jellyfishdirigible:

draikinator:

essayofthoughts:

indigoumbrella:

essayofthoughts:

indigoumbrella:

huffpostarts:

In The Not So Distant Future, Glow-In-The-Dark Trees Could Replace Street Lights

Is that… is that even healthy?

There are sea organisms and fungi which glow in the dark and there’s fireflies and jellyfish which glow in the dark. It doesn’t do them any harm nor does it do the people around them any harm. I would say its pretty healthy, as well as it would mean more photosynthesis happening in cities which mean cleaner air.

I was just curious about how they were doing it and for some reason I didn’t think to click the link. But thanks! It makes more sense now. I was afraid it was some kind of chemical thing.

nah just genetic modification using existing bioluminescent genes. Genetics is really cool, and so is bioluminescence. I mean they’ve already made pigs glow using jellyfish genes and pigs are waaay more complicated than trees iirc. So they’re actually (i think) less likely to muck it up with trees.

In which case

GLOWY

FORESTS

GLOWY

TREES

GLOWY

EVERYTHING

(I like glowy things)

means more trees which is good

uses less electricity which is good (for both tax reasons and also just because  reasons)

pretties everything up

just generally all good stuff

glowy trees 2k15 plz

*puts on science hat* This is basically an art project. Before anything like this could go live, there would have to be massive serious assessment of the ecological impact, and substantial harm reduction measures implemented. For instance, light pollution affects the behaviours of organisms in urban environments; obvious examples being diurnal birds singing well into the night, deciduous trees retaining leaves into winter, and so forth. Glowing trees can’t be switched off if needed, so the possible consequences of that must be measured. The effects of light pollution are thus far fairly mild but they are real. The thing about streetlamps is that they can’t reproduce and invade wild habitats. Glowing trees could potentially throw seeds into unlit areas such as forests, introducing light pollution where it hasn’t previously existed and affecting the ecosystems dramatically. GMO crops have already caused what could be termed genetic pollution; Glowing trees could cross-fertilise with unaltered rootstock and cause unexpected mutations, which may or may not negatively impact the survivability of the rootstock species, and in turn the other species that depend on the rootstock. Are glowing trees less or more appetising to insects and animals, would there be additional requirements of pesticides or further engineering, would glowing trees affect the reproductive behaviours of insect and animal species, and how would all this interact with the local and global ecosystems? Is there a more containable (thus safer) option, such as tanks/globes of functionally inert biolumiscent algae with a biological “deadman switch” that would prevent it from surviving unassisted if accidentally released? Genetic engineering is unfortunately a can of worms, and though it may provide solutions to many ecological threats, it may also create even more.

*takes off science hat* SO COOL WANT GIMME NOW