I sowed carrot in my field before the summer and after 35 days summer started and underground water declined. Due to insufficient of water I was not able to water the carrot field for 60 days, the plants started to dry after 30 days and the next 30 days it totally lost all its leaves. Then suddenly rain came and suddenly it produced new leaves and after a month I was able to harvest 12 tons per acre! Usually I was getting 15 tons. Even though less yield I got good rates. Drought tolerant crops already exists! We need just to identify them!
Yeah but imagine if it didn't had to grow new leaves but could just revive the dry ones. That's what they're trying to do. You could have had even more than 12 tons. And they're trying to do it on any plant.
Wow it's refreshing to see a TED talk about a topic that actually matters. I think this kind of work is extremely important for our future, but it's only the beginning. Along with drought resistance, we should have some sort of mechanism by which plants could feed from seawater (really meaning water other than the one we drink), filter out the salts and keep on going. Great job!!!
We have no problem producing food for the whole world. The problem lies in that we are very wasteful with our produce and resources. 30% of grown food don't make it to supermarket because there is a slight blemish or slightly distorted shape. And 40% of food in the supermarket rots because no one bought it. There are tonnes of rice, apples, oranges and other commodities that are discarded and wasted because they simply didn't meet the current market price. Go to any bakery shop and see how many loaf of bread are discarded because they haven't been bought. 50% of discarded food goes back to landfill, 25% gets donated to charity, 25% goes to compost. Go to any middle-class home and you will find 30% of food in their fridge gets thrown away. Go to any restaurant and you will find 25% of their food are thrown away. Go to any grocery store and you will find 10% of canned food expired and will be thrown away.
+arconte2100 Bullshit! in 2015 we still throw about 50% of all foods produced in the dumpster. so don't believe that crap that were gonna starve soon. and theres no global warming. there are just military powers which think they need to weaponize the weather and you sheep believe its fossil fuels...
i haven't watched this all the way yet, but resurrection plants require the production of the sugar trehalose... not sure how she proposes getting our food crops to produce enough trehalose to be able to resurrect. well watched it.. and yes it looks like she's talking about the expression of trehalose transgenes... smart idea... those pathways would exist in the seeds, so the plants would already have sequences for trehalose production... very good insight... definitely not something i had considered... and timely... roughly 70-80% of fresh water use goes to agriculture. even modest improvements in this area will have drastic impacts on our fresh water demands. Regardless of any personal feelings on this topic, in the end It is scientists and engineers like this women who will save this planet, and our species.
thanks for that, I'm reading the comments looking for some intelligent discussion on it's feasiblity. I didn't really understand what you said lol but I can see that you understand the concepts & agree there's potential here, so always good to get an independent assessment of a talk of this nature. Thanks :)
I know, this is a 4 years old comment, but I gotta add, on top of this, there's great work on water-use-efficiency genes which can be combined with this approach in the future, creating drought-tolerant crops that can even avoid drying process for greater lengths. Combined with soil reinforcements like hydrogel, you can get even greater drought-tolerance and water-use-efficiency.
The only thing missing from this talk is the fact that raising animals as livestock is the reason for all of our issued in agriculture, world hunger, water, and sustainability issues. Plant based diet is a diet to save the planet and ourselves.
+Jen Bee ... Well, it's not that simple per say. Without animals organic agriculture can't exist because of the nitrogen source issue. On top of that, despite what most people dont know animals are actually an amazing recycling system. I love watching How it's made videos, a lot of people do, but the ones that I love are involving agriculture. Take olive oil, or sugar form sugar beets, or any oil production actually. Once the oil is extracted, the byproduct which humans don't want is used for animal feed. They love it and we can give it to them. Im not saying we need the current livestock populations we have, or that I don't support things like synthetic meat that can be produced more efficiently than livestock, or that I don't support insect options as protein sources. It's just not that simple. Food is a really touchy subject and we need to consider that we can have livestock and not kill the planet too.
exactly B C! except we actually can handle the current number of animals, or even more - IF managed properly, such as holistic grazing (there's a ted talk on that too) The FAO have recently done a study on what animals eat & they're simply produceing FAR more food for us than they are taking from us www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html
What a assholeish statement. Some whites r from africa. (Barberi) and the historie of Danmark even talks about how some whites that are in europe are Canaanites that ended up with pale skin and blonde hair (leviticus). And if I were you I would step down from your high horse
Such a common thing tackling a problem by adapting to it, instead of trying to solve it. Wouldn't be better to reduce the growing, arid areas of the world by regenerating ecosystems? It may be expensive, as all that research is, but it will be a better solution.
It seems to me what we really need is a new way of farming altogether. Aquaponics uses a fraction of the water normal agriculture uses with the added benefit of producing both fish and nutrient rich vegetation. It requires specialized knowledge, sure, but it's still in its early stage of development and advancements will only fool-proof the process. On top of that, hydroponics and aeroponics are advancing rather rapidly with aeroponics requiring the least amount of water. I think using water efficiently will be more beneficial, but perhaps these drought-resistant crops will have niche applications.
+Lutranereis The problem with that approach is that you need a stable body of water and that's a big no-no where these plants would find their use since there isn't even much underground water deposits.
Illlium As The Original Patent said, water recycling is the key here. Because the water is filtered by the root systems of the plants you're growing, you can reuse that water indefinitely. That means the only water you're losing is through transpiration, evaporation and the water content of the harvested plants, and fish if applicable. It's why you get such an immense decrease in the amount of water used compared to traditional farming.
I don't think you've guys paid attention when she said that most farming in the areas that this technology is aimed at rely mostly on rain water. So when you have a body of water that can just randomly receive no rainfall for a month (and that's more than plenty of time for the water to evaporate), we have a problem, the plants are going to wilt just the same and any marine animals are obviously going to die as well. I'm not saying this is bad practice, quite the opposite really, it's probably the future, but it still does nothing to help these specific areas as it doesn't suit their goegraphical traits.
Illlium It's you who has the misunderstanding. These areas rely mostly on rain water not because they don't have water, but because they can't meet the water requirements for field farming. To field farm, you have flood an area with water at the beginning of the season, plant, and then keep flooding that area every so often until harvest. That takes a lot of water because most of it is lost due to evaporation. With hydro/aero/auqaponics, the water requirement is less than 5% of that for field farming. Since the water is kept in a loop, it's also protected from evaporation. That means you lose very little water to produce the same amount of crops. Even if there is little rain in an area, you can simply reduce production (yeah that sucks, but resurrection crops aren't going to produce much food when they're dried up). Plus, these systems can be scaled up almost indefinitely. The issue is training people to run them and building the equipment in poorer countries, but it's very doable. In fact, we're going to be using these systems for vertical farming in developed countries by the end of the next decade.
Personally, I prefer when TED talks involve scientific lectures like these instead of lectures that concern social justice-related topics. It's usually hard to pull off an effective TED Talk about social justice, since the TED community generally has a negative reaction towards them.
Not that I have anything against TED Talks about social issues-- sometimes they can be very insightful and it would be illogical to have a completely closed mind towards the topic as a whole. But I just think the TED community would appreciate a heavier inclination toward science/innovation topics.
+99growlithe99 TED audience doesn't mind social justice related topics as long as they are not presented by extremely biased ideologues with no grasp of reality spouting long-debunked bullshit. If you apply this criteria, you're dandy. Just look at , for example, the talk of Sakena Yacoobi, almost entirely positive feedback in the comments despite being social justice related.
no, its not a majority against videos about social issues. its a small group of stupid men and boys that think downvoting something means you win...the thing is, a lot of people find rating the videos trivial even if they like it. you some sad little boys with big insecurities.
Bryna Loewer You sure have your hand on the pulse of the TED audience. That doesn't sound like projection of a deranged lunatic that can't even into grammar at all.
*+99growlithe99* Social justice encompasses a broad range of topics. You'll find that people (myself included) are fine with _"Poo in the Loo"_ (India) but not with _"Girls don't enjoy tinkering with machinery, it needs to change and men are to blame for it."_
In this fascinating talk, Molecular Biologist Jill Farrant gives very intriguing details about how to 'resurrect the plants" to feed the ever-growing world population. The Governments all over the world should carefully study this method and try to adopt it before facing the crisis situation. Highly recommended for the students of Botany, policy-makers and research scientists of molecular biology.
Perhaps this concept will work well. It seems to me safer to find inexpensive ways to desalinate water for the short term, capture and sequester large amounts of CO2 for the long term.
@VICtorian071 baron farmland is going to be baron because of chemical fertiliser use, so forests aren't going to grow on it! Certainly putting a large herd of cows on that land to restore soil microbes enough for some hardy grasses to manage to grow & then maintaining that land under regenerative livestock agriculture for a few years would do more though yes. Especially if c4 plants are used! The restoration would certainly be aided significantly by adding biochar as well though & right now nothing else is happening with all the paper recycling that China is no longer accepting, so what's wrong with converting it into bio-char & dumping it onto that land?
70% of all crops grown go to waste due to: synthetic farming (accelerated scenesence), loss in transportation, thrown away in the store so only gorgeous fruits/veggies are sold and of course spoilage at home.
So how to use it? If there was seeds that responded very quickly to water, we could water them and harvest. In big dessert areas there isn't sufficient rain, I mean for years. But if we water them, that might be all they need during a short period, enough to harvest. Or is there a better way?
+rawstarmusic The areas in question aren't exactly deserts yet, there are just spontaneous several-week-long droughts that might be occurring and that's enough to destroy all the crops we have right now.
Illlium That's one use for it. Let them go down but they will recover. I was thinking of the big plains, Gobi, Sahara and Mojave which could and even Mars.. There it could generate harvest whenever we put in water, but I don't know. 10 days of heavy water, then move on to the next spot.
Her postulate is retarded: _"we are gonna use GMO drought tolerant crops, because we'll be 11 billion people soon and also half of the world is going to be a desert."_ How about *birth controls* for Africa, Asia and Latin America? How about start developing more sustainable agriculture methods? How about REFORESTING? How about desalination plants? How about start using solar power and other green sources?
The Most High Hates when you mess around with his already perfect creations. He specifically states not to mix seeds, animals, etc.... Instead read in scripture about the blessings and curses. Blessings if you obey what he has asked of us and we will get rain and great produce. If we do Not obey, then drought and destruction. Choose Life! Be blessed!
Absolutely amazing and important. Does anyone else think we need to tackle population explosion as well so this isn't a single-pronged attack to these issues?
+xman2008 Population growth is expected to tail off by 2050 and global growth rate has already started to decline a bit - the 'explosion' is mostly over on a global level. Regionally, it could be argued that some African countries (which, as the video mentioned, will experience the most population growth in the 20th century) would benefit from attempts to reduce birthrate. But realistically that's not something anyone can really force.
This isn't going to really help the true problem though; the real problem will be rainfall and fruiting. If a plant survives a small drought, that's all fine and good....but if it is stunted in growth, it may not grow much fruit in the end, or worse, may not grow any harvestable fruit by the time the growing season is over. On top of that, if a plant is fruiting while the drought occurs, the fruit will probably die or won't grow as well, or could even do other weird things like becoming more pulpy or thicker skinned. In the end, these will not only make for bad tasting fruit, it could also lack in nutrition. So a better solution it seems, is to make sure there is more water, even if it must be pumped from the ocean. We as a species, need to solve the water problem, and create massive desalination plants automated and run on solar energy. Costly at first, cheap in the long run. We have to realize that the plants we grow today, are designed around growing larger quantities with more flavor; they're generally much more brittle than their ancestors. Sure we add some tolerances for things like diseases, sometimes sacrifice flavor for yield.....but what kind of future is it where we sacrifice flavor? I'd say the better solution is to prevent from having soo many mouths to feed in the first place, rather than to be brought down by over population....otherwise we'll all end up eating tasteless blocks of food substance while billions of people choke the world.
my thoughts are who's going to develop this tech & will that be a question they ask for public health reasons or if they find the answers are yes, will they cover them up? Pretty sure they don't know the answers to that question yet & it will depend on who develops it as to if those answers will be made public or not & safety considered. If using the seeds natural genes, it certainly COULD be possible to do with no harmful effects - will be decades of research to get there & confirm it though
This is probably the worse place to suggest something like this, but what if you tried implementing bamboo's leaf-rolling strategy to conserve water on a maize plant? Both are monocots, if that helps.
It would be so cool, if we could actually decode the DNA language, so we can actually write code ourselves. There are decompilers for binary code. Maybe we can do something similar for DNA sometime in the future.
Where can I get these drought resistance seeds, the climate where I live has high rainfall but low ground water level so It is difficult to cultivate during winter and summer only rice is cultivated
We should take care of this issue by tackling the cause, which, in my opinion, is the growth of the human population. What logically thinking person, believes that increasing our numbers is necessary for our survival ? 2 Children is more than enough for any couple / family. What we really need is more education and contraception. Why would i start reproducing, with the knowledge, that i am starving myself already ?
+Tozo Zozo Ok first of all, we have no right to tell people how many kids they may have. And, at least for now, we grow more then enough food to feed the world. However, if they cannot afford it, they will not eat. The problem with people starving, is money, not the lack of food worldwide.
*+Tozo Zozo* Agreed, we especially need to support women in third world countries to take contraception into their own hands. If they have that choice, many will make it.
+duel4ever2012 I think we have the right to tell this to people, as long as we make no exceptions. I am not only telling this to strangers, but also to myself, my relatives and my friends. Every human being on this world has the responsibility to think about their actions and about the future of this planet. I also like Soylent, so if we want affordable food worldwide, we should make it as efficient as possible.
+The Young Assassin If you don't have any curiosity about knowing how they did just jump towards the end. But as we know, people are different and for someone of them, like me, wants to know more about it. It's not a simple thing making your food don't draught to death.
+Flashzinh0 I have curiosity and plenty of it but all together she was just simply explaining an issue that can be easily solved by genetic engineering which is already is happening I was just saying that the woman was basically saying water is wet. Like I watched the whole thing I finish what I start but I was just saying that the woman was basically saying water is wet. {It's An Expression Don't Take It Literal}
tot aan de top van de atmosfeer bedoel ik maar als dus steeds minder vocht steeds hoger is en dus lucht bovenin helemaal zonder vocht is dat het zo zit en des te meer alleen maar lucht in plaats van vocht dat zo steeds hoger gebouwd kan worden en dat het totaan de dampkringrand kan komen het is van een fantast in feite snap je of het zo zit heeft die alleen maar een vermoeden van maar bewijs of feiten die het bekrachtigen heeft die niet alleen maar het vermoeden zo zeg ik fantast wand hij gaat van vermoedens uit die waar of onwaar kunnen zijn
In drought resistant crops most of the time survival mechanisms are inverse correlated with very low seed production. Although genes are activited they only produce for survival and not to enough seed for food. Biomass will not mean food.
Overpopulation pose a great risk of earth limited resources, we see forest and vegetation turned into wasted lands to satisfy human needs, and we even pollute areas once prestine, great forest lands cut down for farmlands and habitation, mountains turned barren due to mining and rivers and waters polluted due to human ignorance and negligence , then we become so vulnerable even to natural disturbances, then we cries back to earth for this misery, and as always realization only come us when calamity strikes, even all this things that are happening now we dont really pay close attention, I say seriousness is only a word we are not seriously committed to, we make environmental laws to mitigitate destruction but still keep on doing that same destruction, we pay 💰 for what we sow... and we know were bounded for self destruction, but who knows what’s going to happened next!!!
Promising and exciting research and likely to be the future in agriculture especially in places that are desert drought inflicted. With a predicted 11 billion final human population we will need to take advantage of these technologies., Just one proviso they will need to properly research.trial the benefits and possible toxicity of the new crops.
As always TED is far more focused on protecting the status quo (i.e.: obscenely inequitable distribution of wealth) than on arriving at viable solutions.. We cannot survive without a viable ecosystem even if we did manage to develop a food source independent of it. The ecosystem provides the oxygen we breath and keeps the temperature of the planet within the limits tolerable to life. We must find ways to preserve the distribution of water, not ways to maintain our food supply while letting our aquifers run dry. As usual, the exact same idiots who have come up with an endless series of "solutions" to the problems their previous "solutions" created that merely compound the problems, have come up with yet another "solution" guarenteed to make things even worse than they were. The only viable solution is to learn to live within our means on a SUSTAINABLE basis. That inevitably means imposing restraints on the infinite greed of the ruling elite. Since they clearly cannot comprehend the idea of limits on their greed, we're going to have to do this ourselves.
Ballonnen die mogelijk heel wienig vocht bevatten kunnen mogelijk omdat ze lichter zijn dan lucht en lucht meer uitzet omdaqt er minder druk op staat steeds hoger stijgen dus weinig vocht stijgt het met veel lucht zonder vocht het is mijn theorie dat ballonen dan stijgen gaan als alleen maar lucht erin zit zonder vocht
It all makes sense now. The out of control population growth is in poorer geographies. So when the Green Movement talks about population control and clean energy they are talking about the same thing. Removing cheap energy from these poor places makes mass death a certainty.
This is pretty cool, but simply reducing our consumption of animal products would save a heck of a lot of water...and would reduce greenhouse gas emission, hence contributing less to global warming, which in turn causes less droughts. Win win.
ik neem aan dat zo dus ook een hetelucht balon werkt het vocht stoomd weg de lucht blijft over en dan gaat de balon stijgen of het daardoor komt probeer en je komt erachter maar daar ben ik niet kundig in maar andere mensen juist wel
But can you eat the ressurection plant when they are not fully ressurected? People can die of starvation while waiting. Why not concentrate on better water conservation and utilization.
Wait.... She said if you lose 1% of your water you die. I know that 300 lb lineman can lose around 20 lbs of water in a couple hour practice. That's well over 1%...
*copy+pastes prepared message from imageboard saying it's so great that this woman talked about a science thing and not one of those annoying social justice things* "Yes yes, I am not wasting my life for sure"
So Your Predictions are whole europe will be without rains, yeah Poland, Litva, ukraina, yeah, oh boy... also i got better solution: permaculture, basicly You just make mulch for solid 15 cm (6 inches) and the water will remain, its common knowledge, and its natural, no need for artificial gmo, which consequences are unpredictable.
Fascinating! Do you comprehend how important that picture with the unwatered green maize is?! As a side note, Farrant spent way too much time discussing whether or not this is GM as if GMs are something bad which is to be avoided. The ridiculous fear mongering of a vocal minority of pseudo-scientific hippies has led us to this absurd point. Shame, mankind, shame.
SOUL Man tru, it would have been psuedoscience if that's all you do - say it. However, here's where science comes in and asks the question "Well, are they safe to eat? We don't know! Let's conduct experiments!" And experiments it conducted which showed over and over again that GMs are safe for human and animal consumption.
***** how many experiments? by whom? can you give links to the studies? and what about the experiments that proved otherwise, which were censored, including firing uni professors who were proving in labs that gm was dangerous? how exactly can you trust studies funded by monsanto?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I sowed carrot in my field before the summer and after 35 days summer started and underground water declined. Due to insufficient of water I was not able to water the carrot field for 60 days, the plants started to dry after 30 days and the next 30 days it totally lost all its leaves. Then suddenly rain came and suddenly it produced new leaves and after a month I was able to harvest 12 tons per acre! Usually I was getting 15 tons. Even though less yield I got good rates. Drought tolerant crops already exists! We need just to identify them!
Hey, great to see this comment 😲.... Kindly tell us... Are you a professional farmer?
Do you casually grow 15 tons of carrots and call yourself hobby grower? Of course he's farmer...
@@pavolfabry3737 And that's per acre. He might grow many acres. And that's one type of plant... he could grow many types. 🤯
Carrottes Come from Afghanistan. A country where drought Comes with all caps.
Yeah but imagine if it didn't had to grow new leaves but could just revive the dry ones. That's what they're trying to do. You could have had even more than 12 tons. And they're trying to do it on any plant.
Wow it's refreshing to see a TED talk about a topic that actually matters. I think this kind of work is extremely important for our future, but it's only the beginning. Along with drought resistance, we should have some sort of mechanism by which plants could feed from seawater (really meaning water other than the one we drink), filter out the salts and keep on going. Great job!!!
We have no problem producing food for the whole world.
The problem lies in that we are very wasteful with our produce and resources.
30% of grown food don't make it to supermarket because there is a slight blemish or slightly distorted shape. And 40% of food in the supermarket rots because no one bought it. There are tonnes of rice, apples, oranges and other commodities that are discarded and wasted because they simply didn't meet the current market price. Go to any bakery shop and see how many loaf of bread are discarded because they haven't been bought.
50% of discarded food goes back to landfill, 25% gets donated to charity, 25% goes to compost. Go to any middle-class home and you will find 30% of food in their fridge gets thrown away. Go to any restaurant and you will find 25% of their food are thrown away. Go to any grocery store and you will find 10% of canned food expired and will be thrown away.
Jane Smith there will always be waste. It could be reduced. The largest challenge is distribution.
I heard that big farmers in america dumped 300 million eggs in the ocean because the overproduced instead of donating it disgusting
Great Ted talk about one of mankind's greatest challenges for the next 50 years.
+arconte2100 I agree!
+arconte2100 would you say islamic extremism is the next one
+arconte2100 Bullshit! in 2015 we still throw about 50% of all foods produced in the dumpster. so don't believe that crap that were gonna starve soon. and theres no global warming. there are just military powers which think they need to weaponize the weather and you sheep believe its fossil fuels...
+Jin Chi Lol it's more like 20% by consumers and 30% by supermarkets, but this idea we don't need to increase food production is ignoring reality.
+Jin Chi good job being ironic, much literary prowess; I almost weeped.
edit: i can't tell if you are joking or not
Your research gives me a feeling that we have really messed up with the nature and people need more than talks to understand it.
Finally some real research for the better of mankind. More Please!
One of the most 'Spiritual' talks on Life. Thank you Madam
For once a video where GMO's aren't the devil.. GMO tech is great, it depends on how the tech is applied that matters
Let's try natural hybridation first .
Jill Farrant and her team will prevent food wars and strarving in the near future, hope you will make it work
i haven't watched this all the way yet, but resurrection plants require the production of the sugar trehalose... not sure how she proposes getting our food crops to produce enough trehalose to be able to resurrect.
well watched it.. and yes it looks like she's talking about the expression of trehalose transgenes... smart idea... those pathways would exist in the seeds, so the plants would already have sequences for trehalose production... very good insight... definitely not something i had considered... and timely... roughly 70-80% of fresh water use goes to agriculture. even modest improvements in this area will have drastic impacts on our fresh water demands.
Regardless of any personal feelings on this topic, in the end It is scientists and engineers like this women who will save this planet, and our species.
thanks for that, I'm reading the comments looking for some intelligent discussion on it's feasiblity. I didn't really understand what you said lol but I can see that you understand the concepts & agree there's potential here, so always good to get an independent assessment of a talk of this nature. Thanks :)
I know, this is a 4 years old comment, but I gotta add, on top of this, there's great work on water-use-efficiency genes which can be combined with this approach in the future, creating drought-tolerant crops that can even avoid drying process for greater lengths. Combined with soil reinforcements like hydrogel, you can get even greater drought-tolerance and water-use-efficiency.
The only thing missing from this talk is the fact that raising animals as livestock is the reason for all of our issued in agriculture, world hunger, water, and sustainability issues. Plant based diet is a diet to save the planet and ourselves.
Precisely. So many crops (and water) that could feed people go to cows, chickens etc.
+Jen Bee ... Well, it's not that simple per say. Without animals organic agriculture can't exist because of the nitrogen source issue. On top of that, despite what most people dont know animals are actually an amazing recycling system. I love watching How it's made videos, a lot of people do, but the ones that I love are involving agriculture. Take olive oil, or sugar form sugar beets, or any oil production actually. Once the oil is extracted, the byproduct which humans don't want is used for animal feed. They love it and we can give it to them.
Im not saying we need the current livestock populations we have, or that I don't support things like synthetic meat that can be produced more efficiently than livestock, or that I don't support insect options as protein sources. It's just not that simple. Food is a really touchy subject and we need to consider that we can have livestock and not kill the planet too.
exactly B C! except we actually can handle the current number of animals, or even more - IF managed properly, such as holistic grazing (there's a ted talk on that too) The FAO have recently done a study on what animals eat & they're simply produceing FAR more food for us than they are taking from us www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html
Extensive birth controls and sexual education for Africa, Asia and Latin America is an even better idea.
What a assholeish statement. Some whites r from africa. (Barberi) and the historie of Danmark even talks about how some whites that are in europe are Canaanites that ended up with pale skin and blonde hair (leviticus). And if I were you I would step down from your high horse
Such a common thing tackling a problem by adapting to it, instead of trying to solve it. Wouldn't be better to reduce the growing, arid areas of the world by regenerating ecosystems? It may be expensive, as all that research is, but it will be a better solution.
can't we do both? & look at the ted talk from Alan Savory to see the cheap way to do that ua-cam.com/video/vpTHi7O66pI/v-deo.html
Exactly! Extensive birth controls for Africa, Asia and Latin America are part of the solution too.
Awesome lecture, thanks TED & Ms. Jill Fallant, indeed we need more lectures like this...
WE JUST GOTTA STOP FUCKIN.
+JustOneAsbesto We got our answer, case closed! NEXT!!
+JustOneAsbesto TELL THAT TO AFRICANS, WE KNOW!
+Illlium Sub Saharn africa and southern india have high child birth rates. Be glad you were not born there because then you would be dead AND useless.
John Fabiani I know and I am.
Illlium Awe.....don't take it seriously, but no dicking.... ;-)
It seems to me what we really need is a new way of farming altogether. Aquaponics uses a fraction of the water normal agriculture uses with the added benefit of producing both fish and nutrient rich vegetation. It requires specialized knowledge, sure, but it's still in its early stage of development and advancements will only fool-proof the process. On top of that, hydroponics and aeroponics are advancing rather rapidly with aeroponics requiring the least amount of water. I think using water efficiently will be more beneficial, but perhaps these drought-resistant crops will have niche applications.
+Lutranereis The problem with that approach is that you need a stable body of water and that's a big no-no where these plants would find their use since there isn't even much underground water deposits.
+Illlium The water is recycled in the aquaculture systems that I've seen... So there is very little problem with that.
Illlium As The Original Patent said, water recycling is the key here. Because the water is filtered by the root systems of the plants you're growing, you can reuse that water indefinitely. That means the only water you're losing is through transpiration, evaporation and the water content of the harvested plants, and fish if applicable. It's why you get such an immense decrease in the amount of water used compared to traditional farming.
I don't think you've guys paid attention when she said that most farming in the areas that this technology is aimed at rely mostly on rain water. So when you have a body of water that can just randomly receive no rainfall for a month (and that's more than plenty of time for the water to evaporate), we have a problem, the plants are going to wilt just the same and any marine animals are obviously going to die as well. I'm not saying this is bad practice, quite the opposite really, it's probably the future, but it still does nothing to help these specific areas as it doesn't suit their goegraphical traits.
Illlium It's you who has the misunderstanding. These areas rely mostly on rain water not because they don't have water, but because they can't meet the water requirements for field farming. To field farm, you have flood an area with water at the beginning of the season, plant, and then keep flooding that area every so often until harvest. That takes a lot of water because most of it is lost due to evaporation.
With hydro/aero/auqaponics, the water requirement is less than 5% of that for field farming. Since the water is kept in a loop, it's also protected from evaporation. That means you lose very little water to produce the same amount of crops.
Even if there is little rain in an area, you can simply reduce production (yeah that sucks, but resurrection crops aren't going to produce much food when they're dried up). Plus, these systems can be scaled up almost indefinitely. The issue is training people to run them and building the equipment in poorer countries, but it's very doable. In fact, we're going to be using these systems for vertical farming in developed countries by the end of the next decade.
loved the way the plants Thanked ppl at the end of the talk :D . All the best for your vision :)
Personally, I prefer when TED talks involve scientific lectures like these instead of lectures that concern social justice-related topics. It's usually hard to pull off an effective TED Talk about social justice, since the TED community generally has a negative reaction towards them.
Not that I have anything against TED Talks about social issues-- sometimes they can be very insightful and it would be illogical to have a completely closed mind towards the topic as a whole. But I just think the TED community would appreciate a heavier inclination toward science/innovation topics.
+99growlithe99 TED audience doesn't mind social justice related topics as long as they are not presented by extremely biased ideologues with no grasp of reality spouting long-debunked bullshit. If you apply this criteria, you're dandy. Just look at , for example, the talk of Sakena Yacoobi, almost entirely positive feedback in the comments despite being social justice related.
no, its not a majority against videos about social issues. its a small group of stupid men and boys that think downvoting something means you win...the thing is, a lot of people find rating the videos trivial even if they like it. you some sad little boys with big insecurities.
Bryna Loewer You sure have your hand on the pulse of the TED audience. That doesn't sound like projection of a deranged lunatic that can't even into grammar at all.
*+99growlithe99* Social justice encompasses a broad range of topics. You'll find that people (myself included) are fine with _"Poo in the Loo"_ (India) but not with _"Girls don't enjoy tinkering with machinery, it needs to change and men are to blame for it."_
The time lapse is just WOW....if this can be done Africa's food problem will be solved.
In this fascinating talk, Molecular Biologist Jill Farrant gives very intriguing details about how to 'resurrect the plants" to feed the ever-growing world population. The Governments all over the world should carefully study this method and try to adopt it before facing the crisis situation. Highly recommended for the students of Botany, policy-makers and research scientists of molecular biology.
Perhaps this concept will work well. It seems to me safer to find inexpensive ways to desalinate water for the short term, capture and sequester large amounts of CO2 for the long term.
mass bio-char would return CO2 into the earth, where it can retain water when it rains & so increasing fresh water available for plant growth
@VICtorian071 baron farmland is going to be baron because of chemical fertiliser use, so forests aren't going to grow on it! Certainly putting a large herd of cows on that land to restore soil microbes enough for some hardy grasses to manage to grow & then maintaining that land under regenerative livestock agriculture for a few years would do more though yes. Especially if c4 plants are used! The restoration would certainly be aided significantly by adding biochar as well though & right now nothing else is happening with all the paper recycling that China is no longer accepting, so what's wrong with converting it into bio-char & dumping it onto that land?
the challenge is going to be figuring out why all these humans are randomly dieing after eating in a market saturated with GM crops.
Ignorance
70% of all crops grown go to waste due to: synthetic farming (accelerated scenesence), loss in transportation, thrown away in the store so only gorgeous fruits/veggies are sold and of course spoilage at home.
What is the adverse effect on humans or animals that eat these crops?
Ah, the eternal question.
Sadly, most major American cities throw away that 70% you're looking for via the restaurant industry.
And in my city (in Africa) its illegal to collect food scraps for compost or pigs and chickens feed...
So how to use it? If there was seeds that responded very quickly to water, we could water them and harvest. In big dessert areas there isn't sufficient rain, I mean for years. But if we water them, that might be all they need during a short period, enough to harvest. Or is there a better way?
+rawstarmusic The areas in question aren't exactly deserts yet, there are just spontaneous several-week-long droughts that might be occurring and that's enough to destroy all the crops we have right now.
Illlium That's one use for it. Let them go down but they will recover. I was thinking of the big plains, Gobi, Sahara and Mojave which could and even Mars.. There it could generate harvest whenever we put in water, but I don't know. 10 days of heavy water, then move on to the next spot.
What an amazing talk!
It's like science can actually solve our problems or something. Really great talk.
Her postulate is retarded: _"we are gonna use GMO drought tolerant crops, because we'll be 11 billion people soon and also half of the world is going to be a desert."_ How about *birth controls* for Africa, Asia and Latin America? How about start developing more sustainable agriculture methods? How about REFORESTING? How about desalination plants? How about start using solar power and other green sources?
@@xolotlmexihcah4671 I don't think she is against that, she is merely offering another option. All of what you said should be done as well.
The Most High Hates when you mess around with his already perfect creations. He specifically states not to mix seeds, animals, etc.... Instead read in scripture about the blessings and curses. Blessings if you obey what he has asked of us and we will get rain and great produce. If we do Not obey, then drought and destruction. Choose Life! Be blessed!
Absolutely amazing and important. Does anyone else think we need to tackle population explosion as well so this isn't a single-pronged attack to these issues?
+xman2008 Well of course we do, and while we are at it we should also try making our lifestyles more sustainable to reduce our footprint per person.
+xman2008 Population explosion tackles itself when people get education, it's not going to be a big problem.
+xman2008 Population growth is expected to tail off by 2050 and global growth rate has already started to decline a bit - the 'explosion' is mostly over on a global level. Regionally, it could be argued that some African countries (which, as the video mentioned, will experience the most population growth in the 20th century) would benefit from attempts to reduce birthrate. But realistically that's not something anyone can really force.
This isn't going to really help the true problem though; the real problem will be rainfall and fruiting. If a plant survives a small drought, that's all fine and good....but if it is stunted in growth, it may not grow much fruit in the end, or worse, may not grow any harvestable fruit by the time the growing season is over.
On top of that, if a plant is fruiting while the drought occurs, the fruit will probably die or won't grow as well, or could even do other weird things like becoming more pulpy or thicker skinned. In the end, these will not only make for bad tasting fruit, it could also lack in nutrition.
So a better solution it seems, is to make sure there is more water, even if it must be pumped from the ocean. We as a species, need to solve the water problem, and create massive desalination plants automated and run on solar energy. Costly at first, cheap in the long run.
We have to realize that the plants we grow today, are designed around growing larger quantities with more flavor; they're generally much more brittle than their ancestors. Sure we add some tolerances for things like diseases, sometimes sacrifice flavor for yield.....but what kind of future is it where we sacrifice flavor? I'd say the better solution is to prevent from having soo many mouths to feed in the first place, rather than to be brought down by over population....otherwise we'll all end up eating tasteless blocks of food substance while billions of people choke the world.
So where do i buy seeds for the drought tolerant varieties of crops?
My thoughts are, do resurrection plants, since genetically modified, produce unwanted enzymes or other things that are problematic to our health?
my thoughts are who's going to develop this tech & will that be a question they ask for public health reasons or if they find the answers are yes, will they cover them up? Pretty sure they don't know the answers to that question yet & it will depend on who develops it as to if those answers will be made public or not & safety considered. If using the seeds natural genes, it certainly COULD be possible to do with no harmful effects - will be decades of research to get there & confirm it though
great video and well presented talk
Seed selection is better than genetical modification with uncertain risks.
Can I translate and write rabic subtitles directly using UA-cam?
Amazing approach!
a great talk, very hopeful, thank you
This is probably the worse place to suggest something like this, but what if you tried implementing bamboo's leaf-rolling strategy to conserve water on a maize plant? Both are monocots, if that helps.
i dont understand all of your talk. Can i have full your subtitles?Thanks
It would be so cool, if we could actually decode the DNA language, so we can actually write code ourselves. There are decompilers for binary code. Maybe we can do something similar for DNA sometime in the future.
So clever, well done Jill
I'll invest my money into agriculture for now 70% is a large number
My poor knowledge of the english lenguage was enough to understand and that was awesome!
Amazing talk and great idea.
Imagine if you made humans able to survive dehydration like this, people would find actual mummies and bring you back in 2000 years
Ever wonder how much water is trapped in bottles, cans, and pipes?
Where can I get these drought resistance seeds, the climate where I live has high rainfall but low ground water level so It is difficult to cultivate during winter and summer only rice is cultivated
Maaan...I have enjoyed this Ted Talk. She was confidence presenter with great knowledge...
Wishing you success in your study..God bless u.Thanks..
This is great, it's not heavy genetic mod so hopefully the fearful ignorant masses will be at ease. The plant clap was cute too.
At 1:50 Russia is like, "Haha, you guys are stuffed!"
Anything about water plants?
Can't wait to get home garden plants gmoed into resurrection plants.
2 minutes in and wondering if it will somehow be about feminism
+Dyon ‘Diwany’ de Kok it's not... Good on you TED :)
+Dyon “Diwany” de Kok We're listening...
+hi hi hi
+hi hi Nah it's just a stiff upper-lip and a haircut. Some australians are hardened by the weather.
+Wyatt Nite Troll harder.
She beat me to this idea before I could even graduate. I blame feminism
Thank you!
Nice to see female scientists actually talking about important science instead of how oppressed women are. TED, more women like THIS, please!
Agreed
Bryna Loewer
Nah, brah. Meant every word of it.
+Bryna Loewer Well... Aren't you a professional, scientific minded person?
+Beebs Muhgoo You have no idea her opinion, but you have revealed yours.
John Fabiani
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Also, water is wet.
The beauty of Namaqualand
We should take care of this issue by tackling the cause, which, in my opinion, is the growth of the human population. What logically thinking person, believes that increasing our numbers is necessary for our survival ? 2 Children is more than enough for any couple / family. What we really need is more education and contraception. Why would i start reproducing, with the knowledge, that i am starving myself already ?
+Tozo Zozo Tell that to people in Africa and other developing countries, people in the West already know this.
+Tozo Zozo Ok first of all, we have no right to tell people how many kids they may have. And, at least for now, we grow more then enough food to feed the world. However, if they cannot afford it, they will not eat. The problem with people starving, is money, not the lack of food worldwide.
*+Tozo Zozo* Agreed, we especially need to support women in third world countries to take contraception into their own hands. If they have that choice, many will make it.
Adrian It's mostly education of women that decreases child bearing, contraception is just a means of reaching a goal that has to be first implanted.
+duel4ever2012 I think we have the right to tell this to people, as long as we make no exceptions. I am not only telling this to strangers, but also to myself, my relatives and my friends. Every human being on this world has the responsibility to think about their actions and about the future of this planet.
I also like Soylent, so if we want affordable food worldwide, we should make it as efficient as possible.
Or just promote food forests and de-desertification projects...
We may still need this with food forests. I am not a fan of gmo. Really good water catchement systems would be needed to avoid gmo
Being anti gmo is like being anti vax. Both is from ignorance
Or develop to grow saltwater tolerant crops and irrigate w sea water. Kelp at least is one.
Spirulina is another :)
That is cool I can't wait.
Very good speach.
0:51 2008? that data is 8 years old.
Things are better now.
Doing things God's way, revealed clearly in the intense design we see, is the way to go.
GOOD TALK MADAM
thank you
Estoy en bachillerato en línea pilares y quisiera escuchar el vídeo en idioma español
Brawndo! It's what plants crave.
Just about 14 minutes just to say to take the genes of a cactus and put it in to another plant like corn or rice.
+The Young Assassin It's always like that :D pure torture.
+Tontto I know Right 😂
+The Young Assassin If you don't have any curiosity about knowing how they did just jump towards the end. But as we know, people are different and for someone of them, like me, wants to know more about it. It's not a simple thing making your food don't draught to death.
+Flashzinh0 I have curiosity and plenty of it but all together she was just simply explaining an issue that can be easily solved by genetic engineering which is already is happening I was just saying that the woman was basically saying water is wet. Like I watched the whole thing I finish what I start but I was just saying that the woman was basically saying water is wet. {It's An Expression Don't Take It Literal}
Easily because you probably don't work in a lab doing reserch on genectics.
THIS IS SO GREAT, AND YET I JUST KNOW IT RN ! AFTER 8 YEARS??????????
how in the flowering stage,
tot aan de top van de atmosfeer bedoel ik maar als dus steeds minder vocht steeds hoger is en dus lucht bovenin helemaal zonder vocht is dat het zo zit en des te meer alleen maar lucht in plaats van vocht dat zo steeds hoger gebouwd kan worden en dat het totaan de dampkringrand kan komen het is van een fantast in feite snap je of het zo zit heeft die alleen maar een vermoeden van maar bewijs of feiten die het bekrachtigen heeft die niet alleen maar het vermoeden zo zeg ik fantast wand hij gaat van vermoedens uit die waar of onwaar kunnen zijn
This is not a good idea! There are farming systems already that can produce food in the dessert.
As long as global monopolies like Monsanto aren't involved, we're all good.
In drought resistant crops most of the time survival mechanisms are inverse correlated with very low seed production. Although genes are activited they only produce for survival and not to enough seed for food. Biomass will not mean food.
For a second I thought the title was "How we can make CORPS survive without water". Now I'm frustrated.
Overpopulation pose a great risk of earth limited resources, we see forest and vegetation turned into wasted lands to satisfy human needs, and we even pollute areas once prestine, great forest lands cut down for farmlands and habitation, mountains turned barren due to mining and rivers and waters polluted due to human ignorance and negligence , then we become so vulnerable even to natural disturbances, then we cries back to earth for this misery, and as always realization only come us when calamity strikes, even all this things that are happening now we dont really pay close attention, I say seriousness is only a word we are not seriously committed to, we make environmental laws to mitigitate destruction but still keep on doing that same destruction, we pay 💰 for what we sow... and we know were bounded for self destruction, but who knows what’s going to happened next!!!
We and Canada have the Great Lakes
1:00 yeah... most of the people choose to live in the middle of the desert WHERE YOU RARELY SEE LIVING HUMAN BEING...
Promising and exciting research and likely to be the future in agriculture especially in places that are desert drought inflicted. With a predicted 11 billion final human population we will need to take advantage of these technologies., Just one proviso they will need to properly research.trial the benefits and possible toxicity of the new crops.
Yes, they should be considered "GM" as they are. As are nearly every foodstuff we consume. Stop equating "GM" to "bad."
1:55 why won't she talk about all the farmable land created in northern canda and northern russia?
we should start to use ogms, if not we are screwed
As always TED is far more focused on protecting the status quo (i.e.: obscenely inequitable distribution of wealth) than on arriving at viable solutions.. We cannot survive without a viable ecosystem even if we did manage to develop a food source independent of it. The ecosystem provides the oxygen we breath and keeps the temperature of the planet within the limits tolerable to life. We must find ways to preserve the distribution of water, not ways to maintain our food supply while letting our aquifers run dry.
As usual, the exact same idiots who have come up with an endless series of "solutions" to the problems their previous "solutions" created that merely compound the problems, have come up with yet another "solution" guarenteed to make things even worse than they were.
The only viable solution is to learn to live within our means on a SUSTAINABLE basis. That inevitably means imposing restraints on the infinite greed of the ruling elite. Since they clearly cannot comprehend the idea of limits on their greed, we're going to have to do this ourselves.
Ballonnen die mogelijk heel wienig vocht bevatten kunnen mogelijk omdat ze lichter zijn dan lucht en lucht meer uitzet omdaqt er minder druk op staat steeds hoger stijgen dus weinig vocht stijgt het met veel lucht zonder vocht het is mijn theorie dat ballonen dan stijgen gaan als alleen maar lucht erin zit zonder vocht
I wish I didn't need water. Having to pee is the worst.
It all makes sense now. The out of control population growth is in poorer geographies. So when the Green Movement talks about population control and clean energy they are talking about the same thing. Removing cheap energy from these poor places makes mass death a certainty.
This is pretty cool, but simply reducing our consumption of animal products would save a heck of a lot of water...and would reduce greenhouse gas emission, hence contributing less to global warming, which in turn causes less droughts. Win win.
ik neem aan dat zo dus ook een hetelucht balon werkt het vocht stoomd weg de lucht blijft over en dan gaat de balon stijgen of het daardoor komt probeer en je komt erachter maar daar ben ik niet kundig in maar andere mensen juist wel
I don't think I will make it until 2050 so please count me off the 7 billions!
🤗😁😊😉💖🙏
Nice
But can you eat the ressurection plant when they are not fully ressurected? People can die of starvation while waiting. Why not concentrate on better water conservation and utilization.
Wait.... She said if you lose 1% of your water you die. I know that 300 lb lineman can lose around 20 lbs of water in a couple hour practice. That's well over 1%...
presumably they drink before & during to replace it. If they don't, they will die. Why do you think amateur marathons kill people
How about corn?
Oh my god ....
why?
*copy+pastes prepared message from imageboard saying it's so great that this woman talked about a science thing and not one of those annoying social justice things*
"Yes yes, I am not wasting my life for sure"
Captions on by default for South African accent? wut?
So Your Predictions are whole europe will be without rains, yeah Poland, Litva, ukraina, yeah, oh boy... also i got better solution: permaculture, basicly You just make mulch for solid 15 cm (6 inches) and the water will remain, its common knowledge, and its natural, no need for artificial gmo, which consequences are unpredictable.
e'er Australia is in BIG problem (in 20 years)
Fascinating! Do you comprehend how important that picture with the unwatered green maize is?! As a side note, Farrant spent way too much time discussing whether or not this is GM as if GMs are something bad which is to be avoided. The ridiculous fear mongering of a vocal minority of pseudo-scientific hippies has led us to this absurd point. Shame, mankind, shame.
Thank you, finally someone with a brain
+Ivo Temelkov No, GM should not be avoidded... of course its pseudosceince to say that a part-fly, part fish, part tomato is good for us to eat.
SOUL Man tru, it would have been psuedoscience if that's all you do - say it. However, here's where science comes in and asks the question "Well, are they safe to eat? We don't know! Let's conduct experiments!" And experiments it conducted which showed over and over again that GMs are safe for human and animal consumption.
***** how many experiments? by whom? can you give links to the studies? and what about the experiments that proved otherwise, which were censored, including firing uni professors who were proving in labs that gm was dangerous? how exactly can you trust studies funded by monsanto?
+SOUL Man The same way you trust your car not to blow up the moment you turn on your ignition.
한글자막 없나