> In this novel originally published in 1923, as denitrifying bacteria inimical to plant growth spreads around the world, toppling civilizations and threatening to wipe out humankind, the British plutocrat Nordenholt sets himself up as the benignant dictator of a ruthlessly efficient, entirely undemocratic, survivalist colony established in Scotland's Clyde Valley.
We have always had this problem of other species outcompeting crops - we call the undesired-but-superiror-plants "weeds" and traditionally they were removed mechanically. The 20th century saw the invention of achieving the dame task via sprayed chemicals such as Round-Up.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
Albert Allen Bartlett
If there is even a 0.001% chance of an organism with this artificially tacked on to it getting in to the wild, the experiment is not worth anything to be potentially learned from it.It could cause our starvation well before we could respond effectively.
That tech discards the nitrogen that would be produced by microorganisms and animals like worms, included seasonally shed leaves plants with deep roots, while promote "solutions" towards the soil desertification and the dependence on multinational corporations that destroy such sings of life around the crop (what also introduce Cancer in our lives), to sell their annual interdependence solutions, as Bayer-Monsanto does.
IMHO, the bioengineering tech for crops should be more focused in the ecosystem equilibrium, predators for the plages only over the specified plants, which should include micro-robotics also ( Before harvesting, command to make predators leave the plants ).
It seems more than 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by algae, if new algae are introduced into the ecosystem and modified to massively consume nitrogen from the atmosphere for crops, one can take for sure that a planetary scale problem will arise.
Harvest them like we did with guano deposits. Won't take long for a second Guano Island Act [1].
To give some numbers, just the fixation takes 5.4 more energy, and photosynthesis is 6 times less efficient than solar panels. Moving to biological fixation would also increase water and pesticide usage
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40011438
[1] https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38603509/
The first is open access.