jeskill

I may have said this before, but I feel like this argument that "GM crops are unhealthy for humans" is a bit of a red herring that detracts from the real concerns about GM crops. I have no problem with genetic modification as a tool, but am wary about the socio-economic and ecological ramifications of our current industrial agricultural system, which relies heavily on hybrid and GM monocultures.

EDIT to say:

I don't think it's implausible that a GM crop could cause long-term health impacts. Especially if the GM crop is one that produces a pesticide -- we all know there are many pesticides that are hazardous to our health and so this shouldn't stretch the imagination. Currently, the evidence on this is weak, meanwhile, there are clear issues (other than human health) with GM crops that we should also be discussing.

JMJones0424,

while it's true that at the moment, Bt has seemed to decrease the amount of pesticides used in the world, it's also true that every year, more pests evolve resistance to Bt, even with the refuges that are supposed to "delay the evolution of resistance". (I do find it ironic that industrial ag is reduced to using ecological concepts to solve problems that they always seem to argue can be fixed with more technology.) And there's already a significant number of weeds that have evolved resistance to glyphosate, which has increased the amount of herbicides being used by keeping us on the "herbicide treadmill". (Pesticide treadmill -- same concept)

IMO, we should be putting more of our effort into improving ecological agricultural techniques, and learn how to manage the populations of insects and competitor plants through complex ecosystem interactions and crop diversity.

Hi folks,

So I have a four-year old, and I thought that this would be a good time to start introducing scientific concepts to him. (It's never too early.) I started with two books:

1) Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story by Lisa Westberg Peters and Lauren Stringer

2) Born with a Bang: The Universe Tells Its Cosmic Story by Jennifer Morgan and Dana Lynne Andersen

Both are pretty good, and caught my kid's attention. We've read them multiple times, I actually really like Born With A Bang, because I don't have a strong astronomy/physics background and this book made the big bang and the origins of the solar system highly compelling by (I can't believe I'm saying this) anthropomorphizing the universe. I normally hate anthropomorphic characters (Cars and Madagascar really annoyed me) but for me, it worked in this story.

Anyways, have any of you come across good science-related books for young children? If so, please feel free to share.

As an aside, does anyone have a good children's book that describes one or many religions from more of an anthropological perspective rather than a believer's perspective? I found one, but it's a bit old for my kid, probably 10 and up.

Edited because as usual, there are typos.

You seem to point to the answer (that I think is correct, anyways) at the end of your post. Humans are part of the ecosystem. Conservation plans don't work unless we take into consideration the role of the human population in the ecosystem.

I work for a not-for profit that conserves wetlands. They are very successful, in part because they're supported by hunters. In essence, wetlands are being conserved so that hunters will have enough game to hunt. Some of my friends think this is immoral. I don't at all -- I think it's an entirely appropriate way to do conservation. If you get local people involved who have a stake in making sure the resource is conserved, then the resource will be more likely to be conserved.

To add to what CharonY is saying, this experiment was performed, and evolution via natural selection did occur:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.^[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptationshave occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in its growth medium.^[2]

Remember, the original populations were genetically identical. These adaptations occurred via the following process: during replication, mistakes (mutations) occurred. Most were benign or deleterious, but the bacteria cells with mutations that allowed them better survival and reproduction compared to their non-mutated counterparts eventually dominated the system. This has occurred multiple times during the Lenski experiment.

Edit to say: This is their official website. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

I still think they idea of food crops escaping into the wild is less than supported, you jump from food crops to domestic plants but I see a slight difference being that while all food crops are domesticated not all domesticated plants are food crops.

 

GM canola has been found at fairly high levels in the wild: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100806/full/news.2010.393.html

The argument that it would have negative effects on the environment is pretty weak. GM foods can actually increase biodiversity, with less use of pesticides, various insects will no longer die, so any insect that is not harmful to the plant would be spared.

You're incorrect. The data shows that GM crops INCREASE the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Pesticide-use in the US has increased significantly since the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops,

according to a new report ... Research from an alliance of environmental groups has found that the switch to GM crops has led to an extra 318 million pounds of pesticides being used by farmers."

The current situation with regards to this is that refugia are often not used (often in developing countries), or if they are, they are often insufficient. Multiple resistance genes are not as effective as one might think: organisms do evolve resistance to them. But I do agree with you in that this is not solely a GM problem -- the pesticide treadmill is a problem that arises time and time again in conventional agriculture.

...I doubt that the native indians of the americas went in for any form of crop development. I understand they were a slash and burn culture.

Many cultures across the globe were/are slash and burn, including some South American cultures, as well as some North Americans (i.e. in what is now Mexico). But, it should be noted, that slash and burn is not always unsustainable, and requires a considerable amount of ecological knowledge on the part of the farmers. See here

Swidden or shifting cultivation is commonly thought to be primitive and destructive when it is in fact a highly productive form of ecological farming. Intensive agriculture as practised in much of the world is a leading source of carbon emissions. ... The community plants 60 to 100 different crops in forest plots that have been burned to clear them. Fire and forest management are crucial and the burning only lasts for a couple of hours, he said. ... Karen communities were doing their own research and invited scientists to do a 'carbon count.' Researchers at Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Foundation found that their swidden practices soak up nearly 750,000 tonnes of carbon over an area of about 3000 hectares. Burning only releases 400 to 500 tonnes.

Well, we might have to agree to disagree. I am strongly opposed to budget changes that decrease environmental protection, regardless of economic pressures. I think this is a short-term fix that has long-term negative implications for both our ability to innovate in the future and our ability to sustain our natural resources.

Jebus: To be fair, I started labeling the current party-in-power "anti-science" after I had the asbestos discussion with Gary Goodyear (described in the OP), after I learned of GG's misconceptions about evolution, after the long-form census was scrapped, and after a climate change scientist and a fisheries scientist were not allowed to discuss their findings with the public.

That being said, I do think this recent budget shows very clearly that the current ruling party is not interested in scientific research that does not immediately benefit private businesses. A pro-science agenda, in my view, would be one that seeks to maximize all scientific inquiry that benefits all Canadians (not just businesses) now and in the future.

JohnB: I understand your point in the first section, and I agree, for the most part. I think the reason why some Canadians are concerned about this is because there have been clear cases where scientific research has been suppressed by the government. I don't think that the ruling party should be allowed to suppress data that potentially affects Canadians. For example:

http://skepticalscie...Scientists.html

In 2006, an Environment Canada scientist in Ottawa was blocked from speaking about his novel on climate change at the National Press Club by the Environment Ministry.

Also: http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-16861468

The most notorious case is of that of Dr Kristi Miller, who is head of molecular genetics for the Department for Fisheries and Oceans. Dr Miller had been investigating why salmon populations in western Canada were declining. ….

 

According to Ms Munro, because reporters were denied the opportunity to question Dr Millerabout her work, important public policy issues went unanswered.

It seems pretty clear that Harper is controlling the message because the scientists are churning out data with results that he doesn't like -- results that are "anti-business". Harper doesn't want there to be evidence out there that contradicts his policies.

From you:

People who work for the gov are often in possession of privileged inside information and this information can have economic consequences if released. Think of it like"Insider Trading", if a parks officer knew that 100 square miles offorest was about to be cut down to allow for a huge solar plant and theinformation got out then various groups would be vying for opportunities tomake a killing.

I don't understand how something like this SHOULDN'T be public.The government is not a for-profit corporation. It's supposed to be working inthe best interests of the people that elected it. If they do things under the cloak of secrecy, how can the people hold them accountable?

Billions of dollars are being added to research and development? I disagree.

First of all, Genomics Canada is NOT receiving an additional 60 million.Their previous annual budget was 160 million; their budget now is $60 million for the next two years. While NSERC has received more funding, that funding is mostly earmarked for "business-led, industry-leading research". It's all well and good to fund research that can be used to stimulate the private sector, but they're gutting basic research, environmental research, and environmental protection in the process. How is it pro-science to decrease funding for basic research and evidence-based environmental protection?

What do you mean "evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian paradigm". By neo-Darwinian paradigm, are you talking about the modern synthesis? Can you please describe the new paradigm of which you speak??

I love all things Canada. The people, their attitudes, their values, the land, the cities. Everything except for, um, that song. Happy 145th!!

Awwww .... oh.

I guess it's an acquired taste.

Here's some Stompin' Tom Conners for you all.

I agree with StringJunky. "Rational" needs to be defined. For example, are you asking if men's behaviour is affected moreso by conscious reasoning rather than experience? (i.e. are you saying that men use "rational choice theory" moreso than "heuristics"?) If this is the question, then I`d have to answer NO. Most people, men or women, use heuristics to make the majority of decisions. From an evolutionary perspective, heuristics are the better strategy because they allow for quick, decisive decisions, hence, this is what we do.

MyWifesSkin: Your first post seemed to insinuate a lot without actually clarifying your argument. So, I'm confused about what exactly your argument is. Are you suggesting that the prevalence of autism has increased due to vaccinations? Are you suggesting that there is a tendency to over-diagnose autism? Or are you suggesting that there is a tendency to over-prescribe medications for autism?

1 in 36 South Korean babies are now deemed to have some form of autism. 1 in (48 - 50) in the UK. Three decades ago the US figure was ? 1 in 25,000

This statistic seems to come from a really interesting population-wide study on autism. It is noted that,

But experts said the findings did not mean that the actual numbers of children with autism were rising, simply that the study was more comprehensive than previous ones.

Kind of related ... There was an interesting article in the New Yorker recently that discussed why humans deny science (not just Republicans). An excerpt:

A new study in Cognition, led by Andrew Shtulman at Occidental College, helps explain the stubbornness of our ignorance. As Shtulman notes, people are not blank slates, eager to assimilate the latest experiments into their world view. Rather, we come equipped with all sorts of naïve intuitions about the world, many of which are untrue. For instance, people naturally believe that heat is a kind of substance, and that the sun revolves around the earth. And then there's the irony of evolution: our views about our own development don't seem to be evolving.

 

 

 

 

This means that science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather, it also requires that students unlearn their instincts, shedding false beliefs the way a snake sheds its old skin.

I have no idea how your first two paragraphs relate to the previous posts, other than to ad hominem attack views that disagree with your own. As for the third, I fail to see how studying the impacts of cage aquaculture (which is a huge industry in Canada), mercury and nanosilver on the ecosystem is unimportant.

Furthermore, the Canadian government is not "developing" new fighter jets. They are buying F-35 fighter jets from the United States.

I was told by a little bird that during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, it's very common that the ribs break. Is this true?

I think that the point John Cuthber was making is that contributing genes to the child does not automatically make someone a parent. Parenting a child makes someone a parent. You may think that your long line of grandparents are genetically linked, but it's entirely plausible that somewhere along the line, an adoption occurred that eventually led to your genes continuing along.

Does this happen in other "democratic" countries? Should it?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/06/14/ns-parks-canada-letter-warning.html

Parks Canada employees across the country have received letters warning they're not allowed to criticize the agency or the federal government.

 

...

 

"If the government's doing cuts, the only message you're getting on that are their prepared media lines on the cuts. And most government departments aren't going to come out and say, 'Our cuts are going to reduce the services to Canadians, or they're going to close this office, or you're going to have a harder time qualifying for unemployment insurance.'"

I am not concerned about the effects that GM crops have on my body. I am more concerned about the effects that it has on our environment and the biological diversity as postulated by the ESA.

 

Perhaps you've misunderstood the theme of my post.

I second immortal's concern.

On a side note, I'm sad I'm not going to ESA this year . Immortal, if you're interested in this issue, you may want to check out the NWAEG meeting held right after ESA in Portland.

Apologies. I don't know why "it" wasn't working yesterday, but it does today. Darn internets… J

Unless we grow enough food we cannot feed the people. … If all production yields were as low as some of those then we would starve. … However you cannot simply dismiss yield as important.

Of course, I agree that we have to be able to produce enough to feed the people. My argument is that yield is not as important a metric as food security, and that by focusing on yield, we promote policies that, ironically, DON'T feed the people in much of the world.

For example, we produced 2197.1 million metric tonnes of grains in 2010. If we assume there was roughly 7 billion people in 2010 (which is, I think, an overestimate), then, had yield been the determining factor in food security, each person would have been allotted 692/12 = ~57 pounds of grains per month. Americans eat, on average, 15 pounds of grains per month. If yield were the most important factor affecting starvation (edited this word), no one would have lacked for grains in 2010.

US, Canada, and other top producers are subsidizing the OVERPRODUCTION of grains and are too focused on yield. This has, ironically, caused more food insecurity in countries in the Global South like Haiti and Ethiopia. For example, excess cereal crops grown unsustainably in the US at a subsidized rate is shipped over as free "food aid", or is sold so cheaply it undercuts local prices, thus undermining local food economies. Overproduction also leads to food crops being used for biofuels instead of food, which, I hope you can agree, is ridiculously inefficient.

Questions for you:

1. Why do you think countries at the bottom of your list don't produce enough to feed their people?
2. How do you think industrial agriculture would benefit countries that can't afford to subsidize the costs of fertilizers, pesticides, and designer seeds?
3. How do you think industrial agriculture will "solve" the issue of its own unsustainability?

If you think that organic farming raises yields why do you think farmers generally don't adopt it (especially as"organic" food now sells at a premium) and why did they drop it inthe first place? In effect you are arguing against the farmers and theirunderstanding of their work.

1) In the US, Europe, and Canada,the number of "organic" farms is growing pretty fast, so your assumption that farmers aren't adopting it is incorrect. I should point out that the majority of organic growers are young (around 35 years old) while the majority of conventional growers are older (around 55 years old). Data: Organic farming growth in the US, in Europe, and in Canada.

2) The reason it's hard for conventional farmers in the Global North to switch over is because most countries with money (i.e.Canada, US, European countries), subsidize industrial agriculture so that it's profitable. If the price of fertilizer, pesticide and hybrid seeds weren't subsidized, OR if the farmer had to consider the cost of the environmental damage they create, then industrial agriculture wouldn't be profitable. I should also point out that many of the organic regulations are prohibitive for small farmers, hence the number of "organic" farms is underestimated, at least in the U.S. I know a number of farms near where I live that are organic, but never bothered to get the certification because it was too expensive.

Quote below from ifoam.

Conventional agriculture carries many hidden costs, such as the external environmental and social costs that such production systems create. These external costs are not included in the cost of production and in the final price because they remain externalities to the farm production system. … The yearly total cost of removing pesticides from the water supply in the UK is £120 million. Another example is the BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy) epidemic, which originated from a conventional practice aimed at reducing production costs by feeding cows on rations that included meat and bone meal (that was contaminated), but resulted in a huge collective cost.

On the contrary, prices of organic foods include not only the cost of the food production itself, but also a range of other factors that are not captured in the price of conventional food, such as:Environmental enhancement and protection (and avoidance of future expenses to mitigate pollution); Higher standards for animal welfare; Avoidance of health risks to farmers due to inappropriate handling of pesticides and to consumers due to a healthier foodand water supply (and avoidance of future medical expenses); and Rural development by generating additional farm employment and assuring a fair and sufficient income to producers.

A study carried out by Professor Jules Pretty calculated that the total hidden or "external" cost to the environment and to human health of organic farming was much lower than for conventional agriculture, probably no more than a third the cost, and that organic farming also has higher positive externalities [1]. The World Resources Institute, an environmental policy think tank, also reported that after accounting for all the external costs of soil loss, water contamination, and environmental degradation caused by conventional farming practices, the average farm shows a net loss instead of a net profit, which suggests that the tota lcost of food production to the society is much higher than current conventional food prices. If the hidden costs were included in the shelf price, consumers would be paying the real costs of food and organic food would be cheaper than conventional food because these additional costs are much lower.

 

http://www.nationmas...-kg-per-hectare

 

I'd like to respond, but this link doesn't work.

I still think that, for a start the Irish famine is a red herring here.

They went from organic farming of wheat to organic farming of potatoes. Some bastards stole their crops. They suffered.

This is the problem with the word "organic", and why I think "sustainable agriculture", or "ecological agriculture" are better terms for the ideal that people who study this issue are going for. The Irish went from a complex polyculture with organic fertilizer inputs (that included seaweed!) to a simple monoculture. IOW, they went from sustainable ecological agriculture to the "industrial agriculture" model, just lacking the capital inputs. This trend -- transitioning from a complex sustainable polyculture to an unsustainable simple monoculture that cannot grow crops due to a lack of subsidies for capital inputs -- is what we've seen throughout "developing" nations (i.e. The Global South) in the past century, and it's very much related to the current debate concerning how we should be growing our food.

This was in the days before mechanised farming, before most pesticides and when "fertiliser" still pretty much meant manure.

While there are clearly problems with our current farming practice (in common with much of our other life) because it's unsustainable, there is no real evidence that organic farming would help. Mechanised industrial farming using fertilisers and pesticides was widely adopted by farmers because it raised net yield. The corollary of this is that organic farming has worse yields.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I gave you plenty of evidence that supports the notion that organic farming does improve yield in this (albeit ridiculously long post): http://www.sciencefo...post__p__678309

There are studies that show that small organic farms are supported by adjacent non-organic ones. The surrounding farms kill the pests and provide nutrients.

Links please? I'd love to read these.

Evolutionary theory would also suggest that the small organic farms, by continuing to be a refuge for "pests", actually benefit the non-organic farms by reducing the selection pressure on said pests and reducing the probability of pesticide-resistance evolving.

There are a whole lot of other problems too. Food subsidy is one, but it's political and has little directly to do with the organic/ non organic debate.

This is total b.s. Sorry, but if we're going to have any hope of solving the current issues surrounding agriculture, then we can't just focus on "yield", which is the main focus of populationists and proponents of corn subsidies. The past century has shown us that clearly, focusing on yield DOES NOT stop hunger (If it did, then no one would be hungry right now. The world currently grows enough food for all people in the world, if it were distributed equitably). If we're going to solve any issues concerning hunger and agriculture, then we need to consider the whole picture, which includes economic sustainability, ecological sustainability, politics, and social impact.

Apologies for inserting myself into an interesting vaccine conversation, but I couldn't help myself.

Animals are so fucking stupid. I hate them.

 

I hate all life in general. Especially manatees. I mean come on. It's called glass you bozo. Read a book.

AMEN. Although... if manatees didn't exist, we wouldn't have this song! And then I'd be sad.