Why don't we get a head start and just use hemp paper?

this'll become a anthrax scare, and get rejected....oh and i am a idiot to

Oh man, this is rich. A genetically engineered organism that can help save the forests...

This should give a tree-hugger or two an aneurism.

I can only imagine the infection you could get from a paper cut

Somehow I don't think the phrase "morning bacteria" will ever come into popular use.

Shame that by the time tangible results are out I've forgotten all about this.

I'd like someone to explain to me why "tree-hugger," is such a favorite derogatory word these days. Conservatives have so many such words and I'd really like to know why it's so amusing, or reprehensible, or whatever, that someone could love trees rather than say, I don't know, money.

Now, since we're genetically engineering it ANYWAY, we may as well throw some weed genes too. SUPER rolling paper!

Cool.....fungus paper! I'm getting a rash just
thinking about it.

Excuse my grammar, I should have said "I for one". ;-)

I prefer the term "earth muffins"

I like trees better them people. At least I don't have to put up with their rudeness while on the road, they don't talk back,ect.

"or reprehensible, or whatever, that someone could love trees rather than say, I don't know, money."

Silence hippie! Afor I mulch yoo...

I can see the headline now-
"Environmental Wacko Lives for Two Years in Pool of Bacteria to Save it from Paper Manufacturers"

Why is it assumed that "tree-huggers" love trees more than people? Because.....? How do you determine if someone is a tree-hugger. Do they have to come right out and say, "I love trees more than people," or is the way someone dresses. How do you discriminate?

yeah, hemp could've replaced trees years ago. stupid DEA.

It was really the mental imagery of a flannel clad militant tree-hugger that led to me choosing the word. Perhaps an unfair generalization, but I thought effective in illustrating the absurdity of the unilateral opposition to such things as genetic-engineering and logging often voiced by the more extreme "tree-huggers".

There are shades of grey.

i say we stop this bacteria now! better grade paper,
cheaper? ha! just an excuse to get us to read more
newspapers and books. and where will that get us, anyway?
i shudder for our nation.

Naderbot: I think it's more of a joke than anything else :-) I don't think all "tree-huggers" actually love trees more than people. And I don't think that is the precise metric that makes people "tree-huggers". Perhaps you are a little offended unnecessarily. I personally don't use tree-huggers as a derogatory term, more a silly classification of people more engrossed in environmentalism than their own lives and relationships with people.

Give it up for The University of Texas at Austin. woohoo!

By the way, I'm sure other people have completely other definitions for "tree-hugger". Mine is my own usage.

Stop experiments on bacteria NOW!!! They have also been feeding bacteria large doses of Methamphetamine and cranking raver musicoontil they die...what next??

I see tree huggers as a term for hippies and people who protest first and ask why later.

I thought the term "tree-hugger" came from those environmental types who would form a ring around a tree with their arms in order to stop loggers from cutting them down. Kinda like a sit in for a tree. Since then it's grown into something beyond its roots, so to speak.

So, will there be denunciation of this 'Frankenpaper'? Will Jeremy Rifkin come out with one of his patented idiocies about the dangers of genetic modification? Anti-technology Zealots always find something to get their knickers in a knot about any new development, so what will it be here?

Naderbot
I'd like someone to explain to me why "tree-hugger," is such a favorite derogatory word these days. Conservatives have so many such words and I'd really like to know why it's so amusing, or reprehensible, or whatever, that someone could love trees rather than say, I don't know, money.

But what if we cut down the trees and make money out of them?

You know, I get tired of hearing people extoling the values of industrial hemp all the time. Sure, you can make all kinds of stuff out of its fiber, but from the research I've read, it is more expensive than existing solutions.

I'll still advocate making it legal, but I want to smoke it, not wear it.

Shouldn't "tree-huggers" SUPPORT this idea?

Everest:
Ever owned any well made hemp clothing? Unbelievably long lasting. Faster growing than trees, converts more co2 to oxy. And make grandmas brownies soooo much better.

hmmm...did I type that last statement or just think it...

The development of synthetic leather has done nothing to sto p the killing of cows.

Nor has synthetic lobster stopped us from nibbiling upon our oceanic friends.

YOU hear that HIPPIES?


be farking happy!

Blisskit, yes actually, like most low-volume, high quality products, it does wear well. I haven't found it superior to any similar quality 100% cotton cloth. Wear qualitys aside, I wonder how many pounds of usable hemp fiber you can get per acre per season compaired to cotton, and how much labor, chemicles and water are required. From what I've read, its much more labor intensive.

Damn it, now I'm going to have to go find several first-source resources to satisfy my curiosity...

the reason that hemp processing for fiber, paper, etc., is more expensive is simply a matter of the economy of scale

if hemp were grown and processed at the same volume as, say, just cotton alone (not including paper), it would be cheaper than cotton

It is difficult to prove the market viability of products when the production level required for that viability is in large part determined by the economy of scale that its competitors enjoy. (i.e., low cost of the high-volume cotton industry is a barrier to entry for the hemp industry)

Hey... I don't shave my underarms and drink fruit beers...

Still, it's a weird thought: that paper would be made by genetically-altered bacteria.

The imagination runs riot with the possibilities...

Recklessvisionary--

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. No, I don't think I'm unnecessarily offended. I don't think using broad-generalizations really helps that much in an argument over an issue. I for one am not persuaded by hearing someone called a "tree-hugger." I'd much rather hear why it's silly for someone to be concerned about deforestation--in an informed and articulate way. Calling someone any name seems like just a way to boost the name-caller's esteem.

As for Simpman's use of the word to describe people who "protest first and ask why later." How do you know if protestors are informed or not--or informed enough? How can you be sure that you're informed enough. How can you know for certain that you're right and their wrong? Certainly no better than they can be 100% sure. Therefore, calling people names based on their beliefs seems an arrogant gesture, which isn't coming from an informed place at all.

LenPal - you forgot "private-part-piercing"

Argus

The problem with hemp is that there are too many people who want to smoke pot. If you keep talking about how you want to get legally high, then polititions will never ever allow hemp to be legal. It needs to be a long term goal, where first you focus on its many commercial and environmental uses of hemp. Then, when everyone's used to it being legal and it's used in a plethora of products, you can try to extend that to pot.

Also, another alternative to wood pulp is kenaff.

The paper will dissolve in your hands after using one of those hand sanitizing lotions. :)

It puts the lotion in the basket

"Yeast food farms" have been part of Science Fiction for many years.

Argus: Ewww. Didn't even want to THINK about that.

BACTERIA? (panic) Woo, anthrax! Run away! Where's my Cipro? This is as bad as newkyolar power.