Why mathematicians are no fun at parties

[morbiuswilters]

@Snooder said:

Odd, it's the other way around for me. Most of the anti-vaccination people I've actually met in person are the ultra-religious super-conservatives who don't celebrate birthdays and refuse healthcare for their kids because "it's in God's will."

Anti-gluten, soy, dairy etc, sure that's mostly a bunch of hipster foodies trying to out-vegan each other. But the anti-GMO crowd? I see a lot more of the luddite "man shall not interfere in God's domain" and "man these companies are in cahoots with the gubmint to hurt the small family farm" types. The first group is explicitly conservative. The second may or may not be depending on if he's high from pot or from meth.

You are a lying piece of shit. The facts clearly show those are left-leaning causes. You are ashamed that your intellectual compatriots are mentally retarded so you are trying to distance yourself from their most outlandish claims. Next you'll be telling me socialized health care isn't a left-wing cause "Sure the science shows it kills lots of people and delivers sub-standard care, but it's obviously a right-wing cause! I mean, c'mon.."

[Snooder]

@morbiuswilters said:

None of those are conservative opinions, they are facts. It's amazing we've come to the point where the left is so unhinged that simply stating reality is an "opinion". "What a nutjob, he thinks gravity is what keeps people and things stuck to the Earth! Clearly a conservative whacko!"

And thus you illustrate my point about conservatives who like to pretend that their conservative opinions are moderate.

See, a moderate would understand that while hard-work is integral to success, a lot of it also comes from help given by mentors, some innate talent and just plain luck along the way. What he thinks the ratio is (or should be) determines if he's a left-leaning or right-leaning conservative, but mostly he's not enough of a blowhard to pretend that he did everything all on his own. That's the mark of the conservative, just as pretending that successful people are only successful because the system is rigged in their favor is the mark of the liberal.

That's just an example, but the simple truth is that everything I've mentioned, to most people, is conservative. Hell, the "baby-killers" stance is so conservative, it's just shy of reactionary. It's almost the direct opposite of the guy who sneers "meat is murder" at people eating steak. If that guy tried to pretend he's "totally moderate, even slightly right-leaning" you'd laugh in his goddamn face.

[morbiuswilters]

@HardwareGeek said:

For some reason I've always associated anti-vax with right-wing religious nut cases.

I have no idea why, the people pushing it tend to be Scientologist types and wealthy Hollywood liberals.

@HardwareGeek said:

I'm not particularly thrilled at the idea of GMOs in the food I eat

Well, then, you're a fool. All of the food you eat is genetically-modified. The only difference is that with modern technology we can actually do it much more safely than in millennia past. Meanwhile, we can cut back on things like pesticides and grow more food on less land, which is better for the environment. Being anti-GMO is the ultimate in Gaia-raping, the-camera-stole-my-soul nonsense.

@HardwareGeek said:

and I have some sympathy for lactose intolerance – humans are unusual in that we are one of the few species of mammals that are not entirely lactose intolerant as adults, so it is understandable that some individuals are. However, for the other stuff, if your body cannot digest foods that have been staples since the dawn of humanity, please do not contribute your defective genes to future generations.

No, you don't understand. I'm not critical of people who are actually lactose intolerant or who have Celiac disease. I mean, Jesus, that would be cruel. I'm critical of the perfectly-health (albeit mentally-deranged) people who think eating meat* or gluten** causes cancer or who avoid dairy because it messes with their chakras. For those people it's a political statement and they are all deranged hippie left-wing nutjobs.

(*And I say this as a vegetarian. Eating meat is perfectly good for you.)

(**Somewhat ironically, a lot of vegetarian pseudo-meats contain large quantities of wheat gluten. It's laden with protein and when prepared correctly it has a not-entirely-un-meat-like texture.)

[morbiuswilters]

@Snooder said:

See, a moderate would understand that while hard-work is integral to success, a lot of it also comes from help given by mentors, some innate talent and just plain luck along the way. What he thinks the ratio is (or should be) determines if he's a left-leaning or right-leaning conservative, but mostly he's not enough of a blowhard to pretend that he did everything all on his own.

There are no conservatives who think this way. You are either too dumb to understand what they are saying, or you are deliberately misconstruing it. In fact, conservatives would be the first people who would modestly thank God, their families, their communities, their church and their country. It's whiny left-wing pieces of garbage who are like "Sure I was born a millionaire, but I'm 1/256th Cherokee and even though you can't tell the whole system was stacked against me and I had it sooooo hard. OMG, you guys, those 4 years at Harvard left me feeling so isolated and discriminated against and I really understand what it's like to be a working-class person now!"

@Snooder said:

Hell, the "baby-killers" stance is so conservative, it's just shy of reactionary.

So your opinion is that abortion doesn't kill? Or that babies aren't.. babies? See this is the problem with you subhuman left-wingers, you are in denial about reality. Your reaction to the Truth is "Facts are wacist! Waaah!" I'm not even saying you have to be anti-abortion (my own thoughts are rather mixed), but at least you could honestly say "Yeah, I support killing babies under some circumstances."

@Snooder said:

It's almost the direct opposite of the guy who sneers "meat is murder" at people eating steak.

No, it's not. It's like somebody saying "meat is killing" and then you having a good cry over how unfair reality is. I mean, meat is the killing of animals and abortion is the killing of babies. Neither of these are disputable, they are facts. Your problem is you are simply so deluded you cannot accept reality.

[boomzilla]

@Snooder said:

Hell, the "baby-killers" stance is so conservative, it's just shy of reactionary.

It's reprehensible that the so-called mothers are using the Stand Your Ground laws to justify killing their babies.

[morbiuswilters]

@boomzilla said:

@Snooder said:

Hell, the "baby-killers" stance is so conservative, it's just shy of reactionary.

It's reprehensible that the so-called mothers are using the Stand Your Ground laws to justify killing their babies.

"It was coming right at us!"

Meanwhile, I love the deranged anti-SYG people. "You need to give the mugger a chance to corner you and close in for the kill before you're allowed to fight back! Otherwise it's just not fair!"

[Buttembly_Coder]

@morbiuswilters said:

@boomzilla said:

@Snooder said:

Hell, the "baby-killers" stance is so conservative, it's just shy of reactionary.

It's reprehensible that the so-called mothers are using the Stand Your Ground laws to justify killing their babies.

"It was coming right at us!"

Meanwhile, I love the deranged anti-SYG people. "You need to give the mugger a chance to corner you and close in for the kill before you're allowed to fight back! Otherwise it's just not fair!"

The real problem there is the Myth of the Leg Shot; the idea that it's always an option to shoot someone in the leg or arm, and that that's going to stop them.

Statistics say that you'd be lucky to hit the person 1/3rd of the time aiming for center-of-mass, but if a person's never used a gun, they assume it's magic.

Besides that, look at North Hollywood, the bad guys were about a dozen times in legs and arms, and kept fighting…

[boomzilla]

@morbiuswilters said:

Meanwhile, I love the deranged anti-SYG people. "You need to give the mugger a chance to corner you and close in for the kill before you're allowed to fight back! Otherwise it's just not fair!"

TRWTF about those guys is they keep saying how awful SYG is, and point to cases that have nothing to do with SYG to prove it. It's nearly as terrible as saying how awful Too Big To Fail is, and then writing a law promoting the concept. Or more terrible. It's hard to tell these days, but both are surely less evil than not getting married to a person of the same sex.

[morbiuswilters]

@Buttembly Coder said:

The real problem there is the Myth of the Leg Shot; the idea that it's always an option to shoot someone in the leg or arm, and that that's going to stop them.

Statistics say that you'd be lucky to hit the person 1/3rd of the time aiming for center-of-mass, but if a person's never used a gun, they assume it's magic.

Besides that, look at North Hollywood, the bad guys were about a dozen times in legs and arms, and kept fighting…

Shit, you can shoot someone several times in the chest with 9mm and they can keep coming at you, especially if they're high. Oh, they'll die, but it ain't like the movies where a single shot from a .38 causes a person to fall down and expire immediately.

By the way, this is why Morbs does not recommend a handgun for home defense: a 12 gauge will stop a home invader in his tracks. A handgun (even something like .45 ACP) may not. And the bigger your handgun, the harder it's going to be to control, whereas a 12ga is always pretty easy to handle, especially in a high-stress situation.

@Buttembly Coder said:

Besides that, look at North Hollywood, the bad guys were about a dozen times in legs and arms, and kept fighting…

Or the '86 Miami shoot-out. Several of those were fatal, center-mass shots, but the criminals continued to fight for several minutes.

[morbiuswilters]

@boomzilla said:

TRWTF about those guys is they keep saying how awful SYG is, and point to cases that have nothing to do with SYG to prove it.

"Hitler got away with it so long 'cuz he kept getting acquitted under SYG! Remember Trayvon!"

[HardwareGeek]

@morbiuswilters said:

@HardwareGeek said:

For some reason I've always associated anti-vax with right-wing religious nut cases.

I have no idea why, the people pushing it tend to be Scientologist types and wealthy Hollywood liberals.

Well, I'm not the only one, because Snooder just said the same thing. (Oh, no. I just agreed with Snooder. That's disturbing – not nearly as disturbing as agreeing with, say, drurowin, but still...)
@morbiuswilters said:

@HardwareGeek said:

I'm not particularly thrilled at the idea of GMOs in the food I eat

Well, then, you're a fool. All of the food you eat is genetically-modified.

There was a measure on the ballot here recently to require labeling of GMO foods. Someone supporting (I think) the measure was carrying a sign stating, "Selective breeding ≠ genetic modification," or something to that effect. Which I agree with.
@morbiuswilters said:

The only difference is that with modern technology we can actually do it much more safely than in millennia past.

We can certainly do it more effectively. Can we can do it more safely? I'm not convinced. (I'm not even convinced that many recent "advances" in selective breeding are desirable. Tomatoes that arrive at the grocery store without being bruised in transit seems like a good idea, but doing so at the expense of those tomatoes having the texture and flavor of rocks, not so much.) I'm not saying it can't be done safely, but I haven't yet seen sufficient evidence to convince me. And given that "X is dangerous" makes headline news, while "X is safe" gets buried on page 73, if it's reported at all, I'm not likely to see it if it does exist.
@morbiuswilters said:

Somewhat ironically, a lot of vegetarian pseudo-meats contain large quantities of wheat gluten. It's laden with protein....

Gluten is protein. And a darn good one, too. It is responsible for the texture of baked goods; the difference in texture between cake and bread is mostly due to the amount of gluten they contain. I sometimes wonder what additive they use in gluten-free pseudo-bread to make the bits of whatever they make it out of stick together into a bread-like mass instead of crumbling into powder, but not enough to actually bother finding out.

[boomzilla]

@morbiuswilters said:

"Hitler got away with it so long 'cuz he kept getting acquitted under SYG! Remember Trayvon!"

Hitler gets all the credit, but the Koch brothers' role in the Holocaust is mostly overlooked.

[morbiuswilters]

@HardwareGeek said:

Well, I'm not the only one, because Snooder just said the same thing. (Oh, no. I just agreed with Snooder. That's disturbing – not nearly as disturbing as agreeing with, say, drurowin, but still...)

Snooder lies.

@HardwareGeek said:

There was a measure on the ballot here recently to require labeling of GMO foods. Someone supporting (I think) the measure was carrying a sign stating, "Selective breeding ≠ genetic modification," or something to that effect. Which I agree with.

So your theory is that even though you're practicing genetic modification, it's not evil because you don't really understand it? Is some kind of weird, anti-Gnosticism?

@HardwareGeek said:

We can certainly do it more effectively. Can we can do it more safely? I'm not convinced. (I'm not even convinced that many recent "advances" in selective breeding are desirable. Tomatoes that arrive at the grocery store without being bruised in transit seems like a good idea, but doing so at the expense of those tomatoes having the texture and flavor of rocks, not so much.) I'm not saying it can't be done safely, but I haven't yet seen sufficient evidence to convince me. And given that "X is dangerous" makes headline news, while "X is safe" gets buried on page 73, if it's reported at all, I'm not likely to see it if it does exist.

I'm not exactly sure what danger you think exists here.. This is what the anti-GMO people always do, make some vague reference to "dangers" or "playing God mumble mumble". Look, buddy, most of the shit in your house can kill you under the right circumstances. Every day you rely on a variety of technologies, every single one of which has the potential to cause harm. If you're not eating GMOs, then what the fuck are you eating that you think is so much safer?

Also, you're falling into the trap of Bastiat's unseen here. What do you think happens without genetic engineering? More pesticide use, more land use, more expensive food, more diseases which get into the food and make people sick. Those things all kill people, more people than GMOs ever will, yet you're perfectly fine with those risks.

I think a lot of this boils down to "I don't understand how agriculture works." If you did, you'd understand all food has risks. Pesticides are nasty, but we use them because if we didn't we'd have far more food-borne pathogens and food would be much more expensive, causing a lot of the world to starve to death. It's not like the choice is between perfect, Eden-esque, pesticide-free foods and evil, multinational corporations trying to shove malathion down your gullet to make a quick buck. It's really just a choice between more-expensive, more-diseased food or the lesser risk of pesticides.

By the way, I agree with you about the tomatoes, but I'm also willing to understand that for a lot of people, just having clean, nutritious food to eat is more important than whether they can have a foodie orgasm. It's not like it's at all hard to get high-quality produce if you're willing to pay the money, and I'm extremely thankful to live in a world where so many people have access to cheaply-grown, disease-free food. If I occasionally have to eat a flavorless tomato on my $20 sandwich, I'm willing to accept that state of affairs.

@HardwareGeek said:

I sometimes wonder what additive they use in gluten-free pseudo-bread to make the bits of whatever they make it out of stick together into a bread-like mass instead of crumbling into powder, but not enough to actually bother finding out.

I have a friend who is a baker and, due to the demands of customers, he has to make a gluten-free bread. The kinda-bread-like texture is achieved through the use of xanthan gum, which is a substance secreted by bacteria. It's used in a lot of heavily-processed foods, ironically. (It's used in salad dressings and cosmetics to thicken them up.)

[morbiuswilters]

@boomzilla said:

@morbiuswilters said:

"Hitler got away with it so long 'cuz he kept getting acquitted under SYG! Remember Trayvon!"

Hitler gets all the credit, but the Koch brothers' role in the Holocaust is mostly overlooked.

In the Kochs' defense, they still had a lot of smallpox-laden blankets left over from their genocide of Native Americans. They aren't really anti-semitic, but you can't expect them to take a loss of a few hundred precious, precious dollars on unused blankets.

[Guest]

Can't you people keep the political flamewar in one thread as is proper etiquette?

[morbiuswilters]

@anonymous234 said:

Can't you people keep the political flamewar in one thread as is proper etiquette?

I'd be fine with not having political flamewars at all. But if people are going to stay stupid stuff, I'm going to mock them for it.

[dkf]

@HardwareGeek said:

I agree with right-wing religious nut cases on a fair number of issues, but being anti-vax is just, well, nuts.

Strictly, it's the domain of those who don't grok science at all, have seen/heard something (often on the 'net but not necessarily) about “vaccines cause autism” and who panics. If it was a small minority, everyone else would be tending towards saying a heartfelt Whatever before ignoring yet another bunch of loons. The problem is when there's enough social momentum among groups of idiots to reach the threshold (at least in clusters) for causing problems for herd immunity, so endangering lots of other people as well.

Science tries to avoid making political statements (beyond the obvious “more money for research projects would be nice”), and scientists are usually just interested in describing the world as it is. It's just a shame that some politicians seem to think that reality is optional.

[drurowin]

@morbiuswilters said:

@anonymous234 said:

Can't you people keep the political flamewar in one thread as is proper etiquette?

I'd be fine with not having political flamewars at all. But if people are going to stay stupid stuff, I'm going to mock them for it.

I didn't do it this time.

[boomzilla]

@anonymous234 said:

Can't you people keep the political flamewar in one thread as is proper etiquette?

I'm not sure there's really a sane way to count threads around here.

[HardwareGeek]

@morbiuswilters said:

@HardwareGeek said:

Well, I'm not the only one, because Snooder just said the same thing. (Oh, no. I just agreed with Snooder. That's disturbing – not nearly as disturbing as agreeing with, say, drurowin, but still...)

Snooder lies.

Maybe, but I think there are probably anti-vax whackos in both groups; which group we tend to associate with the delusion is probably based on which whackos we, personally, run into more often.
@morbiuswilters said:

@HardwareGeek said:

"Selective breeding ≠ genetic modification," ...

So your theory is that even though you're practicing genetic modification, it's not evil because you don't really understand it?

I think we're starting from different definitions of GM, here. My working definition of GM involves introducing foreign genes. Introducing, say, a marigold gene (marigolds produce pyrethrin, a natural insecticide) into another organism, say wheat, would be GM. Selectively breeding wheat to enhance a naturally-occurring pyrethrin gene, if such existed, would not by my definition.
@morbiuswilters said:

Look, buddy, most of the shit in your house can kill you under the right circumstances. Every day you rely on a variety of technologies, every single one of which has the potential to cause harm.

Damn straight! I had significantly more college Chemistry than your average computer nerd, and I am acutely aware of the hazards of household substances. I also have hobbies that involve dangerous stuff; tanks of acetylene and high-pressure oxygen, white-hot molten metal, and bottles of nitric acid tend to instill a healthy respect for safety. (Or they should; if not, you don't belong anywhere near that stuff.)
@morbiuswilters said:

If you're not eating GMOs, then what the fuck are you eating that you think is so much safer?

Oh, I'm probably eating them without even knowing it. Am I better or worse for it? I dunno. Since I can't afford boutique, certified-organic, certified-non-GMO food, it's moot.
@morbiuswilters said:

all food has risks.

All life has risks.
@morbiuswilters said:

Pesticides are nasty, but we use them because if we didn't we'd have far more food-borne pathogens

The purpose of pesticides is to increase crop yield by reducing loss to pests, not to prevent pathogens. Most food pathogens are the result of, or at least are able to cause harm to consumers through, improper handling of food after harvest.
@morbiuswilters said:

and food would be much more expensive

Certainly the use of modern agricultural methods increases yield, which tends to lower prices. However, those methods involve the purchase of fertilizers and pesticides for plant crops, or antibiotics and specialized feeds for animal production, which increases costs and prices. The trade-off here is on the side of increasing the availability of affordable food, without doubt (at least neglecting the long-term effect of the pesticides, etc.).

Add GMO crops to this. The seeds are significantly more expensive. Unlike traditional varieties, the farmer cannot just save, say, 10% of the harvest to plant for next year's crop, because seeds are either sterile or won't have the desirable (leaving aside the argument of whether they really are desirable) properties of the GMO. (This is true of most modern hybrid crop varieties, not just GMOs. The difference is that GMO seeds are probably even more expensive than regular hybrid seeds.) This increases both costs and, presumably, yield. Does the presumably reduced need for fertilizer and pesticides offset the higher cost of the seed? Does the increased yield offset the higher cost of the seed? I don't know. @morbiuswilters said:

causing a lot of the world to starve to death.

The cause of starvation is not the lack of food, nor even the lack of affordable food. It is the lack of affordable food where the people are starving. We grow more food than we need (and eat too much of it). We export some of that excess, and some of that even goes to starving people. However, this is not a viable solution to starvation. This food would be completely unaffordable to the people who need it if it were not given away for free (or nearly so) as humanitarian aid. The answer, obviously, is to help them produce enough food to feed themselves. Do the higher yields of modern agricultural methods, possibly including GMO crops, outweigh the higher costs? The answer to this is not as obvious for someone plowing a small, semi-desert field with a half-starved ox that it is for a 10000 acre agribusiness in Kansas. (The other key to the starving people being able to feed themselves is to be able to plow, tend and harvest their crops without being shot in any of the conflicts that are a (the) major cause of hunger in today's world.) @morbiuswilters said:

By the way, I agree with you about the tomatoes, but I'm also willing to understand that for a lot of people, just having clean, nutritious food to eat is more important than whether they can have a foodie orgasm. It's not like it's at all hard to get high-quality produce if you're willing to pay the money, and I'm extremely thankful to live in a world where so many people have access to cheaply-grown, disease-free food. If I occasionally have to eat a flavorless tomato on my $20 sandwich, I'm willing to accept that state of affairs.

I agree with you, except the part about the flavorless tomato on your $20 sandwich. Anybody that has the nerve to charge that much for a sandwich darn well better be paying for high-quality produce to make it. @morbiuswilters said:

The kinda-bread-like texture is achieved through the use of xanthan gum, which is a substance secreted by bacteria. It's used in a lot of heavily-processed foods, ironically. (It's used in salad dressings and cosmetics to thicken them up.)

Ah, yes. Not as artificial-chemical-y stuff as I was thinking they might use, but ironic enough. It's also used in non-FD&C applications, too. One specific use that I know of is that it is one of the adhesives that can be used to hold enamel power in place before it's fired, because the gum burns away cleanly when it's heated.

[HardwareGeek]

@boomzilla said:

@anonymous234 said:

Can't you people keep the political flamewar in one thread as is proper etiquette?

I'm not sure there's really a sane way to count threads anything around here.

FTFY

[morbiuswilters]

@dkf said:

Science tries to avoid making political statements (beyond the obvious “more money for research projects would be nice”), and scientists are usually just interested in describing the world as it is.

You know, that's the theory, but I no longer buy it. Science is hyper-political. It's not always political about the exact same issues the rest of society is carrying on about, but they're political. Science is a fantastic methodology for refining our understanding of the natural world, but it's a mistake to think it exists outside of the passions, prejudices, greed and egoism of humanity.

[flabdablet]

@morbiuswilters said:

The only thing you have to be careful about is overdoing it. Your body will break down muscle before fat and if you starve yourself too much, it can weaken your heart (a muscle, obviously.) When I was younger, I lost 45 pounds in 30 days by eating virtually nothing and exercising several hours a day, but in hindsight that was really dangerous.

"Break down muscle before fat" is one of those media-driven tropes that doesn't mean quite what it seems to.

The first thing to go is glycogen reserves, which are indeed stored in muscle tissue. Glycogen needs a lot of water to keep it in storage, and this is why weight loss on the first few days of a fast is so rapid.

The liver needs to provide amino acids for use during metabolism and general tissue repair, and it does indeed need to get those from bodily protein stores. But once starvation has taken hold, the liver fairly rapidly (days) moves toward a metabolic regime involving more efficient recycling of amino acids, rather than continuing to produce them in quantities such that the kidneys need to keep on getting rid of them. The body is actually pretty smart about using its stored reserves in ways that don't damage it; only once the fat reserves have gone does it start making serious inroads into muscle tissue to burn for energy. It would make no evolutionary sense for this to be otherwise. In particular, I can't see how any life form with a tendency to eat its own heart before using up its huge flabby belly would ever have made it as far as inventing TDWTF.

The longest medically supervised fast on record is 382 days (undertaken to treat extreme obesity, for what it's worth, and successful in the long term). I'm doing less than 20 at a time. I think I'm on pretty safe ground.

There is actually a fair bit of decent peer-reviewed research on this floating around on the Web for people who care enough to winnow it out from amongst the flood of puffery and quackery, and on balance I'm now of the opinion that periodic fasting is quite a lot better for my health than not doing that, as long as I'm not actually underweight.

[flabdablet]

@morbiuswilters said:

Next you'll be telling me socialized health care isn't a left-wing cause "Sure the science shows it kills lots of people and delivers sub-standard care...

Cite please. All the research results I've ever seen show precisely the opposite.

[morbiuswilters]

@HardwareGeek said:

Maybe, but I think there are probably anti-vax whackos in both groups; which group we tend to associate with the delusion is probably based on which whackos we, personally, run into more often.

Yes, they exist in both groups, but they are overwhelming left-leaning.

@HardwareGeek said:

think we're starting from different definitions of GM, here. My working definition of GM involves introducing foreign genes. Introducing, say, a marigold gene (marigolds produce pyrethrin, a natural insecticide) into another organism, say wheat, would be GM. Selectively breeding wheat to enhance a naturally-occurring pyrethrin gene, if such existed, would not by my definition.

Yes, and your definition is silly. Sorry. Your argument is "Hey, I don't care if human beings take actions to manipulate the genes of plants, but by God it better not come from the rational study and careful application of genetic theory!" It's the same end-point, you're just expressing a preference of genetic engineering by millennia of trial-and-error. That's like say "Hey, it's cool if you want to start fires to keep warm, just don't go trying to understand how combustion actually works and make it more efficient. Why, we might create a fire so big the sky itself bursts into flame!"

@HardwareGeek said:

All life has risks.

Yes, good. You seem to understand then that humanity isn't going to magically enter some state of Eden if we just get rid of Monsanto, carbon emissions and HFCS. Instead we'll all just end up dying. Really, that puts you ahead of about 99% of anti-GMOers, so there's hope for you.

@HardwareGeek said:

The purpose of pesticides is to increase crop yield by reducing loss to pests, not to prevent pathogens. Most food pathogens are the result of, or at least are able to cause harm to consumers through, improper handling of food after harvest.

It's for both. And, yes, most contamination is after-the-fact, because pesticides have done such a swell job. Yes, the increase crop yield, but people used to get sick all the time from eating food contaminated with fungi or insects, their eggs or waste.

@HardwareGeek said:

Certainly the use of modern agricultural methods increases yield, which tends to lower prices. However, those methods involve the purchase of fertilizers and pesticides for plant crops, or antibiotics and specialized feeds for animal production, which increases costs and prices. The trade-off here is on the side of increasing the availability of affordable food, without doubt (at least neglecting the long-term effect of the pesticides, etc.).

Um, it's not even close. Two centuries ago, 90% of people were involved in agriculture, and most people basically subsisted. Today we produce far more food per-capita (far more than we need) with less than 1/20th of the number of people working in agriculture. That's not a trade-off, that's a massive win.

@HardwareGeek said:

Add GMO crops to this. The seeds are significantly more expensive. Unlike traditional varieties, the farmer cannot just save, say, 10% of the harvest to plant for next year's crop, because seeds are either sterile or won't have the desirable (leaving aside the argument of whether they really are desirable) properties of the GMO. (This is true of most modern hybrid crop varieties, not just GMOs. The difference is that GMO seeds are probably even more expensive than regular hybrid seeds.)

They're somewhat more expensive, but that's just an economic decision. Ag companies aren't going to pay more for less yield. I mean, if this was 1850 and your concern was that these slick, town-to-town GMO salesmen were going to trick the rubes and all the local farmers would have a bad couple of harvests, I could see that. But is your concern that a multi-billion dollar ag conglomerate can't read a bottom line and is going to get swindled into buying more expensive seeds?

Anyway, you touched on this point in the first place, but I'm going to re-iterate: your concerns about seed saving apply to many hybrid crops and yet they are still widely used (as are GMOs.) And meanwhile, many kinds of GMO seeds can be saved where a hybrid could not. Advantage: GMOs.

@HardwareGeek said:

Do the higher yields of modern agricultural methods, possibly including GMO crops, outweigh the higher costs?

I take it you've never heard of Norman Borlaug, probably the greatest American to ever live. Anyway, GMOs would be a massive advantage in developing countries, which is why so many farmers there want GMO crops. And once again, you seem to be concerned that farmers in developing countries are going to choose to poorly--look, these people know how to farm. If GMOs aren't giving them the most bang for their buck (and they most certainly do, but quite frankly I think it's immaterial to my argument so I'm not going to bother with it) then they aren't going to grow them. It's not like some African farmer is going to trade in all of his chickens for a single GMO seed and get nothing out of it.

@HardwareGeek said:

Anybody that has the nerve to charge that much for a sandwich darn well better be paying for high-quality produce to make it.

It was more of a metaphor. My point is: I'm okay with industrial farming giving me slightly less-nommy food if more people get to eat.

Anywho, my point is GMOs are fantastic right now, and the promise they hold for the future is even more astounding. They're the pinnacle of industrial agriculture, which is a miracle which has saved so much of the world from starvation or the drudgery of farm work. In fact, more and more I am convinced that in 500 years the only thing America will be remembered for was revolutionizing agriculture.

[morbiuswilters]

@flabdablet said:

In particular, I can't see how any life form with a tendency to eat its own heart before using up its huge flabby belly would ever have made it as far as inventing TDWTF.

Okay, "eating your heart" is an exaggeration, but there are tons of studies showing that long-term fasting can cause weakening of the heart muscle. I've heard several medical doctors also advise against it, although medical doctors can be mis-informed, of course.

@flabdablet said:

The longest medically supervised fast on record is 382 days...

I just had an argument about this. That paper is crap. The guy wasn't under actual 24 hour supervision; he lived at home and came in for check-ups and they just took his word that he went 382 days without eating a bite. The next-longest actually-supervised fasts are all in the 70-90 day range. Even if he did actually do it, it's not provable, so it seems of little scientific use. I know, I know, this isn't the point you're making, I just wanted to point that out so people don't keep spreading the "382 fast" meme.

@flabdablet said:

I'm doing less than 20 at a time. I think I'm on pretty safe ground.

You're probably fine, yeah.

@flabdablet said:

There is actually a fair bit of decent peer-reviewed research on this floating around on the Web for people who care enough to winnow it out from amongst the flood of puffery and quackery, and on balance I'm now of the opinion that periodic fasting is quite a lot better for my health than not doing that, as long as I'm not actually underweight.

Yeah, with most anything related to weight loss it's going to be next-to-impossible to suss out the truth from all the absurd myth. And, of course, every single thing claims it's debunking some myth, while promoting some theory that someone else is trying to debunk as a myth..

[morbiuswilters]

@flabdablet said:

@morbiuswilters said:

Next you'll be telling me socialized health care isn't a left-wing cause "Sure the science shows it kills lots of people and delivers sub-standard care...

Cite please. All the research results I've ever seen show precisely the opposite.

Well, I guess you're reading bad studies. I don't really see any point in having this argument; I won't change your mind, no matter how much evidence I produce, so why should I bother? (I know, you'll probably take this as proof I'm wrong, but I don't really care. As much fun as flamewars can sometimes be, I'm tired of re-hashing the same ones over and over on here. If you really wanted to see studies showing other points of view, you can easily find them with Google, but let's be honest: neither one of us is going to be moved by the other's argument and neither one of us wants to spend our free time trying to prove the other guy's claims.)

[flabdablet]

@morbiuswilters said:

there are tons of studies showing that long-term fasting can cause weakening of the heart muscle.

If you could link to the best ones you know of, I'd appreciate it; this is actually an issue that my beloved has expressed concern about.

[dkf]

@HardwareGeek said:

I agree with right-wing religious nut cases on a fair number of issues, but being anti-vax is just, well, nuts.

Strictly, it's the domain of those who don't grok science at all, have seen/heard something (often on the 'net but not necessarily) about “vaccines cause autism” and who panics. If it was a small minority, everyone else would be tending towards saying a heartfelt Whatever before ignoring yet another bunch of loons. The problem is when there's enough social momentum among groups of idiots to reach the threshold (at least in clusters) for causing problems for herd immunity, so endangering lots of other people as well.

Science tries to avoid making political statements (beyond the obvious “more money for research projects would be nice”), and scientists are usually just interested in describing the world as it is. It's just a shame that some politicians seem to think that reality is optional.

[flabdablet]

@dkf said:

The problem is when there's enough social momentum among groups of idiots to reach the threshold (at least in clusters) for causing problems for herd immunity, so endangering lots of other people as well.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to find a more effective way to gain herd immunity against the ideas of idiots and get it into widespread use?

Present-day methods all seem to suffer from the same weakness: they render the opinions of members of some other herd indistinguishable from those of idiots. This, in turn, means that as soon as you have three or more herds, the vast majority of other people look like idiots and the problem appears to be overwhelming.

It would be nice if more people realized that all of us are idiots some of the time and cut each other a little slack. If you disagree with something I've said by calling me a fuckwit, I'm only going to call you a cunt. Show me why you think something I believe is wrong, though, and we both learn something; the best way to improve your own understanding of any issue is to explain it to somebody else who is interested in it.

[boomzilla]

@dkf said:

Science tries to avoid making political statements (beyond the obvious “more money for research projects would be nice”), and scientists are usually just interested in describing the world as it is. It's just a shame that some politicians seem to think that reality is optional.

You're delusional. There is no "Science" that says anything. Scientists are people first, which means they have all of the preconceptions and selfish motives that anyone else does. The best try to overcome those (e.g., Feynman) but the often touted self correcting of science isn't an easy or automatic thing. Also, people focused on science tend ignore other things, and believe that their peephole on the world should dictate policy. It's a shame, because they don't take many important things into consideration, and they're generally too certain about what they think they know.

[dkf]

@flabdablet said:

Wouldn't it be wonderful to find a more effective way to gain herd immunity against the ideas of idiots and get it into widespread use?

We have product liability laws instead.

[Snooder]

@morbiuswilters said:

@Snooder said:

Odd, it's the other way around for me. Most of the anti-vaccination people I've actually met in person are the ultra-religious super-conservatives who don't celebrate birthdays and refuse healthcare for their kids because "it's in God's will."

Anti-gluten, soy, dairy etc, sure that's mostly a bunch of hipster foodies trying to out-vegan each other. But the anti-GMO crowd? I see a lot more of the luddite "man shall not interfere in God's domain" and "man these companies are in cahoots with the gubmint to hurt the small family farm" types. The first group is explicitly conservative. The second may or may not be depending on if he's high from pot or from meth.

You are a lying piece of shit. The facts clearly show those are left-leaning causes. You are ashamed that your intellectual compatriots are mentally retarded so you are trying to distance yourself from their most outlandish claims. Next you'll be telling me socialized health care isn't a left-wing cause "Sure the science shows it kills lots of people and delivers sub-standard care, but it's obviously a right-wing cause! I mean, c'mon.."

A: I never said I was a liberal.
B: What lies? I'm telling you that I have literally been in conversations with people who are anti-genetically modified foodand their reason was because they are religious. Are you telling me that religious people don't exist? or that super religious southerners are liberal?

[flabdablet]

@boomzilla said:

Also, people focused on science tend ignore other things, and believe that their peephole on the world should dictate policy. It's a shame, because they don't take many important things into consideration, and they're generally too certain about what they think they know.

This is at least quintuply true when the science concerned is economics.

[dhromed]

 So why isn't economics officially a branch of psychology?

[Guest]

@dhromed said:

 So why isn't economics officially a branch of psychology?

 

Economics is not exclusively concerned with human brain quirks. It's also interesting to know how perfectly rational agents would behave (i.e. game theory). And other stuff I guess.

[dhromed]

 I would Accept your answer but there's no button or summat I can click.

[Snooder]

@dhromed said:

 So why isn't economics officially a branch of psychology sociology?

 

FTFY

(or sociopathy, if you're the kind of guy who takes economics just to get a job on wall street)

 

[HardwareGeek]

@Snooder said:

(or sociopathy, if you're the kind of guy who takes economics just to get a job on wall street)

I took Economics just because it was required. It was the most boring class I ever took. Not only was the material dry, the professor was positively desiccated. He was so dull, if he was a knife, he couldn't cut melted butter. Part of the grade in the class was based on attendance, and people would just get up and walk out after signing the roll sheet. I simply cannot understand why anyone would study Economics voluntarily.

[locallunatic]

@HardwareGeek said:

I simply cannot understand why anyone would study Economics voluntarily.

Some of us find parts of it interesting. Mostly things like micro, game theory, and behavioral because those are actually useful, but still there are parts that are interesting.

[mott555]

@Snooder said:

@dhromed said:

 So why isn't economics officially a branch of psychology sociology?

 

FTFY

(or sociopathy, if you're the kind of guy who takes economics just to get a job on wall street)

Sociology! I remember that class in college. Every lecture was a solid hour of "Bush does crack cocaine in the White House and pot should be legal, and I used to be a cop so I should know."

 

[HardwareGeek]

@locallunatic said:

@HardwareGeek said:

I simply cannot understand why anyone would study Economics voluntarily.

Some of us find parts of it interesting. Mostly things like micro, game theory, and behavioral because those are actually useful, but still there are parts that are interesting.

Yeah, the required class was explicitly macro. The parts of it that were useful and/or interesting could, I think, be condensed into a two-page textbook and a single one-hour lecture. I vaguely recall reading about what was taught in the micro class and wishing I could take it instead; it was, if not actually interesting, at least much less dull than macro. Although, if the same professor taught it, I have no doubt he could cure just as many cases of insomnia.

[locallunatic]

@HardwareGeek said:

@locallunatic said:

@HardwareGeek said:

I simply cannot understand why anyone would study Economics voluntarily.

Some of us find parts of it interesting. Mostly things like micro, game theory, and behavioral because those are actually useful, but still there are parts that are interesting.

Yeah, the required class was explicitly macro.

Ah, yeah that would do it. Macro is the reason I minored rather than grabbing a second major in it.

[HardwareGeek]

@locallunatic said:

@HardwareGeek said:

@locallunatic said:

@HardwareGeek said:

I simply cannot understand why anyone would study Economics voluntarily.

Some of us find parts of it interesting. Mostly things like micro, game theory, and behavioral because those are actually useful, but still there are parts that are interesting.

Yeah, the required class was explicitly macro.

Ah, yeah that would do it. Macro is the reason I minored rather than grabbing a second major in it.

It was a macro class being used as an intro/overview of econ. I remember, like, 3* things from the class; ironically, 2 of them are actually concepts from micro that somehow crept into the material.

[locallunatic]

@HardwareGeek said:

@locallunatic said:

@HardwareGeek said:

@locallunatic said:

@HardwareGeek said:

I simply cannot understand why anyone would study Economics voluntarily.

Some of us find parts of it interesting. Mostly things like micro, game theory, and behavioral because those are actually useful, but still there are parts that are interesting.

Yeah, the required class was explicitly macro.

Ah, yeah that would do it. Macro is the reason I minored rather than grabbing a second major in it.

It was a macro class being used as an intro/overview of econ. I remember, like, 3* things from the class; ironically, 2 of them are actually concepts from micro that somehow crept into the material.

Filed under: *Not counting Adam Smith‚ I remember his name but absolutely nothing else about him., The 3rd is TANSTAAFL., Cursèd be foul CS and its vile tag mangling!

Wow, that doesn't sound like an intro class in anything but name.

Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations which is where terms like "invisible hand" come from; but it sounds like you at least got the single most important thing in all of econ in your third.

[HardwareGeek]

@locallunatic said:

Wow, that doesn't sound like an intro class in anything but name.

It wasn't an intro class in name; it was just being used as one: "In order to be considered an educated person, you must understand something about economics. [Ok, sounds reasonable.] In order to achieve this, you will be subjected to the torture of this one-semester class called Macroeconomics. [Oh, dear $deity, no.]"

[morbiuswilters]

@dhromed said:

 So why isn't economics officially a branch of psychology?

It should be. And psychology, sociology, etc. are not sciences at all (although some fools try to classify them as such, to gain undeserved credibility.)

Edit: I partially retract. Psychology should be a branch of economics. And most psychology is literally just bullshit. But so it most economics, so they belong together.

[morbiuswilters]

@mott555 said:

@Snooder said:

@dhromed said:

 So why isn't economics officially a branch of psychology sociology?

 

FTFY

(or sociopathy, if you're the kind of guy who takes economics just to get a job on wall street)

Sociology! I remember that class in college. Every lecture was a solid hour of "Bush does crack cocaine in the White House and pot should be legal, and I used to be a cop so I should know."

I had sociology in high school. Ninety minutes of the teacher rambling on about his personal views. At least he wasn't stridently political, despite being a lefty.

Oh, and one time he made the German foreign exchange student cry by talking about the Holocaust. She ran into the hallway. It was awesome.

[morbiuswilters]

@HardwareGeek said:

Filed under: *Not counting Adam Smith‚ I remember his name but absolutely nothing else about him.

Adam Smith was bad-ass. He was the first person who thought economics should be about the observation and study of human economic behavior, and not about promoting your pet theory.

Unfortunately, he was also the last.

[morbiuswilters]

@HardwareGeek said:

@locallunatic said:

Wow, that doesn't sound like an intro class in anything but name.

It wasn't an intro class in name; it was just being used as one: "In order to be considered an educated person, you must understand something about economics. [Ok, sounds reasonable.] In order to achieve this, you will be subjected to the torture of this one-semester class called Macroeconomics. [Oh, dear $deity, no.]"

You're lucky your professor wasn't an avowed Marxist. Those people are fucking insane.