We don't need gene editing. It is 100% unnecessary.
So, how to create a winterproof variety of lemons? You can't do it without changing lemon genes. The question is only in how you will do it - by natural selection, by random gamma-rays shooting or by direct editing.
All that smokescreens around genetic is just a smokescreen. This thing is similar to computer programming - you have a "program" written as DNA code. Different parts do different things. That's all. As you know exactly how it works, you are free to do anything you want.
Ethic questions about human gene editing also not as simple as you think. Of course when some elite bastards want to change your DNA with murky goals that is absolutely unacceptible. Or when they want to grow dumb brainless clones to replace us. But from the other side it is a question of what making us those who we are. If it is DNA - than it is unacceptible to interfere with our DNA. Changing DNA we will become something different. But if it is something else and we are spiritual beings in the vessels of our bodies, then who cares if we change our vessel in the way we want? As long as it is our own decision, it should be OK. Of course there will be some dumbfucks that will grow horns and tails, but most people will use this ability to fix errors or for other utilitarian things. Nowdays we already have few freaks who do some weird and disgusting things with their bodies. But nobody think that fixing teeth or repairing wounds is something satanic.
Even moving to theological things, it is not as simple as it seems. If God create us and give us an ability to change ouselves, may be He do it with purpose. And since God create us by His own likeness, it means that we have the right not only use life, but change it too. And may be even create it, in the likeness of God. Also, f.e., humanity become taller, and it is genetic thing. Yes, our genes changing making us taller. Is it against God or is it along His plan? I think it is up to us - use that ability or not and how to use it.
Shortly it depends on who and with what purpose doing that "scary" gene editing. And it does not matter how they do it. CRISPR - is about "how", not about "who" or "with what purposes".
Question everything. It could be at least interesting.
Cherries and melons too. But there are varians perfectly growing in high latitudes selectioned more than 50 years ago.
There are no any reasons to not to have lemons that grow in high latitudes. The question is only will you spend decades if not centuries to achieve necessary gene changes, or will it be hours to make it.
We can't be patient about having certain things during seasonal periods so, lets break nature apart and hope the consequences are tolerable.
You just touched one of the biggest rabbit holes. Do you understand that current climate is completely unnatural for our planet? Earth should be green from pole to pole with modrate warm climate under greenhouse effect with 1200ppm of CO2 in atmosphere, as it was hundreds millions of years in eocene, f.e. You keep temperature and humidity in your home exactly at average temperature and humidity of eocene. To grow perfect crop you have to copy eocene climete up to that 1200 ppm CO2.
So, trying to prevent "climate change" you break nature apart, not by creating lemons that could survive the -20°C.
There is no long term study to show gene editing consequences
And there is no such studies because they don't care. When you want to use something for your purpose, I think you study the consequences first, and then use that something with wisdom. Not like them. That is the difference. That is why technology should be taken away from elites.
If you want to use GMO foods as an example, do you know how many variants have come and gone by experiment and failed and poisoned soil and animals and insects. Monsanto has a horrible history of having to decontaminate soil from having tested different strains.
Because Monsanto don't care about things you will care about. That is why Monsanto using gene editing is bad and you using gene editing is good. You care. You will figure out how things works and will not use something you don't know about even if it promise billions in profit. You and Monsanto have completely opposite goals.
Again, it is only a question of who is using technology and for what.
You use internet to share your thoughts with friends and to get answers for your questions. They use internet to create sheeple. Does that make internet bad?
Meanwhile, about GMO. I hate GMO not because it is GMO. Being an engineer I perfectly understand that every apple or beef we grow and eat for centuries are literally genetically modified by selection process. If you ever tried to eat wild apples you know what I'm talking about. And I don't even know if there somwhere still exist a genetically unmodified wild cow.
I hate GMO and strongly against it because it is their GMO. Nobody knows what they really changed, for what purposes except profit and what real side effects could be. That is the danger of GMO, not the GMO itself.
So, how to create a winterproof variety of lemons? You can't do it without changing lemon genes. The question is only in how you will do it - by natural selection, by random gamma-rays shooting or by direct editing.
All that smokescreens around genetic is just a smokescreen. This thing is similar to computer programming - you have a "program" written as DNA code. Different parts do different things. That's all. As you know exactly how it works, you are free to do anything you want.
Ethic questions about human gene editing also not as simple as you think. Of course when some elite bastards want to change your DNA with murky goals that is absolutely unacceptible. Or when they want to grow dumb brainless clones to replace us. But from the other side it is a question of what making us those who we are. If it is DNA - than it is unacceptible to interfere with our DNA. Changing DNA we will become something different. But if it is something else and we are spiritual beings in the vessels of our bodies, then who cares if we change our vessel in the way we want? As long as it is our own decision, it should be OK. Of course there will be some dumbfucks that will grow horns and tails, but most people will use this ability to fix errors or for other utilitarian things. Nowdays we already have few freaks who do some weird and disgusting things with their bodies. But nobody think that fixing teeth or repairing wounds is something satanic.
Even moving to theological things, it is not as simple as it seems. If God create us and give us an ability to change ouselves, may be He do it with purpose. And since God create us by His own likeness, it means that we have the right not only use life, but change it too. And may be even create it, in the likeness of God. Also, f.e., humanity become taller, and it is genetic thing. Yes, our genes changing making us taller. Is it against God or is it along His plan? I think it is up to us - use that ability or not and how to use it.
Shortly it depends on who and with what purpose doing that "scary" gene editing. And it does not matter how they do it. CRISPR - is about "how", not about "who" or "with what purposes".
Question everything. It could be at least interesting.
Cherries and melons too. But there are varians perfectly growing in high latitudes selectioned more than 50 years ago.
There are no any reasons to not to have lemons that grow in high latitudes. The question is only will you spend decades if not centuries to achieve necessary gene changes, or will it be hours to make it.
You just touched one of the biggest rabbit holes. Do you understand that current climate is completely unnatural for our planet? Earth should be green from pole to pole with modrate warm climate under greenhouse effect with 1200ppm of CO2 in atmosphere, as it was hundreds millions of years in eocene, f.e. You keep temperature and humidity in your home exactly at average temperature and humidity of eocene. To grow perfect crop you have to copy eocene climete up to that 1200 ppm CO2.
So, trying to prevent "climate change" you break nature apart, not by creating lemons that could survive the -20°C.
And there is no such studies because they don't care. When you want to use something for your purpose, I think you study the consequences first, and then use that something with wisdom. Not like them. That is the difference. That is why technology should be taken away from elites.
Because Monsanto don't care about things you will care about. That is why Monsanto using gene editing is bad and you using gene editing is good. You care. You will figure out how things works and will not use something you don't know about even if it promise billions in profit. You and Monsanto have completely opposite goals.
Again, it is only a question of who is using technology and for what.
You use internet to share your thoughts with friends and to get answers for your questions. They use internet to create sheeple. Does that make internet bad?
Meanwhile, about GMO. I hate GMO not because it is GMO. Being an engineer I perfectly understand that every apple or beef we grow and eat for centuries are literally genetically modified by selection process. If you ever tried to eat wild apples you know what I'm talking about. And I don't even know if there somwhere still exist a genetically unmodified wild cow.
I hate GMO and strongly against it because it is their GMO. Nobody knows what they really changed, for what purposes except profit and what real side effects could be. That is the danger of GMO, not the GMO itself.
Something like that.