Introduction of C4 traits into rice to increase photosynthetic efficiency

<i>land that currently provides enough rice to feed 27 people will need to support 43 by 2050</i><p>if there were fewer mouths, you would need less rice. I realize it isn&#x27;t an area the Gates Foundation is active in, but there is quite a bit of evidence that educating and empowering women reduces population growth[1]. In many parts of the world women are still treated like property, forced into marriage, and have no access to family planning or education.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;how-women-can-save-the-planet&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;how-women-can-sav...</a>

Rats consume a sizeable percentage of rice production. From an earlier story [1]:<p><pre><code> The next call came from Australia in 2006. Biologists there wanted an adaptation of Mouseopause for rats. Rats, they told her, were eating 30% of the rice crop in Australia and Indonesia. If she could reduce the rat population by even half, they claimed, the crops that would be saved could feed millions of people. </code></pre> [1] Man v rat: could the long war soon be over? (theguardian.com), <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12542718" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12542718</a><p>Agricultural output is always variable. The world needs more storage capacity [2], and to better support small farmers. There&#x27;s the ancient parable about &quot;seven years of abundance&quot; preceding &quot;seven years of famine&quot;. Only &quot;old&quot; grain should be fed to animals.<p>For the most part, genetic engineering has been used to sell pesticides. While this C3-&gt;C4 innovation might not be as harmful as Monsanto&#x27;s, it would be better to deal with our other agricultural problems too. Getting rats&#x27; numbers under control, and other low-tech investments (such as was undertaken in Thailand starting in the 1960&#x27;s [3]), would be just as effective as throwing new seeds at farmers...<p>Haiti demonstrates that politics is the most important factor for determining agricultural output. [4]<p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Grain_silo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Grain_silo</a> [3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rice_production_in_Thailand" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rice_production_in_Thailand</a> [4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12531999" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12531999</a> - &quot;Why Are Haiti&#x27;s Coffee Trees So Tall?&quot;

One of the members of this team - Jane Langdale - did a talk at Stewart Brand&#x27;s Long Now Foundation.<p>Well worth a listen: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;longnow.org&#x2F;seminars&#x2F;02016&#x2F;mar&#x2F;14&#x2F;radical-ag-c4-rice-and-beyond&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;longnow.org&#x2F;seminars&#x2F;02016&#x2F;mar&#x2F;14&#x2F;radical-ag-c4-rice-...</a>

We are using most of grown crops as feed in meat production. So we don&#x27;t have to increase production to keep up with population growth, the other option is to cut down on conspicuous consumption in what we eat.

<i>land that currently provides enough rice to feed 27 people will need to support 43 by 2050</i><p>Honest question: can&#x27;t we assume that, as population grows, people will just plant more rice?<p>Sure this cannot be done everywhere, but there&#x27;s surely some arable land somewhere that can grow, and maybe technology can help in other ways than by manipulating the genome of plants.<p>For instance, if we had cheap energy or a very efficient desalinating tech, we could desalinate ocean water and cultivate normal rice where there are deserts now...<p>In France farmers are complaining that the prices of farm products are too low and it sounds like there are many places where we produce way too much for too few consumers.<p>Instead of playing god to reduce a risk in 2050, can&#x27;t we try <i>right now</i> to find economical, political, or technical ways to take the surplus from one place and bring it to places where food is <i>already</i> dramatically lacking?<p>EDIT: formatting

This is an interesting proposal though I&#x27;m not sure it&#x27;ll come to much. It&#x27;s an awful lot more complex than any of the commercial GM plants, requiring a number of genes spread across multiple cells all of which need to be switched on at the right time and place, plus structural changes to the plant leaves whose genetic roots apparently aren&#x27;t understood: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;c4rice.com&#x2F;the-science&#x2F;engineering-photosynthesis-what-we-are-doing&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;c4rice.com&#x2F;the-science&#x2F;engineering-photosynthesis-wh...</a>

Reminds me of golden rice. It was created to solve nutritional deficiencies in about the same populations, but didn&#x27;t succeed. I hope this initiative does.