with genetic manipulation is that the Earth is in a state of equilibrium. There is a system of checks and balances that have been developed over the eons that keeps the world functioning smoothly.

Once you start manipulating genes, you've taken that organism out of the natural system. The rest of the environment can't react fast enough to keep that organism in check.

Examples of this can be seen when you move an organism out of it's natural environment and reintroduce it somewhere else - think kudzu. Obviously, this isn't genetic manipulation, but it is an example of what can happen if nature is not allowed to develop checks and balances.

As far as life spans of humans go - I think that a humans life span is gentically coded. Certain types of cells (brain and nerve) do not regenerate of replace themselves. Other types lose the ability to faithfully reproduce over time - flaws are introduced. Some physical changes occur - tendons become less pliable.

I don't know if the same can be said for trees and plants.

Ekka - seriously, I'm not trolling.

 

[JamesTX]

I think in the short-term, the Earth is NOT in equilibrium - i.e. Mt. St. Helens, the recent tsunami, etc. Drastic changes occur in the short term.

In the long-term, everything settles down and the balance is restored. Of course, long-term to the Earth is really, really, long term to humans.

 

[Ekka]

Go the genetic manipulation ....

.... we gotta turn off that fat gene real fast as 90% of society no longer work physically and sit on their butts at keyboards getting fat.

So in a hundred years we have changed our ways and the environment drastically, and it will take thousands of years of evolution to correct us, but if we flick and click a few genes ... bingo we're adapted.

They've isolated numerous genes now that are left overs of our caveman days, you can reduce the tendency for criminal violence, turn off fat genes etc ... perhaps rid hereditary diseases.

When the environment changes faster than the species ability to evolve extinction is a possibility, like the dinosaurs. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see where the scientists go with this.

 

[JamesTX]

When the environment changes faster than the species ability to evolve extinction is a possibility...

What's the opposite of extinction?

 

[Ekka]

What's the opposite of extinction?

Eternity I suppose.

 

[begleytree]

Go the genetic manipulation ....

.... we gotta turn off that fat gene real fast as 90% of society no longer work physically and sit on their butts at keyboards getting fat..

Survival of the fittest, ekka. If/ when it gets so bad, that folks are dying of fat related illness before they get a chance to reproduce, then evolution Will have essentially turned off the fat gene for us. But, for some reason, it was beneficial to us at one point to have it, it may be so again.

So in a hundred years we have changed our ways and the environment drastically, and it will take thousands of years of evolution to correct us, but if we flick and click a few genes ... bingo we're adapted...

Or evolved, but at what cost?

They've isolated numerous genes now that are left overs of our caveman days, you can reduce the tendency for criminal violence, turn off fat genes etc ... perhaps rid hereditary diseases.

Perhaps rid us of something more, something that we need. Perhaps we rid ourselves of an old useless gene, but that gene, combined inside a sequence of genes, makes up something we couldn't live without, or rids us of our drive to be more? our imagination, a level of comprehension, or adaptability?

When the environment changes faster than the species ability to evolve extinction is a possibility, like the dinosaurs. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see where the scientists go with this

I agree, and remember, you don't have to off every member of the species to kill it all off, just reduce it's numbers below the level it's able to viably sustain itself due to loss of genetic diversity.I believe we as a speces have stopped evolving because we evolve to meet a change in the environment, but humans change their environment to suit themselves, so barring a major change, I can forsee no changes comming up soon (see my sig)

Great post BTW, Ekka.

I do disagree that trees could live forever, some live long lives, and have programming to aid that, and others don't. IE the bristlecone pine lives what, upwards of 4,000 years, where the lombardy poplar is lucky to see 25? or is it that the L poplar is just younger, specieswise, and doesn't have the genetic viability to withstand the environmental factors the bc pine does? perhaps a bad chioce for comparasion, But you follow the premise. interesting question, at least to me.
very interesting stuff to me, (duh, avatar), at least the hominid side of it anyway.
-Ralph

 

[Ekka]

I watched a show on cable about where we all came from.

They used some genetic marker to trace us all back to a tribe in Africa. That's the whole freakin lot of us globally.

But where did that tribe come from?

The deeper you dig the harder it gets.

Yeah tampering with genetics is risky, but they could be like brain cells ... don't need 90% of them! Although some might do with a few more. But nothing ventured nothing gained ... the old what if? And what about if not?

We do not all have exactly the same genes, some have more/less or different ones don't they? .... and isolating problem ones etc is interesting science. Years ago transplants were treated the same way, even today some religions refuse blood transfusions etc ... I think that it is the future and a lot of money is being poured into it. Yes, a lot of people will object but if I want to risk it in the event of ill health thats my decision and I shouldn't be denied it especially if I've already had kids and can't pass on the new genetical structure.

Interesting.

 

[treeseer]

I believe we as a speces have stopped evolving because we evolve to meet a change in the environment, but humans change their environment to suit themselves, so barring a major change, I can forsee no changes comming up soon (see my sig)

Ralph I agree with Dan on this; humans and their environment are in a double-feedback loop; we change our world and our world changes us and on and on.

 

[begleytree]

Guys, I think we're basically on the same page, perhaps if I define my words I was using:
I think we are ever adapting to the changes around us, caused either by nature, or ourselves, but an adaptation or change in behavior isn't actually evolving on a genetic level.
I think as far as our evolution on a genetically coded level is not happening because 1. there is no major catastrophie forcing us to, or in reality, killing everyone who doesn't posses a certian trait, and 2. too many people, any small change would be negated by the sheer popluation density of mankind on earth. kinda circles back around to #1 there.

So, changing, adapting, yes, coyotes didn't evolve to eat from human refuse containers, thats an adaptation in their behavior, and prob a lot of them died due to their lack of an ability to make the switch, now most of whats left have that trait (not trash eating, but the ability to live close to humans, and scavenge our containers.

-Ralph

Ekka, the marker is Mitochondrial DNA, passed ONLY from the mother, not a blend like dna and rna. If a woman fails to produce a female offspring, her MDNA line ends, hence the trace back to one woman in africa. But I'm not going the 'eve' route with that one, brings religion into a place it has no buisness, imo.

 

[darkstar]

i never thought is see the day when tree men are talking philosopy... yikks but good....

 

[Ekka]

I remember a scientist said "throughout human evolution our technological capabilities have advanced us, the stone age, bronze age, industrial age and so on.

We have now come to a time where information and technology are our tools for further advancement. Just like the advancements of the past this is our key for the future.

I remember a debate on tv over using this technology, on one hand a guy was saying nature (sounds better than GOD) knows best on the other a guy was saying then why did nature give us this intellect and technology. Extract

"By the year 2015 the super computer equal to our human brain will be with us"
By 2025 it will be on our desks, and by 2030 it will be wearing us"
Oeter Cochrane

Hurry up and evolve!


Until now, people have evolved as a result of a process unguided by
intelligence. The particular ways in which atoms and packets of energy
self-assemble to form humans and the behavior that propagates them
across generations is unplanned as far as we can know. This self assembly
has been a process devoid of forethought or moral constraint. The only
criterion for the continuing existence of a strain of humans has been
whether or not they successfully procreate.

Now we are to cross a threshold to a modal change in the process that give
rise to human life. We are about to enter a new epoch in which some or all
human beings, their nature, and the events that derive from it will be
planned and guided by human minds. The pertinent question is who is
going to enhance what and what will be the consequences for them and
others. However much we may rebel at the idea, the human species must now
play "god". What kind of "god" will we be?

Scott C. Guth, M.D.

 

[begleytree]

I strongly disagree.

Thats cool, But, what are your reasons? I've done a lot of studying on it, but by no means know everything.
-Ralph

 

[begleytree]

Ok Dan.
We will just disagree, no harm. Sorry if I watered it down, oversimplified it, you get used to doing that around my neck of the woods, or no-one knows what you're talking about. Black and white is easier to explain.
Your model does not fit with published writings of folks with more dogs in the fight than either you or I, but then I don't agree with everything I read either.
Odd that every author I've read agrees that evolution can really only occour in small isolated populations.
a recessive gene, carried by one parent, has a small chance of actually being passed on to the offspring, and even less chance the next generation of being passed, hence a small popluation, where some are at least carriers of the gene, is the only place that gene can survive. Simple math rules out widespread dissemation of all traits. Thats bad, if its a good trait we could use, but good, as undesireable mutations are suppressed also. I'll have to stick to my origional statement, that the sheer population, combined with interacial couplings and easy and frequent travel across vast, before unheard of, distances, all combine to keep our species...stagnant, for now.
There's always a very good possibility we will alter this ecosystem in such a way, as to jumpstart the process.
Small genetic traits come and go, but thats not a radical change to the fundamental structure, anatomy or physiology of homo sapiens, from what I've been able to learn.
-Ralph

 

[rbtree]

Here's a website devoted to the oldest known living tree--Methuselah-- and it's grove. I visited it back in 1968...an awesome gnarled patriarch it is!!!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/

 

[treeseer]

Thank you for the link, Roger, and for reminding us that you are still alive. I'll use the Illuminating Photosynthesis activity with my kids.