Slashdot Mirror


The Arctic Doomsday Seed Vault

Anonymous Cow writes "A giant refrigerated genetic bank built into the island of Svalbard has been brought online. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway is designed to house up to 4.5 million seeds in the case of a catostrophic event. The bank is funded by the Norwegian government, Monsanto Corporation, and the Gates, Rockefeller, and Syngenta Foundations. The Global Crop Diversity Trust has completed construction of the doomsday vault and is getting the facility ready to preserve the genetic heritage of the world's agriculture for future generations. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault's relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring human activity. Spitsbergen was considered ideal due to its lack of tectonic activity and its permafrost, which will aid preservation. Locally mined coal will provide power for refrigeration units which will further cool the seeds to the internationally recommended standard 20 to 30 C."

322 comments

  1. Monsanto... by locokamil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... in charge of saving our agricultural bacon? The same people who tried to bring agricultural holocaust to the developing world with their you-can't-save-our-seeds-for-next-year's-crop shenanigans?

    Hopefully their influence will be counterbalanced by some of the less evil groups participating in the project.

    1. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I always just assumed Monsanto was devoted to the destruction of all that is natural and can't be patented for profit.

    2. Re:Monsanto... by alshithead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "... in charge of saving our agricultural bacon?"

      Let's be fair. It is their best interests (and ours) to save specimens of original seed stocks. It's always good to be able to look back to see how you got from there to here...and maybe try and fix some huge mistake so you don't get your ass sued into oblivion. Or, worse case scenario, save the world from your "innovations". We should look at this as a plus.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    3. Re:Monsanto... by svnt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a brilliant plan. After Armageddon the seeds from the vault will produce plants that don't go to seed, and then next season we'll all be forced to buy them from... wait a minute.

    4. Re:Monsanto... by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Insightful
      you mean the people trying to develope drought and pest resistant plants so that 3rd world countries in even the most dry area's are able to feed themselfs. yeah wow what assholes.

      sure they are trying to make a profit, but that doesn't instantly dismisss the good they can do.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wish there were a proper Bio 4 protection lock on this. Those 'airlocks' may not be enough. If some bioagent like a fungus or virus comes to be that kills off a lot of plants, some or all of the remaining seeds should be fully protected even in this cold isolated region. And what about plants that only propagate as tubers? You can't store a viable potato forever. Although it could be this facility mostly exists merely to preserve the DNA, and maybe a later civilization could recreate a plant from that. Monsanto's interest in that is obvious. Now that I think of it, if you wanted to preserve DATA about the DNA, that would be easier maybe than preserving the actual DNA. I don't trust Monsanto at all in this. Let's say that genetically-modified corn contaminates all corn on the planet except what's in the vault. Do I want Monsanto goons having access to the only safe seed left? Hell no. Ever hear of blackmail? What if the only viable unmodified corn was here, and Monsanto 'kidnaps' it. Maybe not for ransom, but for power. "Buy our solution to the corn problem, because unfortunately there's no more normal corn left. So sorry." (Mr. Bond, your mission is to rescue some corn. Ernst Stavro Cornfed is trying to dominate the world's food supplies. Taco Bell will go out of business unless you stop him.)

    6. Re:Monsanto... by locokamil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please understand that I have no issue with Monsanto making a profit... as long as they do so by creating and selling progressively better products.

      Yes, the new drought-resistant, high-yield strains are wonderful things that allow the starving masses to feed 'themselfs'. But by throwing in a genetic time bomb and neutering the crops, Monsanto is in effect resting on its laurels and obviating the need for further innovation.

      In fact, it's nothing more than genetic DRM. And in this case, the "DRM == bad" meme is fully and wholly applicable.

    7. Re:Monsanto... by king-manic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let's be fair. It is their best interests (and ours) to save specimens of original seed stocks. It's always good to be able to look back to see how you got from there to here...and maybe try and fix some huge mistake so you don't get your ass sued into oblivion. Or, worse case scenario, save the world from your "innovations". We should look at this as a plus. It's like a back-up of your thesis project just before you attempt to rewrite the kernel after 8 beers.
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    8. Re:Monsanto... by Swampash · · Score: 1

      you mean the people trying to develope drought and pest resistant plants so that 3rd world countries in even the most dry area's are able to feed themselfs. yeah wow what assholes.

      The thing is, they develop drought- and pest-resistant plants that cannot reproduce. So once those plants been harvested, they die. And you have to go back to your friendly neighborhood Monsanto distributor to buy seed all over again.

    9. Re:Monsanto... by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Though I'm a seed saver myself, and thus am at odds with Monsanto's terminator technology (and GM in general), terminator seeds are probably quite a useful way to stop GM seeds spreading into the rest of the environment. I mean, that's one of the main arguments against GM: that GM crops may breed with other crops and weeds, creating unwanted effects, or exposing effects that might not have been apparent in the short period of testing available. Making GM crops sterile reduces the validity of this argument.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    10. Re:Monsanto... by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... in charge of saving our agricultural bacon? The same people who tried to bring agricultural holocaust to the developing world with their you-can't-save-our-seeds-for-next-year's-crop shenanigans?
      If we are ever stupid enough not to build up a back up vault and Monsanto is our only hope, then shame on us.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    11. Re:Monsanto... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Making GM crops sterile reduces the validity of this argument.

      Reduces, but does not eliminate. Everything living can evolve.

    12. Re:Monsanto... by spud603 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Genuine question:
      Can terminator plants cross-pollinate with other strains? What effect does/would this have?
      Is it at the pollen step or the seed step that they are sterile?


      I'm not a biologist by any stretch, so I'm really just curious.

    13. Re:Monsanto... by spud603 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reduces, but does not eliminate. Everything living can evolve.

      Sorry, this is just not true. Two conditions are needed for evolution, neither one of which is life:

      1. reproduction
      2. mutation


    14. Re:Monsanto... by alshithead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Do I want Monsanto goons having access to the only safe seed left? Hell no. Ever hear of blackmail? What if the only viable unmodified corn was here, and Monsanto 'kidnaps' it. Maybe not for ransom, but for power."

      Wait while affix my tinfoil hat...okay, I can agree to a certain point. If you're really that worried then buy some Monsanto stock. That way you win too.

      "Now that I think of it, if you wanted to preserve DATA about the DNA, that would be easier maybe than preserving the actual DNA."

      With tinfoil hat still firmly in place...how does that save you in an apocalyptic scenario? Where does the technology come into play that gives us a good starting point with seed stock if the technology to manipulate DNA isn't available because of the collapse of civilization? :)

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    15. Re:Monsanto... by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      I really don't know; one would assume that it would be at the pollen stage (if the biotech companies have any clue at all), but then again...

      One of the main concerns would be that not quite 100% of the GM seeds would be sterile in the second generation.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    16. Re:Monsanto... by ockegheim · · Score: 2, Funny

      Putting Monsanto in charge of the last remaining anything is like putting Kirstie Alley in charge of the last remaining cookies. Except that Kirstie Alley isn't pure evil.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    17. Re:Monsanto... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Dang, that's just as bad as what Windows does when you install it alongside Linux.

    18. Re:Monsanto... by gwern · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's more like: *limited resources/#-of-descendants-which-reproduce *Descent with heredity (it's important to have heritable traits) *The heritable traits affect reproductive success If you leave out #1, then you don't really get any selection pressures (although taking the limit as the population increases to infinity is an interesting idea). Leave out #2, then descendants could logically not resemble ancestors whatsoever - which obviously fucks things up. And leave out #3, well, then there's no selection at all.

    19. Re:Monsanto... by Bartab · · Score: 1

      And?

      I mean.. So?

      They're recouping losses while their patent exists. Just like every other market in the world. Just like every other market in the world, when the patent expires, there will be generics. I even bet some of those generics will self-propagate. That'll piss off some green weenies, I'm sure.

      GMO4LIFE!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    20. Re:Monsanto... by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

      One can imagine a post-apocalyptic future a la Road Warrior, where instead of gasoline being more valuable than gold, the seeds for food crops are the valuable commodity for survival. With the evil Monsanto in charge. Would make a good movie.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    21. Re:Monsanto... by spud603 · · Score: 2
      Fair enough. I'll amend to:
      1. Reproduction of traits
      2. Mutation of traits
      3. Selection on traits
      Good catch. Without selection you just get, well, change.
    22. Re:Monsanto... by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
      It is their best interests (and ours) to save specimens of original seed stocks

      You bet! By comparing DNA samples of original crops against modern crops and their own GMO crops, they will be able to sue the pants off anybody who doesn't buy their seeds.... Mmmmmm, yes, the GMO pollen will never jump over that fence and cross the road!

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    23. Re:Monsanto... by riker1384 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Something could happen to prevent the farmers in other coutries from getting new seeds from Monsanto. A war, embargo, natural disaster or other event could cut them off from America or the Western world, leaving them unable to grow more food and dooming millions of people to starvation. It would be insane to let this become a widespread method of farming. If something happens in one part of the world you want the rest to be able to carry on.

    24. Re:Monsanto... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Making GM crops sterile reduces the validity of this argument.

      I can see your point. Let me raise another.

      Would the people benefiting from the research be better off if there was no research done at all, and if not, how does one recoup the expense involved?

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    25. Re:Monsanto... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I realize this is a dumb statement, but bear with me for a moment:

      What if the gene sequences that cause the sterility enter into the the genetic material of the non-GM plants?

      Instead of Children of Men, we would have Children of Corn ... which, in this batshit-crazy scenario, could also lead to a Children of Men-like scenario.

      I, for one, do not relish the idea of eating snot-like "tasty wheat" protein supplements until the end of days.

    26. Re:Monsanto... by nebosuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have no love for 'Monsatan', but the benefit of biotech research for, e.g., corn is undeniable. Do a quick google search on the subject, and you'll see tons of graphs like those contained in this article.

      Ironically enough, organic farming is only economical because of the biotechnology developed and funded by the likes of Pioneer Hi-Bred, and the companies that were amalgamated into Syngenta or Monsanto. Their research is what produced the varieties with such productive genetics compared to the wild progenitor that organic farms of commodity crops can even have a chance of being economical.

    27. Re:Monsanto... by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You people are unbelievable at times.

      This isn't aimed at you personally, but you just confirmed WHY the anti GM food movment is insane.

      There was all this bull about GM crops cross pollenating "organic" crops when GM crops were first planted. Monsanto said no, we have engineered the crops so that they can't seed or pollenate to avoid this.

      And now your trashing them for the exact thing that everyone jumped up and down and wanted in the first place.

      I mean fuck whats a billion dollar company to do? you people want the impossible.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    28. Re:Monsanto... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      yeah right because all those scientists in the biotech companys have no clue.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    29. Re:Monsanto... by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      Think about the logic of a sterility gene being able to spread.

      there seriously are people out there who believe though, that sterlie plants will reproduce.

      lets say that the impossible happened and a GM crop somehow mutated and cross pollenated another plant and gave it it's sterility gene, how the fuck is that resulting plant going to pass on the gene if it's sterile?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    30. Re:Monsanto... by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      With tinfoil hat still firmly in place...how does that save you in an apocalyptic scenario? Where does the technology come into play that gives us a good starting point with seed stock if the technology to manipulate DNA isn't available because of the collapse of civilization? Additionally, a chunk of potato is smaller than a hard drive, and would be easier to clone than make from scratch.
    31. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. That's exactly what Monsanto did: they engineered a GM product which wouldn't breed in the wild because of social fear of runaway/dangerous GM products out competing and/or displacing 'natural' (as if thousands of years of selective breeding has produced 'natural' species) strains. Yes, Monsanto sells single-generation seed. Yes, every year the third-world farmers have to get more seed and cannot recover seed from crop. Yes, Monsanto did this to address concerns about GM crops. And, most importantly, yes Monsanto gives away its seed to third-world farmers as part of trade-deals with established industrial economies across the globe.

      The third-world farmer, the 'natural' plant stocks--both are protected here rather carefully by your friendly neighborhood Monsanto gene-splicers.

    32. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What scares the shit out of me is the list of companies participating in this ordeal. I don't think these individuals would prepare like this if they didn't have some fucking scarey plans.

    33. Re:Monsanto... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      "Nature finds a way!" ... but seriously, I'm just joking around. It would suck if it happened somehow, i.e. if a plant fungus or virus started turning plants sterile, but it's not likely.

    34. Re:Monsanto... by gooman · · Score: 1

      ...Kirstie Alley isn't pure evil.

      Well she is a Scientologist, so she's more evil than good...
      Or is it more stupid than smart? (Possibly a little from column 1 and a little from column 2)

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    35. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to plant the progeny of recent hybrids anyhow.

      When you cross two F1 (fist generation) hybrids the children will have random mixes of traits from the original grandparents. One grandparent can dominate. Sibling plants will be very different.

      You can take a cutting from a female plant, treat it hormonally to make it male, then cross it to itself (called squaring the plant). That causes other problems (it's the ultimate form of in breading) but will, if repeated, eventually get you a plant that will bread true. Just generally not as good a plant as the original F1 hybrid.

      Why is this posted AC? I live in CA and have a high power bill.

      In the end you always want to keep a pure strain of the original stock. You never know when someone will find a new hybrid with Thai Haze that will grow really well under lights (a problem with most 30%+ THC strains).

      Where am I? What was I doing? I suppose I'll hit this Submit thing.

    36. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ---Think about the logic of a sterility gene being able to spread.

      I have. I have written an academic paper that I refuse to publish due to my field of work.

      The sterility gene is triggered by an enzyme that is not present in the fields that farmers plant, however, Monsanto uses that very enzyme to prepare their seeds. A very real scenario is that the terminator male plant can transmit pollen fron a non-TM female. That plant will grow, and the seed will germinate. However, any females that come from the TM-line will not germinate. Essentially, it reduces viable seed by 1/2, which is quite scary to any farmer.

      ---there seriously are people out there who believe though, that sterlie plants will reproduce.

      It's because 1/2 of them can.

      ---lets say that the impossible happened and a GM crop somehow mutated and cross pollenated another plant and gave it it's sterility gene, how the fuck is that resulting plant going to pass on the gene if it's sterile?

      Because it is a gene sequence start in the late stage of germination. There is a rather wide chance that the seeds could evolve to go around the terminator segment. Europe is scared of this for good reason.

    37. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but that doesn't instantly dismisss the good they can do.

      No, what dismisses any good they do is their business practices, like trying to patent Basmati rice, trademark its name, then deny people who've been growing it for thousands of years the right to do so in the future without paying insane "licensing" fees to Monsanto.

      Fortunately they had their asses legally handed to them in that particular case.

      So why would we suddenly believe they're being altruistic instead of merely using this project to somehow enhance their bottom line?

    38. Re:Monsanto... by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is in our best interests, and Monsanto's, to save these specimens. But is it in our best interests to let Monsanto have anything to do with it? No!

    39. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      IAA plant biologist, so I guess I should answer this one.

      It depends how exactly they are made "terminator". You can make plants sterile in several ways, and one way used is for example making the male flowers (of corn) sterile. Now such a plant cannot cross-pollinate other plants. However, it is possible (though a bit unlikely) that a wild-type male flower cross-pollinates with your terminator plant. In that case, you would get off-spring. Unless of course, you also made the female flower sterile, or added something that kills off the seed in early stages of development.

      Now, suppose that, for some reason, your terminator gene spreads to another strain. This would IMHO have not a big effect. In most crop species, cross-pollination is rare, and if it happens, the offspring will be carrying a gene that makes it less fit (by definition, it makes the plant sterile, or kills the seed). So the changes are very high that such a (artificial) "mutation" (its a transgene actually) goes extinct quickly (there is a high selection pressure against such a gene).

      If the gene is recessive (ie, if a wild strain cross with the terminator plant produces viable offspring) it may still survive for some time, but it doesn't do anything.

      So it's not dangerous in my opinion, it is quite a good technique. It is just has the lame side-effect (but good for the company) to create a monopoly on the seeds. Of course, if you pay me a *lot* of money, I can find ways around that:P
      (which makes me wonder if this is legal. I mean, it is illegal (but stupidly so) to copy their construct that makes the seeds worthwhile, but it is probably not illegal to work around the sterility).

      I guess, the ethically sound way of doing this would be to create an inducable fertility. I do not think it has been done yet (but i am not in that field anymore). But in theory it is (relatively) easy nowadays to create genes that are switched on under circumstances. So in other words: if you spray your plant with some alcohol, it becomes fertile.

      This would allow you to get a few batches of plants with seeds.

    40. Re:Monsanto... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was never so simple.

      The case you refer to is the African Golden Rice. There were about 70 patent rights locked between 32 companies and universities. Along with that were the Bag Agreements (seed EULAs... Material Transfer Agreements). When seed was sent over to Africa, if they had used them, they would have been bound by MTAs and owed patent rights. If they refused to pay for the patents, they would have been sanctioned by World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

      They instead did the proper thing and burned the seed and waited for the 32 groups to settle it themselves. hey did, after they agreed to transfer a non-profit version of a license to Astra-Zeneca so that Africa would not be in violation.

      Source: Gepts, Paul."Who owns biodiversity, and how should the owners be compensated?" Plant Physiology 134 (2004): 1295-1307. 28 Jan. 2004

      --
    41. Re:Monsanto... by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      your posting as AC so your argument loses a lot of it's weight right there, but lets say your protecting your job....

      1. whats the enzyme they use?

      2. you still don't explain how sterile plants are going to pollenate anything.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    42. Re:Monsanto... by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nothing you have said there has anything to do with GM crops, and everything to do with patent law, which i readily agree is fucked.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    43. Re:Monsanto... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      yeah right because all those scientists in the biotech companys have no clue. You are perhaps familiar with the iconographic pointy-haired manager?
      Biotech companies have a LOT more people than just the scientists with their hands in the pot.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    44. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ---your posting as AC so your argument loses a lot of it's weight right there, but lets say your protecting your job....

      Not insomuch as to protect my job, but to make sure that the companies I work for don't see my name on this.

      ---1. whats the enzyme they use?

      There's plenty of enzymes used in these procedures. The repressor gene is Tn10 with a CMV 35S promoter. Tetracycline inhibits reprssor binding, allowing expression of the cat(chloramphenicol acetyltransferase) or gus(beta-glucuronidase) gene.

      What they use before they sell to farmers is tetracycline... Last I checked, that is not an enzyme.

      ---2. you still don't explain how sterile plants are going to pollenate anything.

      I'll have to get back with you on that. I've lost the reference in which describes a pathway in which terminator genes can be continued. I'll soon post the link to the article in which I cited.

    45. Re:Monsanto... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      US patent laws aren't the only patent laws. We're talking about TRIPS passed within the UN, put in power in 1995. Along with that are the financial powerhouses of the World Bank and IMF.

      Look at how frantic the EU is about GMO's. It would make sense for Africa to accept much of what EU says.

      --
    46. Re:Monsanto... by polar+red · · Score: 1

      That would be true of the plants formed by those seeds. But what about the seeds you BUY from Mon$anto($orry, couldn't resist...) ? are they all genetically the same up to the last base-pair ?

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    47. Re:Monsanto... by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      second that. Just the simple fact that they are involved makes this whole project suspect. Monsanto is the kind of company that will most likely bring about the kind of conditions that will require us to fall back on a seed vault in the first place.

    48. Re:Monsanto... by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      I think it is a mistake to judge information solely by the fact that it was posted anonymously. Some of the best stuff I've come across on /. was posted anonymously.

    49. Re:Monsanto... by velen · · Score: 1

      This is precisely the problem. With GM engineering, we are creating plants that 1) can't reproduce 2) repel insects naturally 3) can survive in harsh conditions and use less water So if you come up with a scenario where these GM crops die and we are desperate for a solution, those millions of seeds will be of no use in the real world of the future except in a lab. Assuming we can get to them...

    50. Re:Monsanto... by CFowler · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate to be the one to spoil a good rumor, and just when it was just taking off....but, there are several factual errors in the report that started this thread. Let me just cite the one that has gained the most traction on this board: Monsanto is NOT involved in funding the Seed Vault, directly or indirectly. Not a penny. The Vault is being built by Norway and paid for by the government, 100%. The operating costs will be paid by the Global Crop Diversity Trust and Norway, 100%. (at a MUCH lower cost than reported in some media) How do I know all of this? I am the Executive Director of the Trust. We receive NO funding from Monsanto, neither does the Norwegian government! Monsanto has had no involvement in the planning, implementation or funding of the facility. None. I am not even sure they know about it. No one I know has ever talked to them about it, or gotten communication from them about it...and I have been involved from the beginning. The Seed Vault has been endorsed by more than 165 countries at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. There will be an international advisory council. The aims, the operating procedures, etc. are all quite public. The Seed Vault's purpose is to provide insurance against the loss of biodiversity held in seed banks around the world, such as the loss that took place last year when a typhoon severely damaged the national seed bank of the Philippines. (I am visiting that facility at this moment - the Trust helped the Philippines rescue what remained of their collection last year.) I can only urge people to do their homework, and not be quite so quick to jump to conclusions, not be quite so quick to fall back on conspiracy theories, and not be quite so quick to condemn one of the few positive initiatives in this world to safeguard the diversity of an important natural resource for future generations. As hard as it might be to believe in these troubled times, some people really are looking ahead and trying to do positive things to safeguard humanity. For more information, see: www.croptrust.org Thanks for taking the time to consider the situation.

    51. Re:Monsanto... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      you mean the people trying to develope drought and pest resistant plants so that 3rd world countries in even the most dry area's are able to feed themselfs. yeah wow what assholes. WOW. You are like, totally ignorant of Monsanto's business practices... And WOW, you are like, totally ignorant of the economic conditions which cause famine in third world countries.

      WOW, you are like, a fine example of our future.

      --
      Deleted
    52. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answers are: Yes, Exactly as Bad as You Would Expect.

    53. Re:Monsanto... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But this isn't about letting more people survive. This is a doomsday vault to ensure humanity, or at least a part of it, can survive at all by having any food available that doesn't need a large agricultural company (which won't exist anymore after the big desaster). Do you really think it's a good idea to place that into the hands of a corporation whose whole marketing concept revolves around selling a farmer every year a new batch of seed because what he reaps can't be sown?

      Actually, this vault is some kind of competition for the company. And they should control it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re:Monsanto... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      I mean fuck whats a billion dollar company to do? you people want the impossible. Nah. We just want them to go "germinate" themselves.

      Nobody needs Monsanto. The problems in 3rd world countries have are nothing to do with the crops, they are political and economic problems which then cause crop problems.

      You think that sending GM soya or rice to Africa will prevent the economic dumping of heavily subsidised US and EU soya/rice/corn/whatever on the African markets? It's the dumping which is putting African farmers out of business and reducing the productive farm land. If you think GM crops will make a blind bit of difference until the economic conditions are fixed you're an idiot.
      --
      Deleted
    55. Re:Monsanto... by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the monsanto-bashing has gotten off to too good a start for facts to stop it now.

    56. Re:Monsanto... by HNS-I · · Score: 0

      You don't have to worry about that. It is not possible to have an elite when the proletariat is dead. They will give it to you for free so you can go right back to your ball and chain.

    57. Re:Monsanto... by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 1

      I heard they are working on bacon flavored corn. It is their "Hog-on-a-cob" variety.

    58. Re:Monsanto... by timster · · Score: 1

      Will you still be going on about this a year from now? Three years from now? When does it end?

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    59. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about Monsanto? If you'd actually read the article you'd know that this facillity is owned and operated by the Norwegian government.

      Monsanto is an American company. Norway is a country.

    60. Re:Monsanto... by CFowler · · Score: 1

      FYI: Access to seeds stored in the Seed Vault will be given to those who deposit the seeds. The facility will operate similarly to a safety deposit box in a bank. The purpose of the facility is to provide a "safety net," an insurance policy against accidental loss of diversity in traditional genebanks, of which there are hundreds. The diversity in these banks is, for the most, part available under the terms of an international treaty. But, in the case of Svalbard, if anyone wants these seeds, they will have to deal with the depositor and get seeds directly from the depositor, not from the Seed Vault. Thus, no one will have preferential access to the seeds in Svalbard.

    61. Re:Monsanto... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Though I'm a seed saver myself

      I so don't want to know about the tissues under your bed.

    62. Re:Monsanto... by CFowler · · Score: 1

      As I have tried to indicate in other posts on this topic, Monsanto has no involvement whatsoever. No involvement in the design, planning, funding, or stocking of the seed vault. NONE. Rumors start and soon get out of control. But, if one wishes to check the facts, take a look at the Norwegian government website: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/lmd/campain/svalbard-global-seed-vault.html?id=462220 or, look at: www.croptrust.org

    63. Re:Monsanto... by CFowler · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. Too bad the good guys - those actually doing something to help save biodiversity through the Seed Vault - become just so much "collateral damage." Unfortunately in this world of ours, it's become all too easy to believe dire conspiracy stories, and too difficult to check the facts or believe that something positive could actually be real.

    64. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus H. Christ...I do hope some governments also have backup seed banks. These bumblers (Gates, Monsanto, etc.) shouldn't be entrusted with anything remotely important. (Hmmmm...neither should governments! :-))

      Guess I should immediately start my own private seed bank...oops, too late, everything is already GMO'ed and getting worse.

    65. Re:Monsanto... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      last i checked, potatoes can be grown from seed. it isn't common, but you can do it.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    66. Re:Monsanto... by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Yes, and something could happen to prevent American car owners from getting new oil from Saudi Arabia.

      So let's all stop driving now (and that includes all the asshole ambulances and firetrucks)

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    67. Re:Monsanto... by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "in charge of", did somebody pass a law stating that only Monsanto may create such vaults? If only they've had the initiative to do so, then kudos to them, they can do it under whatever conditions they like, anyone else is free to create their own vaults too. You're certainly not worse off, risk-wise, with the existence of Monsanto's vault than you would have been without it.

    68. Re:Monsanto... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      When one of two things happens:

      a) I get a gold-plated public apology from a prominent Ubuntu programmer or Ubuntu forum member, AND this design flaw is removed.

      b) One year passes after the last time I see on /. somebody making the exact same criticisms that I did of Ubuntu, in another context.

      (I'd prefer a to b, obviously, but at least in b I would be seeing more consistency and would feel less like abysmal design mainly happens to me.)

    69. Re:Monsanto... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You're arguing semantics. Life cannot exist without reproduction and mutation (everything living mutates, the difference is simply the timeline). Name something alive that doesn't reproduce and can't mutate.

    70. Re:Monsanto... by beckerist · · Score: 1

      So....uhhhhhhhhh....need help paying your bill?

    71. Re:Monsanto... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It's like a back-up of your thesis project just before you attempt to rewrite the kernel after 8 beers.

      Strangely enough, I've noticed that suffering from severe sleep deprivation really helps me get into the zone. It keeps me from being distracted by external factors, and makes coding like a dream; the logic of the code becomes the dream logic.

      I dunno if beer would have a similar effect, thought. And even if it did, you'd propably need rum for the kernel.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    72. Re:Monsanto... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Monsanto is improving the efficiency of agriculture (=feeding more hungry people!) and trying to protect their investment through both legal and technical means. How can you call that "pure evil?"

      Unless you can suggest a better way for them to protect their investment, you can't really criticize them for doing what they must the only way they know how...

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    73. Re:Monsanto... by pretygrrl · · Score: 1

      "Something could happen to prevent the farmers in other coutries from getting new seeds from Monsanto. A war, embargo, natural disaster or other event could cut them off from America or the Western world, leaving them unable to grow more food and dooming millions of people to starvation. It would be insane to let this become a widespread method of farming. If something happens in one part of the world you want the rest to be able to carry on."

      that makes no sense at all! buying monsanto seed =!being suddenly cut off from all other possible sources of seed

      farmer a buys monsanto seed. doomsday embargo ensues, prevents farmer a from replenishing w. more monsanto seed. why can't farmer a buy some other seed now? and even if that were to be the case (some catastrophic utter isolation from the rest of the world), the original purchase from Monsanto wouldn't be the cause of it in any way that i can see.

      --
      Contemplate the marvel that is existence, and rejoice that you are able to do so.
    74. Re:Monsanto... by KDan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he's right. A flying pig told me so.

      Daniel

      (FYI: Seed potatoes aren't seeds, they're still potatoes)

      --
      Carpe Diem
    75. Re:Monsanto... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Strangely enough, I've noticed that suffering from severe sleep deprivation really helps me get into the zone."

      Did you happen to work on IE7 by any chance?

    76. Re:Monsanto... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Did you happen to work on IE7 by any chance?

      No, I fixed bugs in the newest HAL daemon to get it to work on my system. I wonder if I should post the fixes upstream...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    77. Re:Monsanto... by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      You ever grow potatoes? They produce fruit, something like a cherry tomato, and inside there are real seeds. They aren't usually used because you won't get the exact same variety by planting them.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    78. Re:Monsanto... by blazematrix · · Score: 0

      This is one of many known caches from all over the planet that have been setup since the late 1950's. The elites are saving things for them selves. This way they kill (if they have to) every living thing and they make the world of their own choosing. The magic number is "90%". This is the percentage of human lifeforms that must be terminated. This is what is meant when they say "collapse of civilization". BM

    79. Re:Monsanto... by hajus · · Score: 1

      Your logic is flawed. A -> B does not imply he said B -> A. If all life can evolve, does not mean he said that that evolution only occurs in life.

    80. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic
      Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we dont

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

      by F. William Engdahl

      Global Research, December 4, 2007

      One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates cant be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the worlds richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers.

      In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the worlds largest transparent private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffets Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations World Health Organization.

      So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.

      No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the worlds most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty (see map).

      On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the doomsday seed bank. Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.

      Doomsday Seed Vault

      The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. Its almost ready for business according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future, according to the Norwegian government. Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault's relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity.

      Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future. What future do the seed banks sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?

      Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, its worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things.

      The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the worlds largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the gene revolution with ove

    81. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to a recent Monsanto news release, they do not use "Terminator" technology.

    82. Re:Monsanto... by spud603 · · Score: 1

      Name something alive that doesn't reproduce and can't mutate.
      erm... Monsanto "terminator" breeds? That's what this discussion was about, right? You buy the seeds, you plant them, they do not make new fertile seeds.
    83. Re:Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, it's nothing more than genetic DRM. And in this case, the "DRM == bad" meme is fully and wholly applicable.

      Exactly. I have seen the disastrous effects of GM seeds on poor farmers in India. To obtain high yields, they'll have to buy large quantities of fertilizer. The seeds also cost a substantial sum every year. These people work very hard and in the end they have to give almost all the fruits of their labor to multinational corporations. It is a modern variant of slavery.

      Besides, companies like Monsanto are big donors and influential lobbyists to political prostitutes that are more than willing to sell your rights to the highest bidder. They can easily buy their much wanted extension of patent right. Think of Disney and how their nightmare of loosing Mickey Mouse to the public domain gave them the necessary incentives to lobby politicians and have the copyright laws changed in their benefit.
    84. Re:Monsanto... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Given enough iterations, those breeds would evolve past their anti-reproduction genes. I'm sure even Charles Darwin could agree with that.

    85. Re:Monsanto... by riker1384 · · Score: 1

      The normal source of seed would be from the previous year's harvest. They wouldn't have to ship seed in.

    86. Re:Monsanto... by ExumPlace · · Score: 1

      In such situations one always deals with probabilities. No one is saying that the Seed Vault will offer an absolute guarantee in the event of an apocalyptic scenario. It will always be possible to imagine a scenario in which the Seed Vault won't save us...and then fault it or its sponsors for not having devised a perfect system. That's an easy game to play if one is so inclined. While the Seed Vault would likely provide some reasonable protection in such situations, it was actually designed for the purpose of ensuring against disasters that strike individual institutes, or countries. To me that's a good enough reason to move forward with it. Today, interestingly, I visited the Philippine national seed bank. A little over a year ago, it was inundated with about four feet of water and mud following a typhoon. Only a small percentage of its unique crop varieties (stored as seed) was safety-duplicated elsewhere. The result? Many varieties were lost. Forever. That means they are now extinct! If we had had the Seed Vault, and if the Philippines had sent a portion of each variety of seed there before the typhoon, then they could have recovered everything. No extinction. The cost to the Philippines of the storage in the Seed Vault? Zero. The cost of losing diversity that might be important to the future of agriculture in the Philippines and elsewhere? Who knows? But certainly large. So...let's not get completely stuck on the global catastrophe scenario. Let's look at the actual purpose for which the Seed Vault was designed (to protect against localized disasters such as the typhoon), judge it against that, and feel ourselves fortunate that the Seed Vault might double as an insurance policy in an even worse situation. There are no guarantees in life. Condemning this initiative, because it doesn't meet a literally impossible standard, really doesn't make much sense and says more about the cynicism and impotence of the critic than it says about this creative and positive effort to address to a real world problem.

    87. Re:Monsanto... by ExumPlace · · Score: 1

      The list of companies "participating" is completely wrong. The author simply failed to do his homework; I will leave the question of why to your imagination. I will simply assert, for example, that Monsanto has had absolutely nothing to do with the project. It isn't a funder. It wasn't their idea. They are not sending seeds, etc., etc. For some background on the project, check out www.croptrust.org or google the Norwegian government's website on it, or google the New Yorker's article, the BBC reports, etc. etc. The southern African countries are sending seeds. Think they would be involved with a eugenics initiative as the original article implies? Think Norway and the other Nordic countries would? This is a wonderful example of the danger in believing conspiracy theories without at least doing a little homework. This one doesn't pass the giggle test.

    88. Re:Monsanto... by ExumPlace · · Score: 1

      Guess I might agree with you IF the most basic facts in the story reported here were correct. They're not. Monsanto has no involvement in the project. NONE AT ALL. They haven't funded it (not a penny). They don't own or control the seeds. None of the seeds there will be theirs (like a safety deposit box, they will remain the property of the depositor - in this case countries and international agricultural research institutes). There's no evidence that Monsanto even knows about the Seed Vault. It's a good initiative by the Norwegian government and the Global Crop Diversity Trust. Think the Norwegian government is in bed with Monsanto? They don't even allow Monsanto to sell GMO seeds in Norway. How odd that Norway would pay to construct the Vault in league with Monsanto to further eugenics (as the original article asserts). Clearly this is the case of a badly researched article starting a wildfire of rumors. It's a disservice to good people trying to do something positive. Check out www.croptrust.org for the facts.

    89. Re:Monsanto... by pretygrrl · · Score: 1

      so why on earth can't they hold on to "last year's harvest seeds" going forward?
      buying monsanto seeds =!destroy all other seed anyone ever had

      --
      Contemplate the marvel that is existence, and rejoice that you are able to do so.
    90. Re:Monsanto... by spud603 · · Score: 1

      Given enough iterations, those breeds would evolve past their anti-reproduction genes. I'm sure even Charles Darwin could agree with that.
      Sorry to keep this up, but how?
      These breeds do not reproduce. How are they going to evolve? The seeds cannot pass on their traits to a new generation.
      Monsanto may make copies of the genome and change it slightly, but in this case selection is specifically against reproductive abilities. As in: "Oops, we made one that can reproduce on its own. Let's not sell that one."
      Charles Darwin (who by modern standards had a slightly backwards idea of the natural evolutionary process in any case), observed evolution through natural selection of heritable traits. That can't happen here.


      Could you clarify the mechanics of how these breeds will "evolve past their anti-reproduction genes"?

    91. Re:Monsanto... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I really don't know; one would assume that it would be at the pollen stage (if the biotech companies have any clue at all), but then again...

      It's NOT!

      The pollen itself is viable, it just happens to contain a gene that kills the resultant seed early in the germination process should it be planted. The real problem is that if one farmer is counting on saving seeds for next year and a neighboring farm's terminator crop cross pollinates with his crop, he will have an unusually poor germination rate and consequant poor production the next year. Nothing short of an expensive genetic analysis (not likely available or affordable in the 3rd world) would prove that it was anything but bad luck.

    92. Re:Monsanto... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      well, that flying pig was right.

      potatoes produce seeds, dumbass. open up one of the green tomato-like pods.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    93. Re:Monsanto... by CFowler · · Score: 1

      Monsanto DOESN'T have anything to do with it. They're not funding or participating in it. There's not any evidence to suggest that they even know about it.

  2. Wait wait I have a donation to make... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    awwww.....too late. Anyone have a kleenex ?

    1. Re:Wait wait I have a donation to make... by crowbarsarefornerdyg · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's not meant to bring ABOUT doomsday, but to provide for after the event.

      --
      "Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
  3. hmm? by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

    To the internationally...?

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:hmm? by gbobeck · · Score: 0

      To the internationally...?

      Someone set it up the editor.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    2. Re:hmm? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
      More than that...

      Locally mined coal will provide power for refrigeration units which will further cool the seeds to the internationally recommended standard 20 to 30 C."

      Anyone who doesn't live in the USA knows that 20-23 C is room temperature -- 30 is a warm/hot day.
      Put another way, 20C = 68F; 30C = 86F.
      Why they'd need to COOL to these temperatures in a location that has permafrost is anyone's guess.
      Maybe they meant -20 to -30C (-4F to -22F)? Editors?
    3. Re:hmm? by glm8709 · · Score: 0

      The USDA thinks the optimal storage temp is -18C. This should be QED* in Norway.

      xref: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/sep98/seed0998.htm

      *Quite Easily Done

  4. License required by fabu10u$ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will Monsanto's attorneys survive the apocalypse to collect license fees for the patented GM technology in the seeds?

    --
    They say the mind is the first thing to ... uh, what's that saying again?
    1. Re:License required by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      No, they will be used for meat; that's all they will be good for in such a situation.

    2. Re:License required by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Will Monsanto's attorneys survive the apocalypse to collect license fees for the patented GM technology in the seeds?
      Probably...cockroaches can be hard to eradicate.
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    3. Re:License required by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, you know, in an apocalyptic setting, I'm fairly sure we'll find someone who answers the lawyer in a suit, handing him a cease&desist letter with a shotgun and a "case settled" wisecrack.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:License required by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Cockroaches will probably be one of the few species to survive a full-scale nuclear war, yes.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    5. Re:License required by hajus · · Score: 1

      They may survive the way, but not the subsequent winter. Roaches don't like the cold.

  5. Refrigerated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heated maybe?

  6. Frist post!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monsanto is helping fund it?? Aren't they the ones making the terminator gene?

  7. Coal - refrigerate & coal - global warming by alexandre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Coal to refrigerate seeds against a catastrophic worlwide ecological disaster in part caused by a large amount of coal?

    makes sense... :P

    1. Re:Coal - refrigerate & coal - global warming by edwardpickman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course it makes sense. You don't want all that time and money wasted. Why not graze some cattle on the land to help spike the ball with some methane?

    2. Re:Coal - refrigerate & coal - global warming by CyberK · · Score: 1

      'Cause they ain't got no grass in Svalbard.

    3. Re:Coal - refrigerate & coal - global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clean Coal technology removes the Eeeeevil from coal. When it comes to pollution worries look to China and India where all your electonic gadgets/ hammers are built for benzene, Lead and other emissions that are off the charts.

    4. Re:Coal - refrigerate & coal - global warming by ajs · · Score: 1

      Coal to refrigerate seeds against a catastrophic worlwide ecological disaster in part caused by a large amount of coal? Ye gods, I'm tired of the global warming meme.

      1) Coal is dangerous because of the levels of mercury that burning it releases. Burning coal could kill 100 children a day by firing laser beams at them, and the mercury would still be the most important reason not to use it.
      2) You're talking about such a tiny operation that there's no functional way to measure the possible impact.

      If you want to get tough on coal, do so with respect to large electric utilities, and do so for the right reasons. Let's leave the seed bank alone on this one.

  8. Biased Article by myrdos2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That article seems a little over the edge. He calls molecular biology a pseudo-science, dismisses the nobel peace prize, and claims the the green revolution was an under-handed plot by the US to turn foreign workers into a cheap labor pool. It's full of insinuations and hints towards a sinister secret agenda. I didn't bother to read the whole thing, as the craziness level was far beyond acceptable thresholds.

    1. Re:Biased Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read a bit further - this guy is a conspiricy nut - he goes on about alleged conspiricy between Rockfeller, Du Pont, Ford, the CIA and Nazi Germany. I think you can read this article with a grain of salt lol. I stopped reading when I hit in the CIA, i wouldn't be suprised if he started talking about the Freemasons, the Grays and the Subterranians.

    2. Re:Biased Article by meditativemaster · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the first article is quite crazy indeed. The whole thing culminates in a book pitch at the end, which I also did not bother to read to.

    3. Re:Biased Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA:

      > Syngenta AG of Switzerland, one of the 'Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse'
      > is pouring millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi,
      > to develop GMO insect resistant maize.

      "Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse." Hilarious.

      > In the 1990's the UN's World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate
      > millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45,
      > allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail.
      > The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable
      > to step on rusty nails as women.
      >
      > Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization
      > became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine
      > being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human
      > Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a
      > tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.
      > None of the women vaccinated were told.
      >
      > It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller's Population Council,
      > the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States' National Institutes of Health had been
      > involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with
      > a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the
      > Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine.

      Mmm, vaccine paranoia.

    4. Re:Biased Article by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      And I thought that I was the only one that read that...
      I liked how the "Green Revolution" was a plan of the CIA's to drive the people from the countryside in to that shanty towns to provide a cheap labor source for the muli-nationals.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  9. Summary Incomplete by Selanit · · Score: 2, Informative

    The summary has been partially copied from the linked Wikipedia article, but it cuts off unexpectedly. The summary ends with "cool the seeds to the internationally." Which makes no sense. The full version from the Wikipedia article is "cool the seeds to the internationally-recommended standard 20 to 30 C."

    1. Re:Summary Incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what happens when there are no more people to provide coal? Or worse yet the event that wipes us out is global warming? This system does not seem very self sufficient.

    2. Re:Summary Incomplete by Selanit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Crud, when I pasted that correction from the Wikipedia article, it eliminated the negative signs before the degrees. That should read "-20 to -30 C".



      Also, I've just skimmed the article, and it has little or no mooring in reality. Consider this, from fairly late in the article:

      Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was all about the fact that, as she put it, 'we want to exterminate the Negro population.'


      Holy cow! That's a pretty serious allegation. The article provides a reference at that point. But the reference is a link to somebody's Yahoo mail Inbox. Huh??? In my world, that's not an acceptable standard of evidence. Particularly since it's not even publicly available.



      I've never complained about editorial oversight on Slashdot, and it seems fairly pointless to do it now. It just seems weird that they can't even be bothered to filter out the obvious wackos.

    3. Re:Summary Incomplete by ross.w · · Score: 1

      If there are no more people to provide coal, then there will be no-one left to care.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    4. Re:Summary Incomplete by rm999 · · Score: 1

      If humans are no longer alive, this system is useless regardless of coal because there is no one to replant the seeds in their natural regions.

      If the only problem is coal, seeds can probably survive in the natural ambient temperature (when you buy a packet of seeds, they are not refrigerated) for long enough that humans can build a new cooling system.

    5. Re:Summary Incomplete by kartiknarayan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Holy cow! That's a pretty serious allegation. The article provides a reference at that point. But the reference is a link to somebody's Yahoo mail Inbox. Huh??? In my world, that's not an acceptable standard of evidence. Particularly since it's not even publicly available
      There's something screwed up with the hyperlinks in the superscripts (all of them). But if you scroll down all the way to the references, then number 11 references to: http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html, a legit (if somewhat right-leaning) website.
    6. Re:Summary Incomplete by wasted · · Score: 1

      ...The full version from the Wikipedia article is "cool the seeds to the internationally-recommended standard 20 to 30 C."...

      That's rather warm, and I would expect that heating costs would exceed cooling costs to maintain that temperature at that latitude. I could be wrong, though.
    7. Re:Summary Incomplete by AI0867 · · Score: 1

      Beautiful, now the 'editor' copied your first, incorrect, correction. TFS doesn't make much more sense than it did before...

    8. Re:Summary Incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's definitely not "ok" to simply make up a quote without showing any sort of proof or source of wether it was actually ever said/written or not... it's really not such an outrageous claim.

      She was into eugenics, and had a heavily racist (and classist) motivation for her birth control/prevention philosophy.

      (she even writes about her talking at KKK rallies in her autobiography)

  10. Good idea but... by canuck57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good idea but who is going to be around to plant them?

    1. Re:Good idea but... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Exactly. This is something that should have been built into the system.

      I'd much rather see some sort of fail-safe built into this vault. Humans have to periodically check in on the vault and press the button. If they don't press it after, say, 1,000 years, the vault goes into "reseed" mode. It assumes that:

      a) Humans are dead, dying, or incapable of reaching the vault

      b) Whatever knocked down the humans has dissapated over the last 1000 years, so it is safe for "human friendly" life.

      Of course, the 1000 years is arbitrary. I'd let a team of nuke'n'germ warfare folks come up with a number that was greater than the life expectency of thier most powerful kabooms. You could also hook up a Geiger counter to the release switch for an extra layer of protection.

      So, after the 1000 years is up, the vault springs into action. It barfs out whatever bacteria is needed to fertilize the land. The it starts shooting seeds-and-spores-and-stuff deployment packages across the globe. The SSS packages burst over land, raining seeds. This may have to be done in stages. Seed the keystone species of plants first, then once those have grown, fire off the strawberries and lilacs.

      The objective is to load up the vault with enough human-friendly stuff as possible. Plants that put out oxygen. Trees that have leaves, fruit, roots that are edible by human. Environmental engineer species. If humans are alive, life will get better for them. If humans have been wiped out, the packages should recreate an environment condusive to human life once more. Sure, humans might not be a dominant species for hundreds or hundreds of thousands of years, but the scales would be tipped in their favour.

      Heck, while we're at it, we might as well put as much data into the vault as possible. The complete history of humans in as many languages as possible (including all the screw-ups that lead to extinction). Put in as many Rosetta Stones as possible. Put frozen humans in there, too, so future generations (hopefully) don't think aliens seeded the planet.

    2. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      all these measures so that humans can destroy the planet all over again. I am not of sadistic personality but IMO, if the most capable (note: i didn't say intelligent) species on the planet self-destructs, they don't deserve a second chance. and I doubt that destruction of human race can be caused by extra terrestrial events.

      So, after the 1000 years is up, the vault springs into action. It barfs out ... That won't work. There have to be at least ~150-200 seeders on the planet to make it work. plus, what is going to power it for 1000 years? yeah i know, a nuclear reactor could provide power for that long but is it going to last that long. earthquakes, material degradation, solar winds, ... the list goes on.
    3. Re:Good idea but... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I don't see why there'd need to be too much power for the full 1000 years. The countdown "watcher" could be just a simple logic switch with a stop watch attached to it. My digital watch runs for a year on a tiny little battery. Throw a big huge battery in the Watcher and let it run. Hook it up to something that will trickle-charge it for good measure-- solar, or geotherm, etc. Or do away with electricity all together. Have it hooked up to 100 clockwork devices that will run down in 1000 years if not wound. If 2/3s of them stop, Seed activates. Or get something with a half-life of 1000 years and put it on a pressure switch that will trigger at half-mass.

      The trigger mechanism, I concede, would take more power to run, but since it will only turn one once to blow its load, the power source doesn't have to be too plentiful, and it doesn't have to last the full 1000 years. A whole bunch of fuel-powered generators that are turned on by the Watcher. They fire up, expend their energy getting Seed going, and then die.

      Now, the real bitch of it all would be if disaster hit, and all the surviving humans knew of the vault was legends of old-- every ten years, valiant warriors must trek to the north to the devise that is to keep the Earth full of life, an wind the Magical Switch to keep The Great One going. =)

    4. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fine example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

      Your idea is interesting but it would take vastly more time, effort, and money. As a result, it's very likely that it would never get built. If one were to insist on your more complete design, the project would never go anywhere. But this smaller, simpler project got built and is now going online.

    5. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your saying add a watchdog circuit to the Earth's life cycle.

    6. Re:Good idea but... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather see some sort of fail-safe built into this vault. Humans have to periodically check in on the vault and press the button. If they don't press it after, say, 1,000 years, the vault goes into "reseed" mode.

      Sure. Why not? We'll get right on that after we invent AI farmers and colonists, assuming that AI farmers and colonists aren't what wipe us out in the first place.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:Good idea but... by antdude · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suggest 4 8 15 16 23 42 numbers to reset every 108 minutes. :D

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    8. Re:Good idea but... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one thinking Planet of the Apes after reading this?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Good idea but... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      If we're all gone, who the hell cares whether the planet is reseeded? It sounds self-centered, and it is. But the question cries out for an answer.

    10. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Frozen humans.

      Good, meat with my corn gruel...

    11. Re:Good idea but... by tchdab1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The seed vault needs to be constructed in a polar area (for cooling) and just downstream of a large water body, a river/lake, that has been dammed up. The dam must be built to need human maintenance every 100 years or so.

      Should humans disappear, the dam breaks, busting open the seed vault and washing them out to germinate and get dispersed.

      Or something.

    12. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't think our Ape masters would appreciate all this seed fodder raining down on them.

    13. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Put in as many Rosetta Stones as possible. Put frozen humans in there, too, so future generations (hopefully) don't think aliens seeded the planet. ... or God.

    14. Re:Good idea but... by xPsi · · Score: 1

      Good idea but who is going to be around to plant them? Come on! What do you think post-apocalyptic arctic hero quests are for?
      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
    15. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, the parameters of the equation change.....

    16. Re:Good idea but... by acalthu · · Score: 0

      If the humans are knocked out, who's going to stoke the coal furnaces to make sure the seeds are preserved?

    17. Re:Good idea but... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First, there are over 6 BILLION ppl on this planet. What would it take to wipe us all out? First, there is NO bacteria or virus that can do that job. Some small group of ppl will survive. So, assume that 1% of 1% are left. That is 30 million ppl. More than enough to figure out to get THOSE seeds. So, it will be chemical or radiation. Anything that would wipe out humans, will wipte out certainly all mammals, and probably plant life. So, anything that would wipe out ALL of human life will wipe out just about everything else. If so, then bacteria and/or plants will simple re-start it all up at a much later time.

      Second, this is not the only seed bank. One of the original banks is in Colorado State University. In fact, a number of countries have these. In particular, Russia from the USSR days (from the MAD days; nobody wanted a nuke war, but we all planned it and to win).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    18. Re:Good idea but... by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Or more like to rot in water.

    19. Re:Good idea but... by tm2b · · Score: 4, Funny

      First, there are over 6 BILLION ppl on this planet. What would it take to wipe us all out?
      Good virtual sex and a hundred years. Less, if food delivery can't be automated.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    20. Re:Good idea but... by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      And lets compress this vault into a size of a briefcase and call it Garden of Eden Creation Kit.

      Or GECK for short.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    21. Re:Good idea but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Those humans that have been frozen too. Duh.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Good idea but... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      If humans are not the dominant species after a nuclear (or other) apocalypse, why do you think they'll make it out on top again? After all, dinosaurs didn't make it out on top after they faced their apocalypse.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    23. Re:Good idea but... by ichthyoboy · · Score: 0

      If humans have been wiped out, the packages should recreate an environment condusive to human life once more. What makes you so sure that humans as a species will evolve again? That's the thing about extinction....it's permanent. If whatever catastrophe that this vault is being built for eradicates human life, it will probably drive numerous other species into extinction as well.
    24. Re:Good idea but... by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There also has to be enough oompf to power the preservation systems for 1000 years. Temperature and humidity control along are going to be big drainers, and you really don't want all your carefully-stored seed sprouting and dying twenty years after you pack em all away.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    25. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that it's in spitzbergen, deep in the arctic circle, which, as well as being midnight-sun zone is also noon-dark zone in the winter. 3 or 4 months of darkness will basically screw up any chance of cultivating the complete replacement of all plantlife on Earth. It's also several hundred miles of ocean away from anything else, so it's unlikely that the seeds of anything that did grow would spread beyond the islands anyway.

    26. Re:Good idea but... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      That's true, though I thought part of the reason they selected the Arctic was built-in temperatures of -BRRRR Celsius.

    27. Re:Good idea but... by CFowler · · Score: 1

      While the media had dubbed this a "Doomsday Vault," the primary utility of the Vault is likely to be to guard against the more extinction that takes places in seed banks as a result of human mismanagement, equipment failures, budget cuts and natural disasters. Given the fact that 6.5 million samples are stored in over 1000 seed banks, such episodes occur all too frequently. Probably daily. Having a duplicate sample in the Seed Vault means that the loss of the "original" copy in a seed bank will not mean the extinction of the variety. If there is a larger scale catastrophe - national, regional, or heaven-forbid, global - then yes, the Seed Vault might also be useful. We'll have to see. But it will certainly be useful many times prior to this. There are no guarantees in this world. One can always imagine - if one is creative - how/why something might fail. But, that doesn't mean we should not be proactive. After all, most of us have car insurance. We are not planning to have an accident. And we certainly don't think that having insurance will prevent an accident. But, we have the insurance nevertheless. Think of the Seed Vault as providing a similar kind of insurance policy for global agriculture.

    28. Re:Good idea but... by CFTM · · Score: 1

      We're not about to destroy the planet chicken little; we may make it very difficult for life to survive for 10,000 - 20,000 years but we do not have the capacity to destroy this planet save maybe detonating every single nuclear weapon that we have at the same time and that's not going to happen. That might not even do it when you consider the fact that four billion years ago we were hit by another celestial object (planet?) large enough that our moon was created and when that happened only 99% life was destroyed...there was still that dastardly 1% living in extreme conditions that went on to reseed this planet with all the various forms of life that we find both living and in the fossil record...

    29. Re:Good idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have enough nuclear weapons to sterilize the Earth's surface. We can knock down some trees and set some on fire, but there will be plenty of land between which has only had a quick wind moving across the surface. Most seeds won't care how much we redistribute our heavy rocks.

    30. Re:Good idea but... by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      and set it off to go off a -few- times (in 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, and 10000 years, etc.,)

      From what I understand, if humans don't maintain, say corn, for a few seasons (global nukilar war?), the entire plant species will disappear from the planet.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    31. Re:Good idea but... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      we do not have the capacity to destroy this planet save maybe detonating every single nuclear weapon that we have at the same time and that's not going to happen.

      Nowhere near enough. If we worked at it we might be able to eliminate all land vertebrates - build a really big Strangelove-style Doomsday Device, something like that. Wiping out the ocean vertebrates would be harder (although in some areas our fishing fleets are doing quite a good job). Wiping out invertebrate life would be extremely difficult. Wiping out the single-cell organisms... give it up, it's not going to happen, those things have Earth completely infested at every level.

      To destroy the Earth, Alderaan-style, would take some 2x10^32 joules, or 5x10^16 nukes, assuming a generous 1MT yield per nuke. That's ten million nukes per person. I don't think we have that many.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    32. Re:Good idea but... by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea, but if your main concern is nuclear holocaust, you're probably off by an order of magnitude. 100 years would be more than enough. Even Cobalt-60, one of the nastiest and most realistic genocidal isotopes (assuming we're crazy enough to build a bunch of cobalt bombs), has a half -life of only 5 years. That means after 100 years, there will only be ~0.000095% of your original starting amount.

      As a rule, most isotopes with half-lives longer than 5 years are pretty harmless--i.e., they're only weakly radioactive, and therefore (UNLIKE cobalt) there simply isn't enough of that element to irradiate the entire surface of the Earth. I'm not saying the background radiation wouldn't be somewhat higher after "only" 100 years, but it would certainly be quite livable. Waiting an extra 900 years for maybe a 10% cancer reduction (yes, I'm pulling numbers out of my ass here, but I think they're a lot closer than the numbers you had in mind) doesn't seem worth it.

      A catastrophic astronomical event (large object hitting us) could potentially mess things up more, but in that case 1000 years is pretty arbitrary--it could easily be too soon. Actually, come to think of it, any collision that could render earth uninhabitable for 1000 years would almost assuredly destroy or contaminate the seed bank as well, so on the whole I'm going to have to say that 1000 years is probably too long under any circumstance. Better to design multiple 10-100 year banks.

    33. Re:Good idea but... by cpeterso · · Score: 1

      and sell them at Wal-Mart to ensure they are widely disseminated.

  11. Global Warming? by ocirs · · Score: 1

    What if the doomsday involved global warming, permafrost perma-gone?

    1. Re:Global Warming? by weighn · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if the doomsday involved global warming, permafrost perma-gone? I guess the assumption is that the "catostrophic event" doesn't render the entire earth a wasteland.

      Locally mined coal will provide power for refrigeration units Supreme irony!
      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    2. Re:Global Warming? by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      Then they'll be able to get to more coal to run the power plant to run the cooling plant, silly!

      (Really, the first link is way out there on the far edge of wingnut territory, with strong hints of Bavarian Illuminati and New World Order crackpotism. The only conspiracies that seem to be missing from it are ones about shape-shifting blood-drinking reptile aliens, Dick Cheney, and the Queen Mother...)

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    3. Re:Global Warming? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The only conspiracies that seem to be missing from it are ones about shape-shifting blood-drinking reptile aliens, Dick Cheney, and the Queen Mother...

      Why is the word "ones" plural in this sentence?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  12. Me, you namby-pamby loser-philosopher! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may ponder your silly question while my tribe clubs you to death and steals your fuel (and your women).

  13. Old news and FUD by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is old news.

    The linked article in the summary looks like a lot of FUD to me. Read at your own risk.

    From the article:

    The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. ... There will be no full-time staff...

    My question is, if there is a doomsday event, how do we get in?

    1. Re:Old news and FUD by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

      What is the Elvish word for "friend"?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Old news and FUD by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      Duh... We would use the vents...

      (hint: no matter happens, there would always be vents..)
      (hint2: do you see the picture in TFA, the area below the yellow lights?)

    3. Re:Old news and FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. ... There will be no full-time staff...
      My question is, if there is a doomsday event, how do we get in?
      Silly peon, the seeds aren't for you! After a nuclear, volcanic, or meteor-induced holocaust, people like you and me are supposed to die. Those blast doors, airlocks, and concrete are specifically to keep us out. The "enlightened ruling class" who holed themselves up in self-sufficient underground bunkers will need those seeds when things stabilize and they let themselves out in 25-100 years. Half ;)
    4. Re:Old news and FUD by Rebelgecko · · Score: 1

      No-one said the doors and airlocks would be closed.

      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    5. Re:Old news and FUD by megamerican · · Score: 1

      The point of the article on globalresearch was to show that there is good cause for FUD. It is questioning why the same people who funded the doomsday seed vault are the same people who have almost exclusive control of agribusiness. Things like the Rockefeller and Ford foundation have a very poor record when it comes to the things they fund. The article simply wants you to question the connections, be skeptical of their motives. Do a little research on eugenics/genetics/transhumaism and you'll see why there is good reason to be skeptical.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    6. Re:Old news and FUD by HiggsBison · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of...
      "The knob! Turn the knob!"--Goodgulf Grayteeth, in Bored of the Rings

      --
      My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    7. Re:Old news and FUD by xPsi · · Score: 1

      What is the Elvish word for "friend"? Open the blast doors. OPEN THE BLAST DOORS!
      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
    8. Re:Old news and FUD by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I can't even begin to imagine how eugenics/genetics/tranhumanism is connected to any of this.

  14. What about moisture damage? by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recall reading about a vault made in the 50's that was recently opened, and stored inside was some vintage car that had turned into a rust bucket due to the moisture which somehow got into the vault... now maybe technology of today is a little better for sealing things off but how long can you really keep a seed safe from the damage that the mere passing of time can cause unless you put it in cryo stasis with a power source that will last a very long time?

    1. Re:What about moisture damage? by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Informative

      how long can you really keep a seed safe from the damage that the mere passing of time can cause unless you put it in cryo stasis with a power source that will last a very long time? Thousands of years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_viable_seed
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:What about moisture damage? by ShakaZ · · Score: 1

      Considering the vault should be kept at -20 to -30C moist shouldn't be an issue.

    3. Re:What about moisture damage? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Just put a bunch of those "do not eat" packets in the valut.

    4. Re:What about moisture damage? by ScottyKUtah · · Score: 1
      From Wikipedia..
      Buried Car During Oklahoma's 50th Anniversary, a new 1957 Plymouth Belvedere was sealed in a concrete enclosure as a time capsule near downtown Tulsa. It was unearthed June 14, 2007 during the state's centennial celebrations, and was publicly unveiled on June 15.
      In line with the Cold War realities of late 1950s America, the concrete enclosure was advertised as having been built to withstand a nuclear attack.

      The concrete enclosure, however, was not airtight and allowed water to leak in, which caused significant damage to the vehicle.
      The controversial televised vehicle customizer Boyd Coddington would have been the first to start the unburied car, had it been operable.
      The car was the prize of a 1957 contest to guess the population of Tulsa in the year 2007. The winning entrant, one Raymond Humbertson, guessed 384,743 vs. the actual figure of 382,457. However, Mr. Humbertson died in 1979 and now only distant relatives remain.
      In 1998 Tulsa buried another car, to be opened in 2048. Story can be found at http://www.oldcarsweekly.com/Default.aspx?tabid=2009&articleid=6570&articlemid=5603#5603Articles

      --
      He who laughs last is at 300 baud.
  15. I remember reading about this... by KefabiMe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They hope to have a couple packets of seeds of at least 100,000 plant species. It's supposed to survive most anything, being underground and out of the way. The place is fully automated with live video feeds being able to be viewed off-site. This thing is quite literally a refrigerated gigantic robotic filing cabinet with heavy-duty security!

    1. Re:I remember reading about this... by Derek+Loev · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about more controversial seeds, like Marijuana?

    2. Re:I remember reading about this... by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 1

      No need for a seed vault there. I've left several old couches scattered around the country with enough Marijuana seeds to take care of the reseeding problem...

    3. Re:I remember reading about this... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They're ... uh ... somewhere down this alley. Yeah.

      'scuse me, do you happen to have any cookies on you by chance?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. "Well, fuck, it's doomsday! What'll we do now?" by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Don't worry, don't you remember that slashdot article about that vault?"

    "What vault?"

    "The doomsday seed vault! It'll save us all, we'll have plenty to eat as soon as we can get some crops planted."

    "That's great! Where is it?"

    "The Arctic circle."

    "What?"

    "Well, they needed to keep the seeds cold so they'd stay viable."

    "How in the fuck are we going to get to the north pole?"

    "Um, oh yeah. Peopleburgers it is then."

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  17. The world won't need saving if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that needs to happen is for localized catastrophes to happen just to some of the mentioned "sponsors" of this project. After they and evil entities like them are gone the world will be just fine.

  18. The Onion by p3d0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You've seen this I hope?

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:The Onion by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  19. Svalbard = bad idea by schmidt349 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Svalbard is not exactly the choicest site in the world for something as important as a doomsday seed vault. The island is run by Panserbjørnen and witches!

    1. Re:Svalbard = bad idea by weighn · · Score: 1

      The island is run by Panserbjørnen and witches! One person's witches are another's alternative remedy practitioners.

      "Svalbard is completely controlled by the Kingdom of Norway and is part of it. Svalbard has a population of approximately 2,400 people as of 2005. Approximately 70% of the people are Norwegian; the remaining 30% are Russian, Ukrainian and Polish." -- wikipedia

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    2. Re:Svalbard = bad idea by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Informative

      The island is run by Panserbjørnen and witches!

      One person's witches are another's alternative remedy practitioners.

      "Svalbard is completely controlled by the Kingdom of Norway and is part of it. Svalbard has a population of approximately 2,400 people as of 2005. Approximately 70% of the people are Norwegian; the remaining 30% are Russian, Ukrainian and Polish." -- wikipedia [wikipedia.org]


      That sound you're hearing is the reference passing straight over your head....
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Svalbard = bad idea by coldcell · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good, I'm not the only one thinking this "high security seed vault" is really a cover for slicing daemons from children...

      --
      Launchy.net changed my world.
  20. I hope it will never actually be needed by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and i hope they keep Monsanto's genetically modified seed and intellectual property separate from natural seeds, thats all we need in the future is for Monsanto having a monopoly on global food crops...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  21. Re:"Well, fuck, it's doomsday! What'll we do now?" by weighn · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Um, oh yeah. Peopleburgers it is then." "Monsanto Seeds are PEOPLE!"
    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  22. FEED ME COAL by Todamont · · Score: 2, Funny

    So what happens when all the people who are supposed to be mining the coal die? No one thought, "hey maybe this thing should run on solar power"?

    --
    Kharma is like a boomerang. Mine is broken.
    1. Re:FEED ME COAL by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      It's above the Polar Circle. There's no sun for several months at a time.

    2. Re:FEED ME COAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would assume that during the no sun period it would pretty much keep itself cold, right?

    3. Re:FEED ME COAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our solar powered robotic overlords! Our unlimited supply of good clean coal will serve us well after we'll block out the sun.

    4. Re:FEED ME COAL by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      Underground, the temperature is pretty much the same year-round. In that particular place, this happens to be -3 C. Which I assume is not cold enough to preserve the seeds, otherwise they wouldn't need the additional cooling.

    5. Re:FEED ME COAL by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Because photovoltaics are well-known for not failing after two or three decades. Right.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:FEED ME COAL by tonsberg · · Score: 1

      The insolation up around the Arctic circle is hardly enough to write home about half the year, and not nearly enough to power a large underground seed lair.

      Additionally, there are large deposits of coal on the islands, so it's the cheapest, and most viable solution. One can but hope they'll make this fully automated once we start dying off and realize we'll need the vault post-apocalypse. =)

  23. Plan for Global Domination by weighn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...all we need in the future is for Monsanto having a monopoly on global food crops... 1. Acquire patent for nature;
    2. Usher in the apocalypse;
    3. Rebuild the world under license
    4. Name it Monsanto-World (TM)
    5. Bwa-hah-hah-hah-hah !!
    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  24. Who gets access? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK say its doomsday or "really really crappy but not enough to be dooms" day.

    Who gets access? Only Monsanto, Microsoft and friends?

    --
  25. See also... by bagsc · · Score: 1
    --
    http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  26. Not to worry... by msauve · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft is in charge of security. Anyone will be able to get in if they want to.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Not to worry... by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      If you could endure a hundred Microsoft Secret Service agents along the hallway asking you, "It seems that you are trying to get in the Vault. Cancel or Allow?" then you deserve to get in...

  27. How about the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a vault for the people? What is the point of a bunch of seeds when everyone is dead?

    What is wrong with the seed bank at Kew Gardens near London? I believe that it is the biggest in the world. Oh that's right, it not controlled by Americans so it doesn't rate.

    1. Re:How about the people by famebait · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with the seed bank at Kew Gardens near London?

      Well, in the event of, say, a nuclear war, the Greater London area seems a tad more likely to be hit than Svalbard.

      Plus, the trek to Svalbard to retrieve the seeds that will save mankind will make a much more spectacular movie than strolling over to Kew Gardens.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    2. Re:How about the people by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      There's also the millenium seed bank at wakeshurst place in Sussex which has an extremely comprehensive library of seeds.

  28. Did they say seed? by dasroot · · Score: 0

    Butthead: Hey, Beavis. Uhhh, let's go donate some of our, uhhhh, seed.

    Beavis: Yeah, yeah! SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!

    Butthead: Dude, they want us to spank our snow monkeys! Heh, heh.

  29. Wait... by popo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't remember anyone asking *me* to donate. WTF?

    Like I'm not important or something?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  30. Not sure by Psychotria · · Score: 1

    While I do not debate the merit of this project, I am unsure of its "ability to help us recover from disaster". What I mean is that, sure we can propagate seeds, but assembling them into whole functioning ecosystems that are the same as (or even resemble) is beyond our knowledge. I can't see this changing anytime soon either. Additionally, how are we going to restore the soil microbes and fungi?

    1. Re:Not sure by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      If we manage to completely sterilize Earth, we're fucked anyway. A doomsday scenario might just end with a massive loss in biodiversity (for example if we manage to set most of Earth on fire); in that case such a seed bank would be immensely useful.

      Or we nuke most of our food-producing crops to oblivion and need to replace those.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:Not sure by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      It's not meant to repopulate the plant-world after USA and Mr. Bush goes balistic and nuke all the other countries in the world. It's there to help starting new crops after drought, vulcano eruptions, etc. The plan is also to restock everything now and then... can't remember off the top of my head, but I think it was something like 50 years.

      --
      This is blinging
  31. Margaret Sanger by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, if we cut them a little slack for a munged link, and for misspelling 'rabid', the article is basically correct. Sanger was a follower of Robert Malthus, who is best known for prophecying overpopulation doom. What he is less known for is his proposed solution to the alleged problem. He suggested that the 'inferior races' be prevented from expanding. Only wholesome, Anglo-Saxon christians would reproduce.

  32. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this on T.V. like 3 days ago. Modern Marvels "Cold Tech" or something to that effect. Good to see the internet is now getting it's news information from a show which obviously takes at least a week to produce. Old News.

    1. Re:Old News by boarder8925 · · Score: 2, Informative

      But as a poster above pointed out, this story has been on Slashdot twice already.

  33. Also by markov_chain · · Score: 1, Funny

    Can the pollen from the terminator plants infect humans and make them sterile? That wouldn't be too good.

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    1. Re:Also by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      1. you can't "infect" someone with a gene

      2. you are joking right?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Also by rat10177sd · · Score: 0

      UH, what about GM'd anthrax??? I'm NOT joking!

    3. Re:Also by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Can the pollen from the terminator plants infect humans and make them sterile? That wouldn't be too good."

      What you really have to be worried about is if the terminator plants find sarah connor before she can raise her son.. then we're all doomed.

  34. Svalbard? by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that where the Soviets detonated the 50 MT nuke?

    1. Re:Svalbard? by CrimsonScythe · · Score: 0

      No. Svalbard is a Norwegian island. You're thinking of Novaya Zemlya.

      --
      The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
    2. Re:Svalbard? by Sectrish · · Score: 1

      Nope, I believe that was Novaya Zemlya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Zemlya ).

      Svalbard has been kinda neutral territory for some time. (kinda, it's a weird situation)

  35. Where's the minus sign? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a lot of difference between -20 to -30 (TFA) and 20 to 30 (summary).

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Where's the minus sign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit being so logical. Next you're going to complain that a missing "not" can completely change the meaning of a sentence. You have to learn to feel the writer's intent rather than literally read every word. That's how we do things in the 21st century.

    2. Re:Where's the minus sign? by saskboy · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. I wonder why the editor hasn't corrected it yet? Did you email them?

      I'd guess they work in F, and don't know better.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  36. It's -20 to -30 C you stupid monkey! by ugmoe · · Score: 3, Funny
    It's -20 to -30 C not +20 to +30 C you stupid monkey!

    Are you so stupid that you can't even read Wikipedia?

    1. Re:It's -20 to -30 C you stupid monkey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up.

      20 to 30 Celsius is awfully warm.

    2. Re:It's -20 to -30 C you stupid monkey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I'm relieved to know I'm not the only one who was thinking "20 to 30 C? It's in permafrost and they need to COOL it to that temperature!?"

      Dear Americans: I have nothing against you or your country, but please switch to the metric system already!

    3. Re:It's -20 to -30 C you stupid monkey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a bunch of yanks who don't know anything but fahrenheit and miles when the rest of the world has moved on to other scales that at least have simple numbers behind them - not like setting a temperature scale (0 to 100) between the triple point of water and something close to human body temperature, or distances between 3 barley corns (one inch) and 5280 x 12 x 3 barley corns.

    4. Re:It's -20 to -30 C you stupid monkey! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that. It'd be kind of hard to put something in the Arctic and cool it to the temperature of a warm summer's day.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:It's -20 to -30 C you stupid monkey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let's hope there's at least a couple of non-American Engineers on the team otherwise they'll wonder what happened to their seeds that were all "cooled" to 20C =:-)

  37. I've got an idea by ILuvRamen · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's dump a backup of all Slashdot stories and all seasons of Stargate SG-1 in there too. You know, just in case.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  38. goodbye yellow brick road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_on_sc/climate_scientists;_ylt=A0WTcU0kAVdHLooAVRes0NUE

    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7641232?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_on_re_us/severe_weather;_ylt=A0WTcU0kAVdHLooABxes0NUE

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_on_re_as/bali_climate_conference;_ylt=A0WTcU0kAVdHLooA7xas0NUE

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/03/us.debt.ap/index.html

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

    consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

    "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

  39. Outstanding article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've followed this development of the doomsday vault for awhile, but had no idea of the behind the scenes interest and the possible "not so good" ramifications of it all. This information puts it into a completely new light. Wheels within maximum profits (or worse) enigmas and agendas here.

  40. Maybe for now, but... by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, the new drought-resistant, high-yield strains are wonderful things that allow the starving masses to feed 'themselfs'. But by throwing in a genetic time bomb and neutering the crops, Monsanto is in effect resting on its laurels and obviating the need for further innovation.

    Maybe for now, but patents expire. Someone's going to make a small bundle by making terminator-free varieties once the patents on them expire. Of course, by then, we'll have an entire generation of farmers used to paying the piper for their seeds, and I'm sure that Monsanto will have something new to offer by the end of 20 years.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Maybe for now, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who will? Developing countries that have hardly the means to develop their own crops, not to mention reverse engineering ones that exist?

      This is, if anything, creating more dependency for those countries on the seed vendors. Now they have seeds that will create more seeds next year. It's not high yield, but it does at least give them some independence. With terminator crops, they become fully dependent on the company selling them the seeds.

      I wouldn't really call that an improvement.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Maybe for now, but... by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Putting a killswitch into GM crops is a great idea unless you want to "welcome our new flesh-eating herbal overlords" one day.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  41. It's all relative by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One species' "doomsday" is another species chance to thrive. I don't see any giant reptiles bitching over their fate now, do I?

    Just think how pissed you'd be if a bunch of velociraptors popped out of some jurassic "doomsday" vault next week and started chomping down on your homo sapiens brethren?

    Think about the long term. Modern Humans have been around for as few as 6000 years according to some folks, as long as a few hundred thousand years, maybe a bit more, according to more rational minds.

    The same rational minds that put the age of the universe several orders of magnitude greater.

    One way or the other, what's the difference?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:It's all relative by azenpunk · · Score: 1

      if they'd thought of it and built it, then more power to them. we thought of it and built it, so more power to us.

    2. Re:It's all relative by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ok, but face it, we're egoists. When we can't have Earth, to hell with it. And when it goes to hell, we don't want the next gen species to become the top of the food chain, we want to defend our position.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:It's all relative by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Just think how pissed you'd be if a bunch of velociraptors popped out of some jurassic "doomsday" vault next week and started chomping down on your homo sapiens brethren?
      If I were a velociraptor I'd be pretty damned happy about it. As a human I'd be pretty damned happy to be properly prepared to reclaim Earth after a global catastrophe. We are humans so we should plan for humanity.
    4. Re:It's all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One species' "doomsday" is another species chance to thrive. I don't see any giant reptiles bitching over their fate now, do I?
      Try and tell that to American Indians.
  42. Redundancy by DavidV · · Score: 1

    Seeing as it's such valuable content wouldn't that call for a redundant system near the south pole. If you get too paranoid there's always the moon and Mars.

    --
    !sig
    1. Re:Redundancy by PapaBoojum · · Score: 1

      "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept secret."

      S. R. Hadden

  43. Flaws by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see many many flaws with this.

    First off, Svalbard? How in the hell would anyone, if anyone exists, post-epoch get to such a remote place?

    Second, coal-powered? I mean, sure the Soviets mined it there for years and the Norwegians still do. But if we are at a point to use the doomsday seed thing, the Norwegians would have been long extinct along with the rest of the world. No coal, no perfectly conditioned environment for keeping dormant seeds.

    I've read some people offer the suggestion of solar power. That's nice and all. Except there is the nuclear winter doomsday hypothesis. So that might be out of the question.

    Nuclear power would require too much maintenance to power the refrigerators. And with no people left, totally out of the question.

    Geothermal would probably be the most reliable source of power for the facility. But that brings me to my next point...

    If there are going to be a doomsday apocalypse, why even bother with seeding the planet?

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:Flaws by xyph0r · · Score: 0

      Well it has to be /somewhere/ hard to get to or the movie's not going to be very good, is it?

      --
      SQL programmer goes to a bar. Walks up to two tables and says 'Excuse me, may I join you?'.
  44. Seed stores already out there. by esocid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are seed stores all over the world, some refrigerated, some not. Most governments do it to prevent the genetic variability of our world's crops from dropping to zero, as well as restoring our crops if there does happen to be a disease outbreak that targets specific species of plants, especially those which are so genetically similar.
    So much of the world's cereal crops are dangerously similar, due to the fact that everyone wants GMOs (genetically modified organisms) that are disease resistant, insecticide resistant, drought resistant, or infused with certain genes to deter insects. The downfall to that is the fact that you get practically no variation to select for survivability to future diseases, weeds, and insects, or to withstand pandemics or epidemics of disease.
    Last I heard, Mexico banned the use of GMOs for corn farmers so that the huge staple of their diet would be reliable in the future, however since corn is an airborne pollinator some crops had been germinated from US GMO corn crops and were burned. They are pretty strict on that, and I'm just hoping a blight doesn't destroy our corn and soybean crops, the two least genetically variable crops that we grow here.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  45. Stupid Location by E++99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IMO the most likely scenario where the seed bank would be needed is when the human race eventually tries to restart agriculture after the start of the next ice age. Yet when that happens, it's very likely that this island could be under a mile-thick ice sheet. That doesn't seem like the best location.

    1. Re:Stupid Location by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I think the most likely scenario would be that some seed manufacturer fucks up royally and creates cereals that kill you, it comes out after 20 years, we don't have any prior creations anymore and now we're stuck with deadly wheat.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Stupid Location by E++99 · · Score: 1

      I think the most likely scenario would be that some seed manufacturer fucks up royally and creates cereals that kill you, it comes out after 20 years, we don't have any prior creations anymore and now we're stuck with deadly wheat.

      I think that's about as likely as it was likely as -- as people were afraid of when computers were new -- once we became dependent on computers, they would become conscious and kill us all. Or that alternating current would kill us all, as the public was afraid of after Tesla introduced it. Or that electricity, together with the new medical sciences, would be used to create frankenstein monsters. All these fears seem technically justified from a distance, but they aren't.

      There are some 23 species of wheat cultivated around the world, along with their subspecies; all of them inventions of our ancestors. None of them are going anywhere. GM wheat is not going to cross-pollinate with these species, because these species all self-pollinate. Hybrids only happen when they are done manually. GM wheat would be created by adding a gene from another organism to transcribe some known protein. If the protein isn't poisonous to us in the other organism, neither will it be poisonous to us in the wheat. Although GMO is more powerful than simple hybridization, it is less dangerous, because we know specifically what genes were are transferring, and what proteins they code for. With traditional hybridization, there is the hypothetical risk you could activate some deactivated poison gene in one of the donor species. You have no idea what thousands of genes you're getting. There aren't these unknowns with GMO. As long as it's disclosed what proteins have been added to the organism, the scientific community can fully assess the health risks of the added proteins.

      And despite the natural distaste for patents on genomes, patents are the only thing that makes it possible for specifics of these genetic changes to be disclosed. Without them, the inventors would be fighting tooth and nail to keep the changes trade secrets.
    3. Re:Stupid Location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps a seed manufacturer creates crops with a pesticide such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) inserted into its genome, so that causes the plant's pollen to be poisonous to honeybees. I believe it was Einstein who said that humanity would last at most four years if all the honeybees were to die off suddenly. Maybe they should be preserving honeybee larva or at least honeybee DNA alongside the seeds?

    4. Re:Stupid Location by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So you're the person who knows exactly what effect changes in this or that nucleotid sequence has on our organism? Where do you work, and how much do they pay you? No matter, it's still too little. You're absolutely unique!

      Risk assessment has a long history in the pharmaceutic industry. The process to get some drug approved is long and tedious. Still, every now and then desaster strikes and we have to deal with long term effects nobody predicted. Well, we can take the drug off the market. But how do you take staple food out of the market? Especially after you realize that every single breed in (commercial) existance already contains it?

      Now, drugs are different from food. Granted. Still, we alter our food. We replace some things with cheaper products, "natural" products with generated products, because they're cheaper, make it easier to work with or other reasons that are beneficial for the manufacturer, but not necessarily for your health. I guess trans fat tells you something. Now, not genetically engineered, but still "manufactured food".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  46. IWABTDWS by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

    I Was A Botanist That Dealt With Seeds.

    In fact a good chunk of my graduate studies dealt with seeds. I can hand you a set Mustard seeds. Each year I add one from the year before recursively - so you plant one this year, two the next (years one and two collection), three after that (years one, two and three collection), then four, etc, etc etc. So that at the end you have ten seeds from the original plant ten years ago, all the way to that same plant's seed this year.

    Over time you will see the germination for that particular Mustard's offspring drop to zero. Maybe not in ten years - it is dependent on the plant, but it will happen. Then. Then some lady in Iowa is going to be digging through her great grandmothers root cellar and blow the roof off of the life of a seed. A tomato from colonial times, a spinach that looks like a bush. A corn that is a weed not a crop, a mustard her great-grandma grew.

    Truth is we have wery little idea how to keep seeds. Everyone would like to believe that even if we (almost) kill our own species that our current plants will survive is smoking a biiiiig pipe. You may say sure - but if we bank a million seeds - post collapse people get to grow our best efforts. Except they don't. Because they are locked up where no one can find them, in areas that if they get exposed to the elements of the area or radiation or climate, rain, soil, that most of them will die. And if they can survive, why would you look there - you would look in the tropics, where things really grow. This whole thing is predicated on the belief that the people that survive will gather the seeds and become AG gods.

    Truth is, if they are Modern Man (shortly after the Fall) They will have access to plants. If you expect MoleMen to come up and start an ag culture based on this storage, well, SciFi is your God.

    This might be great for Botany (and it is)

    But Noah's Ark it isn't

    Sera

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  47. doomsday vault my ass! by TheRealZeus · · Score: 0

    species become extinct by the second, they're looking forward to capitalizing on this.

  48. The old refresh problem by dbc · · Score: 1

    Yes, exactly my question when I read it. How are they going to refresh the seeds? I've read about various heritage seed farms, and keeping old varieties alive is a bunch of work. As you say, they need to be planted while they are still vital so that you get a reasonable germination rate. The Norskies don't seem to be addressing that. I don't buy that the freezing methodology is a complete solution to that. The other thing is keeping varieties pure. Let's say you have 7 varieties of carrots. You can't plant them anywhere near to each other in he same year, or they cross pollinate and their goes your pure strain. So the problem has multiple constraints.

  49. 20 to 30 C?? by amper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, this place is only about 1100 km from the North Pole, and they have to run refrigeration to get the temps down to 25 degrees Celsius? Man, that global warming is brutal!

    I assume you meant to say 20 to 30 K, no?

  50. I call bullshit. by HiggsBison · · Score: 1

    The terminator genetics does not stop modified genetics from spreading into the wild. Viruses can enter the plants, multiply, and take little snips of stuff here and there when they spread. And the terminator genes are not perfect. A one in a billion failure across trillions of seeds is a lot of spreading.

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  51. 20 to 30 degrees C is rather warm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, considering that the summary says they need to keep the seds at "20 to 30 C." - that's actually rather on the warm side (68F to 86F).

    ... but of course, this is slashdot, where editors don't edit, never mind fact-check against TFA.

  52. FUD indeed by beavioso · · Score: 0, Troll

    The linked article states:
    "In the 1990's the UN's World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.

    Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told. "

    A quick search on google for "Comite Pro Vida de Mexico" brings up a JSTOR abstract: Damage to Immunisation Programmes from Misinformation on Contraceptive Vaccines.

    Whoops, wouldn't want think about immunizing against neonatal tetanus in developing countries. Seems like this author wants to assume there's a sinister plot to take over the world population. Where's James Bond when you need him?

    1. Re:FUD indeed by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Then what is hGC doing in there?

      The link between b-hGC and hGC immunoresponse is known to be abortive in fertile females.

      --
    2. Re:FUD indeed by beavioso · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I believe everything wikipedia says, and I'm certainly not a biologist. However, hCG, to me, does not appear to do what you say it does. hCG on wikipedia.org.

      Can you show me some facts, beyond this statement? And in any event, if you're right, I still think this article is heavy in conspiracy theory.

    3. Re:FUD indeed by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Of course. Cited as tentative proof is the jStor link as seen from Google scholar.

      Article name: Isoimmunization against Human Chorionic Gonadotropin with Conjugates of Processed beta-Subunit of the Hormone and Tetanus Toxoid

      After reading that article, it's enough proof for me.

      Let me now if you want the PDFs. I can email them to you (due to paper-payola, you may not be able to read it).

      --
    4. Re:FUD indeed by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      Article name: Isoimmunization against Human Chorionic Gonadotropin with Conjugates of Processed beta-Subunit of the Hormone and Tetanus Toxoid
      Okay, that's "Conjugates of Processed beta-Subunit of the Hormone and Tetanus Toxoid", i.e. specific lumps knocked off the hCG molecule and attached to the Tetanus Toxoid molecule - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_vaccine for some more details on that kind of technique. That's not hCG and Tetanus Toxoid injected at the same time because they were shipped in the one ampoule. In the former, you've got a molecule that that will generate an immune response that bears certain markers that will cause the immune system to also develop an immune response to hCG. In the latter, you have two separate molecules - hCG, which occurs in the body naturally, and tetanus toxoid, which does not - and only one of those should elicit an immune response.

      As for possible reasons why hCG and Tetanus Toxoid would be administered together... that'll be to help maintain the pregnancy, i.e. reduce the risk of spontaneous abortion due to the immune response to the tetanus toxoid. They shouldn't administer that particular combined vaccine to men for much the same reasons as you wouldn't ordinarily give a man a shot of hCG without a good reason to do so.

      As for why there would be research going on into vaccines that will cause an immune response to hCG... well, there are a number of cancers that are sensitive to hCG, and it could be handy to be able to use the body's own immune systems to suppress it instead of screwing around with other hormone treatments or suppressants. It's also good to know about the characteristics of particular molecules or their fragments will affect how well a particular custom-vaccine will work - that could be very important when producing special-purpose vaccines for individualised treatment. You can already get special-purpose vaccines made from your own cancer cells, and it would be great if those manufacturing such vaccines could say "These cells have markers X, Y and Z, so we'll use carrier molecule A - but those ones have markers Q,R and S, so for that patient we'd be better use carrier molecule B instead".

      Also, provided one isn't philosophically opposed to the idea of contraception in the first place, what's inherently wrong with research into what might pan out to be an immunological contraceptive mechanism anyway? With things like the pill, you're messing with homone balances in ways that might be dangerous, and some formulations were, for most of a woman's reproductive life. The idea of a shot that prevents pregnancy UNTIL such time as the woman wishing to become pregnant goes on a course of medication flips that on its head - instead of decades on the pill and years off it, she's going for decades without medication and maybe a few years on it. I'm not saying it's an approach that's safe - we can't know that without research - but it's an interesting idea that warrants further research before we can say it's a good idea or a bad one.
  53. And why don't we have more of these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its surprising that there aren't MORE of these, one central source of anything is a bad thing as we already know. This I think would be important enough to have more than a few of them around the world. Heck I am sure North America could use quite a few of them... Alaska & the Yukon anyone?

  54. ALL YOUR SEMEN ARE BELONG TO US. by rpp3po · · Score: 0

    Narrator: In A.D. 2101, war was beginning. Svalbard : What happen ? Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb. Operator: We get signal. Svalbard : What! Operator: Main screen turn on. Svalbard : It's you!! CATS: How are you gentlemen!! CATS: All your semen are belong to us. CATS: You are on the way to destruction. Svalbard : What you say!! CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time. CATS: Ha Ha Ha .... Operator: Svalbard !! * Svalbard : Take off every 'SEMEN'!! Svalbard : You know what you doing. Svalbard : Move 'SEMEN'. Svalbard : For great justice.

  55. And reseed to what end? Just for the hell of it? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they don't press it after, say, 1,000 years, the vault goes into "reseed" mode.

    And totally fuck up whatever plant life is around 1000 years from now. If there are no humans, what the hell do you need to go throwing noxious weeds like strawberries around, choking out one thousand years of evolution and bringing disease from our time in the form of mold spores to things that have had a thousand years to forget everything they knew about THAT particular strain.

    If there are humans around, they can intelligently manage the revival of whatever species might exist. If not, they it makes a nice collection for an alien botanist who happens to land here. Just going into reseed mode without thought is like use sending up the contents of my vacuum bag with the next Mars mission and dumping it all over the ground there.

    And before you dream about something that wakes up in 1000 years and starts throwing packets "all over the globe", you should really read The Clock of the Long Now and reconsider what you are saying.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. Yeah ... why not ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Make yourself at home, eat a seed while waiting ...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  57. Nihilists! by gnarlyhotep · · Score: 1

    Fuck me. Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

  58. Just don't put Okies in charge. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Building a vault isn't rocket science.

    Those Okies were idiots.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  59. I always thought that when digging that thing by dominux · · Score: 4, Funny

    it would be rather ironic if they discovered a gigantic underground vault full of Jurassic plants left by the dinosaurs for future civilizations in the event of a large extinction event.

  60. Monsanto !? by yvesdandoy · · Score: 0

    If they are participating to such a thing ... they KNOW something really bad is going to happen because of their genetically modified seeds and their are preparing for colossal future profits.

  61. different thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and i thought this was about something that could CAUSE doomsday. man.

  62. Big mellons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [chill wrote ]What is the Elvish word for "friend"?


    Do you have a female mellon with big mellons?
  63. Vault 1? by MaXMC · · Score: 1

    Who's going to be the first vault dweller?

  64. Resident Evil by nyonix · · Score: 1

    I dunno, but every time i ear something about Monsanto company, it reminds me of Umbrella Corporation from Resident Evil, i wonder why?

  65. just great by SoyChemist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Monsanto is involved with this, so after the apocalypse, Indian peasant farmers will still be taking it in the shorts from big corporations.

  66. I just hope by Martian_Kyo · · Score: 1

    they overstocked on G.E.C.K-s and waterchips.

    oh and Ron Perlman soundclips : "War. War never changes"

  67. Re: Craziness Level by giafly · · Score: 2, Funny

    The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the 'defining gene sequence' which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler's eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.
    That article seems a little over the edge.
    All it needs is the block capitals.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  68. The vault by jandersen · · Score: 1

    The seed vault is not primarily about preserving species of wheat or whatever it is people have been imagining on /. - it is about saving as many as possible of all the wild plant species we are busy driving to extinction through logging, global warming, mindless, industrial agriculture etc. It is part of a multi layered strategy: preserve habitats, preserve growing specimens in botanical gardens, preserve seeds in seed banks.

    A pessimistic, but very realistic view indicates that we will have killed off most rainforests etc within this century; that leaves botanical gardens and the seed banks. When the botanical gardens aren't viable any more, perhaps we have one more chance in the seed banks. If we save enough seeds, perhaps we can re-establish viable ecologies where they have been lost, or in new, better suited places, since the climate changes are likely to change some habitats too much.

    What people should realize is that this is not about safeguarding against starvation - it's for after, when a large part of the world's population has died. It is also worth thinking about that this project isn't a panicky rush to build a shelter a-la the cold-war nuclear bunkers. This has been contemplated and implemented by level-headed scientists.

  69. Monsanto... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, Monsanto Corp., defilers of all natural plant growth, playing a key part in this? That should play out nicely...

  70. Is it just me? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Or is it decidedly creepy when the richest people in the world prepare for "The End"...

    --
    Deleted
  71. Does anyone know any genetics? by Byzboy · · Score: 1
    Hey I know this /. and primarily computing people like to comment on everything but some knowledge of genetics is helpful. Even if there are no patents and no fancy mol. biolgy methods used to generate new crops. And even if these strains are NOT pestiside resistant, or drought proof or any other evil thing construct but just have a higher average crop yield. And if these crops were created only with classical NON GM methods, then we would still be buying seeds every season. The reason is that high yield crops are predominantly hybrids produced from crossing two very inbred strains. The first generation crops produced from this mating are usually very robust and high yielding. Subsequent generations are less viable and productive. It takes a lot of genetic tampering to produce strains that inbreed and then for 1 generation outbreed. That's why high yielding crop seeds are always bought each season, because they are freshly generated to be as productive as possible every season.

    Of course we should all give up this evil science stuff and run back into the forests were everything is happy and kind and nurturing as soon as possible. But until that time, first world farmers are going to have to front up and pay for seeds if they want the highest yields and the west will remain the bread basket of the world until the mass die off before the happy people can return to the forests.

  72. Can I Donate My Seeds? by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    I'll leave it in a cup by their door.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  73. Did anyone read the article? by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

    That article is a paranoid conspiracy theory. It contains little fact and is chalk full of FUD, bizarre ideas and many alleged links to Nazi and Third Reich Eugenics scientists. Apparently those forces have much to do with Bill Gates and others funding this bank [rolls eyes]. Why was this article even posted on /.? Let me post an exerpt:

    Now we come to the heart of the danger and the potential for misuse inherent in the Svalbard project of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundation. Can the development of patented seeds for most of the world's major sustenance crops such as rice, corn, wheat, and feed grains such as soybeans ultimately be used in a horrible form of biological warfare?

    The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy elite families such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920's, has embodied what they termed 'negative eugenics,' the systematic killing off of undesired bloodlines. Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was all about the fact that, as she put it, 'we want to exterminate the Negro population.'

    That stuff about Sanger may actually be true, but still, conspiracy theories are often arrived at by taking true facts, twisting them and putting them together in ways that should never happen. This article is supposed to be informing us about the seed vault, not spinning up bizarre stories the relate the Svalbard seed bank to Rockefeller, the Nazis, etc. Why did the admins post this drivel?

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    1. Re:Did anyone read the article? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I reached the same conclusion. The seed bank is good; preservation of what may someday be otherwise impossible to replace is good; the article resurrects long-dead conspiracy wingnuts.

      Every big company with a long history has some such skeletons in their closets; it's the nature of big business and big money. You don't always know what your investment dollar is going to be used for in advance (and it often goes through trusts, with little direct control), and sometimes even big companies believe well-crafted propaganda from evil sources.

      On a similar note, I know someone who thinks that because Toshiba sold components to Japanese interests during WW2, that's sufficient reason to boycott Toshiba to this day... because after all, motivations from 60+ years ago must still be valid today, right?! :/

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Did anyone read the article? by dwye · · Score: 1

      On a similar note, I know someone who thinks that because Toshiba sold components to Japanese interests during WW2, that's sufficient reason to boycott Toshiba to this day

      Unless I am really mistaken, wasn't Toshiba a Japanese company during WW2? If they hadn't sold components to Japanese interests, who would they sell to? The Americans? That would get them executed.

      I suppose that he doesn't take Bayer Aspirin anymore because of their complicity in WWI gas attacks on the Western Front?

    3. Re:Did anyone read the article? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I wondered about that too.. wouldn't a Japanese company naturally sell to, uh, Japan?!

      Hadn't heard that about Bayer; what's the scoop?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Did anyone read the article? by ExumPlace · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your post. Indeed, the original "article," is in serious need of a fact checker. The companies cited as funders are not. And to think that an honest effort to provide a safety net to protect the biodiversity in existing seed banks (which is so essential to future agriculture) is somehow a plot by the Norwegian government and an endowment fund (with a Nobel Peace prize winner as vice-chair) is absurd. People should do a minimum of "due diligence" before posting slanderous comments. See the Norwegian government website, or go to www.croptrust.org for more info. Again, thanks for interjecting some sanity into the rumor mill.

    5. Re:Did anyone read the article? by dwye · · Score: 1

      Bayer, which invented aspirin, was the pharmacutical unit of I.G. Farben, which started from coal tar distallates and grew into a company that made *anything* associated with chemistry. Thus, naturally, I.G Farben also made the poison gas that the Germans used in WWI. Because of things like this (and the perception that it was so successful that no one could compete against it), I.G. Farben was broken up after WWI into a half dozen companies, one of which was Bayer. OTOH, the Bayer Aspirin trademark was seized in the USA as war reparations and assigned to some small manufacturer (which naturally grew to be a major). Bayer still made the Bayer Aspirin used by the rest of the owrld, though. About 10 years ago, Bayer GMBH bought the US company that owned the trademark, so Bayer Aspirin is now made by Bayer, again, ruining a great Believe-It-Or-Not entry.

    6. Re:Did anyone read the article? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Very interesting! Thanks for the story. Very amusing that Bayer is now, uh, Bayer again :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Did anyone read the article? by tashammer · · Score: 1

      no, i think it is a good idea to dispense with (nice, polite euphemism there) undesirable family bloodlines starting with the Bushes, Rockerfellers, Harrimans etc We might also dispense with those bloodlines associated with any private equity companies. Funny how the net begins to grow ain't it? Incidently, there is something poetic in the fact that the Ark with be cooled by the very material that helps make it necessary that it be cooled...infinite regression at this point. Yes, that lovely greenhouse gas emitter COAL will be used to power the refrigeration units. And i suppose that one of the reasons that the nice folks at Monsanto need to be seen to be building safety mechanisms is for that time when they release a patented seed that wipes out all other seed (it wasn't their fault, bees buzz, wind blows). Here is Australia there are patented crops turning up along roadsides and in farmers fields who didn't plant them which, if you accept PVR legislation - makes those farmers hummm, well what do ya know, it makes the farmers pirates. They have pirated seed. Anyone ever thought of the wind as a p2p mechanism? Will MPAA and ARIA get involved in agriculture as an extra income generating line? He falls on floor not sure whether to laugh or to cry.

  74. Paranoid ranting by Lproven · · Score: 1

    I'm all for awareness of global threats and so on, but this article is a paranoid rant, as far as I can see, without merit and pointless to read. The author merely seems to be promoting his own agenda and book.

    --
    Liam P. ~ "Intelligence is a lethal mutation." (me)
  75. Unfortunately, it's WAY too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    You have no idea...too late. There are MULTIPLE contamination (both accidental and intentional) problems already. We are rapidly moving to biological armageddon, for a number of reasons. But heck, don't take my word for it. Google for GMO seed contamination. I hope that you will be appropriately outraged and shocked by what you discover and hammer your politicians ASAP.

    Here's a couple examples:
    http://www.biotech-info.net/control_issues.html
    http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/2006/05/hawaiian-papaya-gmo-contaminated-by.html
    http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/dec/dec-news6.html

    Et cetera, et cetera, unfortunately...

  76. Not zero-sum by BeanThere · · Score: 1

    So anyone else (including you) is free to create their own vault, with more traditional seed varieties, which would more than likely also suffice for post-Armageddon or other scenarios. Surely you can't argue that we'd be better off post-Armageddon if Monsanto didn't create a vault AT ALL (unless it's Monsanto's plan to engineer an Armageddon with societal structure that leaves them with power afterwards). The way I see it, generally speaking the more such vaults we have the better - it doesn't take anything away from the world for anybody to create a vault, it only 'gives'.

    1. Re:Not zero-sum by ExumPlace · · Score: 1

      FYI. Monsanto has nothing to do with the Vault. Absolutely nothing. It's not theirs (it's Norway's). Monsanto didn't fund it. Their seeds are not being stored there, etc. This is a case of an irresponsible and inaccurate article being posted here, and then rumors taking off. People assume the worst. In this case, I am happy to report, they are wrong. See www.croptrust for more information, or google the Norwegian government's website on the Seed Vault.

  77. Monsanto by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

    Shit that company is genetically engineering it's seeds and pushing them all over the world, they have test on rats proving they affect the human genome, that's what you get when mixing animal genes with vegetables.

    And we would want to be saved by them? Geez i'd rather eat dirt unless someone from monsanto stepped on it and genetically modified it.

  78. Crops lack natural relatives... by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Putting a killswitch into GM crops is a great idea unless you want to "welcome our new flesh-eating herbal overlords" one day.

    There are a lot of crops that got so much mutated and modified for the thousands years since we invented agriculture (by plain old "selection method", you needn't wait for the 20/21th century's biotechnology to create mutants).
    You end up with plants growing in field that have no close relatives in the nature, at least not close enough to cross-polinate wild species. And those plant, because they mostly got selected for their culinary uses, evolved to the point they are almost completly dependant on humans for their reproduction (that's "intelligent" design for you...)
    The risks of turning the tropical forest into the next "World War Z" because of GM crops is low.

    Similarly the risk for health of the GM crops can also be kept low : the newer gene that you install inside your GM crop don't need to be taken from some obscure bacteria that only leave several km under the see level near source of thermal or chemical energy, or some highly toxic tropical snail. You can also produce useful GM by transferring genes from other plants. If both plants are known to be non-toxic to humans, chance are high that your newly created product will be non-toxic too.

    In short, GM aren't necessarily dangerous, specially shown in the light of the grotesque mutation that modern crops are compared to their ancestror. We can produce GMs that introduce far less novelty than what thousands years of agriculture have already managed to modify.

    WHAT IS REALLY PROBLEMATIC is these terminator genes.

    They are fundamentally over-throwing the economic model that has prevailed for the last *couple of thousands* years.
    For all that time, peasants used *to own their fields* (yeah, maybe not the serfs working the land directly, but land lords) and thus they owned and were free to manage whatever grew on it. Choose to plant next year whatever you have seeds for (and choose wisely - "crop rotation" ain't just a funny word).
    With terminator-genes GM crops, the peasants are now at the mercy of the GM producing company. They must, sheepishly, re-pay each year for a new batch of seeds. Vendor Lock-in is assured by combining these genes and the stupid "bio-patents", thus eliminating any possibility of freedom for the peasants.

    In a way, Monsanto is becoming the new Microsoft of agriculture, terminator gene playing the role of the technology that will put an end at the "homebrew computre era"-like freedom of choice that the agriculture had enjoyed until now.

    The parallels with DRM and TCPM are even more troubling because the terminators are pushed also as a security measure and in fact serve better as lock-in tools too.

    Now add to that that the few amount of GM crops available will further encourage monoculture and render world production even more vulnerable to newer bugs (for which there aren't specific trans-genes in the crops yet). The parallels with Microsoft are realy troubling.

    The only risk of cross pollination is with neighbours fields. Monsanto is encouraging keeping a given distance, but a lot of agro-specialist are complaining that those buffer distance are too short and cross pollination may occur.
    This will :
    - pose problem to the consumers freedom of choice. Even if he picks up a GM-free product in the shop, the product may still have plant expressing GM-genes they got from the neighbourhood.
    - because those terminator gene only work one generation down (kill the offsprings of the GM crops) they could kill next year's crop that was obtained from cross-pollinated GM-contamined seeds. Thus damaging the yield of fields in the neighbourhood of GM crops. (This could even bring bad unfair publicity to unaware peasant because their crop will be performing worse than the GM of the neighbour, thus encouraging switching to GM) The best part ? If a peasant realises and complains about the contamination, *he* wi

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Crops lack natural relatives... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not even like those terminator genes are necessary. Patents already govern that you may not plant food that the owner of the patents doesn't want you to plant. So what's the deal with terminators? Some kinda plant-DRM, I guess. Just in case the country you're in doesn't want to play by our rules anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  79. Re:And reseed to what end? Just for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1000 years is a pittance when it comes to evolutionary genetic modification. Plant life 1000 years from now will be extremely similar to plant life now (excluding GM modifications and anthropogenic breeding). And any disease resistance would still be coded into the DNA of the surviving plants.

  80. Powered by WHAT? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    "Locally mined coal will provide power for refrigeration units..."

    Thereby hastening global warming, our eventual doom and therefore the need for the seed banks.

    Next up, news of Western plans to hand over nuclear tech for 'safe keeping' to stable, responsible, friendly regimes such as Pakistan, India, North Korea, China and Libya...oh wait.

  81. rockefeller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, hasn't anyone seen zetgeist the movie? Does it not seem a bit strange that the guy who wants globalization and is willing to go to great and evil lengths to get it now wants to lock away seeds in case of "something bad"? I think the problem is not that this is being done, it is actually a really good idea, the problem is who is doing it! David Rokerfeller to me alone is bad news. I dont like it one bit.

  82. Pollenation by deets · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What happens to the plants once all of the pollenators are gone? Also, a lot of seeds require special conditions to be viable (i.e. passing through the digestive track of animals).

  83. G.I. Joe random tangent by tholomyes · · Score: 1

    This was the sort of scenario my few surviving G.I. Joe figures would always end up in-- the world had been blown to hell, and Snake Eyes and the Crimson Guard were left fighting it out to see which one of them would get to live the rest of their lives in the insanely well-stocked Antarctic base/my bedroom floor... Ah, good times.

    --
    When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
  84. Re:And reseed to what end? Just for the hell of it by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

    going into reseed mode without thought is like use sending up the contents of my vacuum bag You misspelled "youse"...
    --
    Just junk food for thought...
  85. Seed potatoes are potatoes but potato seeds aren't by douglips · · Score: 2, Informative
    Apparently you can use true potato seeds to grow seed potatoes.
    http://www.growseed.org/potato-breeding.html
    Quote:

    TPS-true potato seed-is harvested from the berries that grow among the foliage of potato plants. An average plant produces dozens of berries, each of which contains hundreds of tiny seeds. Similar in appearance to tomato seed, TPS is usually sown in seedbeds three or four weeks prior to the potato planting season. The plants in the beds produce small tubers, sometimes called tuberlets, which farmers plant in the field much as they would conventional seed tubers.

    This practice sidesteps much of the drudgery involved in handling heavy seed tube[r]s, provides farmers with vigorous disease-free seed, and eliminates the need to store part of the previous year's crop for following year's planting. Many of the production problems that potato farmers experience result from the deterioration of the seed tubers they save for planting, storing them for eight to nine months in inadequate storage facilities.
  86. Re:And reseed to what end? Just for the hell of it by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "youse"...

    Actually I misspelled us:

    going into reseed mode without thought is like us sending up the contents of my vacuum bag

    But "youse" is way funnier, I'll take that thanks!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  87. Doubtful by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    1000 years is a pittance when it comes to evolutionary genetic modification. Plant life 1000 years from now will be extremely similar to plant life now (excluding GM modifications and anthropogenic breeding). And any disease resistance would still be coded into the DNA of the surviving plants.

    And we should believe any of your cowardly text why?

    Seems like you underestimate the changes that can take place in even 1000 years. Non-native species have totally changed vegetation in areas in far less a time (your reseeding is gauranteed to not distribute non-native plants to a region how again?), to pretend like you know what will be what botanically in 1000 years, possibly after a large scale nuclear war with associated mutations, is purest comedy.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Doubtful by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      To pretend that preserving a 1000-year-young ecosystem intact is more important than having a wide variety of edible species available is even funnier. I'd lay money on the re-seeded ecosystem being more developed/interesting/stable/whatever, because species that are edible for humans are also generally edible to a very wide variety of other life forms as well. --~~~~

  88. Version Control by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    Looks like they need a version control system, Subversion anyone?

  89. Bill's contribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they'll also store a Windows Vista computer in the vault as an ominous warning for future generations.

  90. Genetic Use Restriction Technology by drDugan · · Score: 1
    from:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

    Since early in 2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government for plant so-called Terminator or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT). Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits suicide after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind existed. While I don't agree with "Control by private seed companies is total. " - patenting and releasing GMO seeds for plants that intentionally die seems deeply wrong on many levels.

  91. Re:And reseed to what end? Just for the hell of it by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

    A lot of people don't seem to grasp that evolution is simply a tautology--"Whatever survives, survives." There's no such thing as "fucking things up" or "cheating" or what have you. This is especially true on a evolutionary time scale so ridiculously small as 1000 years. Who the hell are you to say that a mere 1000-year-old ecosystem (which really doesn't hasn't had much of a chance at all to even remotely stabilize) has a better right to exist than the ecosystem that preceded it?

    In terms of helpfulness to the human race, I'm pretty sure that the species diversity caused by a re-planting would almost assuredly far outweigh any negatives (*especially* if only food-bearing plants were auto-released.) In terms of protecting the poor, struggling, 1000-year-young, artificially-created (assuming nuclear holocaust) ecosystem--who the fuck cares?

  92. Cool or Hot Seeds? by carsurf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Preserving the seeds at 20-30 degrees C seems a little bit hot to me are you not sure its -20 to -30 degrees C?

  93. Been using my wife by Backieotamy · · Score: 1

    I've been storing my seeds for many years now in my wife; it's good to see that at 20 - 30c there's a warmer place to take it as well....

  94. Big Time Bad Times by pebear · · Score: 1

    So I guess what they expect isn't another Cracatowa but maybe Yellowstone blowing up along with say a meteor the size if Rhode Island. I guess if crap like this happens it won't matter much for centuries where the seeds are none of us will be around to replant anything.

    --
    Paul E. Bahre