Counting on Season Four, Part 6

[backyard sylph]

4 hours ago, VeryNikeSeamstress said:

Ugh. I haven't seen the most recent episode, but seriously? The woman has had two babies very close together, and odds are she'll be pregnant with another soon. I understand the desire to stay healthy and active, but losing the baby weight between every pregnancy seems like a high order (especially considering how quickly she seems to get pregnant).

Yeah, and honestly, he might have done better to leave this topic off his whiteboard, but I don't really blame him for how he wiggled out of it.

[NotQuiteMotY]

On 7/27/2017 at 5:51 PM, meowfundiecatz said:

It's explained in the first book, but they didn't do sports aside from weekly broomball (that was free for a while). It was a decision to now have everyone pulled a different direction and to do everything as a family. I do believe it was also influenced by the Maxwells in "Keeping Your Child's Heart" to not play organized sports.

Because...? Heaven forbid someone spend time with someone different?

I get the money and time investment of even intramural stuff or games at a Y, but that's why most people don't have a dozen and a half kids.

On 7/27/2017 at 10:54 PM, Dubiousclaire said:

Jinger and Joy still come across as clingy girlfriends...hogging up the bed and pushing the guy to the edge...compensating for the lack of physical contact before marriage, and their stunted emotional and social development. It was heartening that the guys all seemed like they were trying to boost up the girls self confidence. 

I think that might also be called "heat-seeking missile" or "active sleeper" rather than "clingy." 

17 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

That's fine, you don't have to like it, and you're certainly not alone being uncomfortable with that idea, but to be clear, there's no scientific reason to support the idea that new things are bad.

Er, don't know about @Greendoor, but it's not so much that new things are bad but that we're still spraying toxic substances and we still don't know the long-term effects of inserting all-new genes, given that we're still realizing how much seemingly unrelated or junk genes can affect the organism they're altered in. There's a vast difference between that and "new things are bad!!!eleventy!"

[Rachel333]

2 hours ago, NotQuiteMotY said:

Er, don't know about @Greendoor, but it's not so much that new things are bad but that we're still spraying toxic substances and we still don't know the long-term effects of inserting all-new genes, given that we're still realizing how much seemingly unrelated or junk genes can affect the organism they're altered in. There's a vast difference between that and "new things are bad!!!eleventy!"

Well the post was that we're eating things that "never structurally used to exist," which is true of a lot of things and that alone doesn't mean those things are bad.

GMO's have been studied extensively and the ones we eat have been found to be safe. Again, this is the topic with the biggest difference between scientific and non-scientific opinion, even bigger than things like climate change and evolution. No one is required to agree with scientists, of course, but I think it says a lot if the vast majority of scientists agree GMO's are safe to eat, and I'm inclined to trust scientific consensus over other opinions. There are issues other than food safety, of course, but on the issue of safety there's virtually no debate among the scientific community.

Herbicides and pesticides are a different matter and have nothing to do with whether GMO's themselves are safe to eat.

On the topic of GMO's, scientists are working pretty hard on genetically modifying Cavendish bananas to resist the fungal disease Fusarium Wilt, which nearly destroyed the dominant banana strain back the 50's, the Gros Michel (supposedly this tasted better than our current bananas, and unless you lived in the 50's or earlier you have probably never tasted them), and is likely to wipe out our current banana crops if nothing changes. This would be devastating to the millions of people who depend on bananas for their livelihood and food and the best chance for preventing this (because it will happen, just like it did before, unless something changes) is probably genetically modifying the banana.

[apandaaries]

2 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

 

On the topic of GMO's, scientists are working pretty hard on genetically modifying Cavendish bananas to resist the fungal disease Fusarium Wilt, which nearly destroyed the dominant banana strain back the 50's, the Gros Michel (supposedly this tasted better than our current bananas, and unless you lived in the 50's or earlier you have probably never tasted them), and is likely to wipe out our current banana crops if nothing changes. This would be devastating to the millions of people who depend on bananas for their livelihood and food and the best chance for preventing this (because it will happen, just like it did before, unless something changes) is probably genetically modifying the banana.

To drift further off the thread, I just LOVE it when others know about the upcoming Bananapolcalypse.  I personally despise the Cavendish, but to lose them ALL is terribly destructive. For those interested in more info: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/get-ready-banana-fungus/356329/
On the flip side of the GMO argument, though, is the fact that we already DO have a lot of less famous varieties of every version of fruit and vegetable, and our insistence upon homogenous monocultures leads to a lot of significant problems.  All of our cultural favorites (apples, corn, soy, potatoes, etc) require a lot of pesticides and fertilizers since they're easy prey for insects who like to feed on them (imagine being a locust and discovering acres of your favorite corn -- of course you'd invite the whole family!) and all these same plants seek out the same nutrients in the soil, depleting it that much more quickly. 

All this to say, modern agriculture has given us a lot, but there's still a lot of room for reflection and change in our approach to the planet and its plants.

ETA: I'm also concerned about giving major corporations patents on genes. I have very little faith in large corporations in general, for a variety of reasons. Just as privatizing our water supply seems suspect (and has already had disastrous consequences in Flint), I also have concerns about genes and seed varieties being owned by corporations.

[Rachel333]

@amandaaries The banana issue is a great example of the problems with homogeneity!

I don't even like bananas but I've ended up doing a presentation on them in two different classes, plant systematics and then again for a fungal disease project in my mycology course, so I've started to care about them anyway.  I don't think I've tried any bananas but the Cavendish bananas, though, so maybe I'd like other varieties better. I'd love to try the Gros Michel if I ever get a chance.

[feministxtian]

"hogging the bed"...Mr Xtian and I have been together for just shy of 20 years. I'm STILL a bed hog. I end up sleeping diagonally across the bed, leaving Mr. Xtian just a little piece to curl up in. I also kick off the covers pretty much all the time. So, I don't think that necessarily means you're a stage 5 clinger, After almost 20 years, I think we're past that sort of thing. 

[melon]

I am a bed hog,and once asleep will try to take most of the covers.I have pushed Mr.Melon to one small piece of the bed,before,not realizing it.We have been married 37 years.We used to have a king size water bed,and that was better.But when we moved here,we bought a new bed,a queen,with a regular mattress..the water bed was old and I did not want to take it here.

[SapphireSlytherin]

10 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

I'm inclined to trust scientific consensus over other opinions

As a scientist-by-choice, I tend to agree, but remember:  scientific consensus once labeled Pluto a planet. Until it didn't.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

Mmmm bananas, I love everything banana, I would hate to have them disappear from the planet.  I've hear about the banana  extinction, I have no problems in tweaking foods, i have a problem with companies like Monsanto doing it, and promoting it.  Most large corporations only do things for profit Monsanto is particularly nasty.  

[HarryPotterFan]

1 hour ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

As a scientist-by-choice, I tend to agree, but caution everyone to remember:  scientific consensus once labeled Pluto a planet. Until it didn't.

I'm still pissed about Pluto...

[Rachel333]

2 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

As a scientist-by-choice, I tend to agree, but remember:  scientific consensus once labeled Pluto a planet. Until it didn't.

But they weren't wrong either way, that's just a matter of definitions.

At any rate, I tried to be careful to say "trust scientific consensus over other opinions," rather than just "trust scientific consensus" (though that's  generally true too), because you're right, scientists can be wrong! They're just less likely to be wrong about science-related issues than the general public.

[sawasdee]

We get a beautiful local variety of banana here, which is much smaller than I was used to in the UK, and sweeter. And in southern India I ate a variety that almost seemed flavoured with strawberries - absolutely delicious! Unfortunately, it began to rot within a day of being picked, so was only found in a very limited area.

Many  people are now trying to preserve a wider variety of fruits. Prince Charles apparently cultivates over a thousand varieties of apple on his estates! I'm glad that there a re people like this, as a kind of counterweight to agribusiness and the homogenising of our food.

[PainfullyAware]

To me the motive behind the research is important because it affects both what GMO technology is used for and the safety profile (of the industry overall). I think many people can agree that what Monsanto has invested GMO tech in isn't for the good of humanity's food security but for the profit of big agriculture. Making the livelihoods of farmers in developing countries harder because they have to buy seeds after planting the Monsanto crops that don't reproduce is just evil.

University researchers trying to save vital food or export crops is fine by me.

It's been 10 yrs since I studied this but isn't cross pollination with wild species the major environmental concern? And potential loss of biodiversity if GMO genes are rapidly selected for? Has that been entirely resolved? 

IMO, for profit research just doesn't lend itself to precautionary policies.

I also agree that in some cases breeding already existent varieties of the 1000s of local ones for desired traits might be better for long term biodiversity than splicing in foreign genes. I think seed banks will do more for our future food supply than GMO will but that's just me. 

[Rachel333]

23 minutes ago, PainfullyAware said:

Making the livelihoods of farmers in developing countries harder because they have to buy seeds after planting the Monsanto crops that don't reproduce is just evil.

Not that I'm a Monsanto fan, but this seems to be a myth. From an article (which isn't exactly kind to Monsanto either) posted earlier in the thread:

Quote

Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.

No, they'll germinate and grow just like any other plant. This idea presumably has its roots in a real genetic modification (dubbed the Terminator Gene by anti-biotech activists) that can make a plant produce sterile seeds. Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.

Now, biotech companies — and Monsanto in particular — do seem to wish that this idea were true. They do their best to keep farmers from replanting the offspring from GMOs. But they do this because, in fact, those seeds will multiply.

and

Quote

Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.

By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction.

This shift started with the rise of commercial seed companies, not the advent of genetic engineering. But Monsanto and GMOs certainly accelerated the trend drastically.

Edit: Also, since we seem to be repeating conversations, I thought I'd link to @LuckyShot's comment from earlier in the thread. I thought it was really helpful to get the perspective of an actual farmer!

[VelociRapture]

9 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

As a scientist-by-choice, I tend to agree, but remember:  scientific consensus once labeled Pluto a planet. Until it didn't.

Pluto will always be a planet. This is my hill and I WILL die on it! ELEVENTY!!!!!!!!  

[MadeItOut]

11 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

As a scientist-by-choice, I tend to agree, but remember:  scientific consensus once labeled Pluto a planet. Until it didn't.

This still makes me feel bad for Pluto. ...I know, accuracy and all, but still...

[Timetostoplurking]

I still think Pluto should be "Grandfathered in"!!!!

[Carm_88]

My mnemonic for remembering the planets has been totally spoiled because of the loss of Pluto. My Very Excellent Mother Just Sewed Uncle Ned's Pants. Now she's just sewing uncle Ned, that doesn't work!  

[choochoo]

Scientific consensus changes all the time, asbestos was considered safe, red dye in m&m's was safe, labotomies, all those medical lawsuit commercials, all things considered safe until further down the line when the true side effects and consequences are found. So I'll just put on my tin foil hat and say that as much as they say that our food is safe, that they have said that before. 

[KelseyAnn]

 

[CarrotCake]

37 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

My mnemonic for remembering the planets has been totally spoiled because of the loss of Pluto. My Very Excellent Mother Just Sewed Uncle Ned's Pants. Now she's just sewing uncle Ned, that doesn't work!  

I could think of something (starting with a S) else that your mother could do to uncle Ned, and it doesn't involve any pants being worn. 

[NeverBeenKissed]

42 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

My mnemonic for remembering the planets has been totally spoiled because of the loss of Pluto. My Very Excellent Mother Just Sewed Uncle Ned's Pants. Now she's just sewing uncle Ned, that doesn't work!  

Slapped Uncle Ned work for you? 

[backyard sylph]

Mon vieux tu m'a jeté sur une nouvelle planète is the + Pluto mnenomic I've seen in French, which confuses me a little; I suppose it's idiomatic. It does have a rhyme scheme, though, which is cool.

 

[CarrotCake]

41 minutes ago, NeverBeenKissed said:

Slapped Uncle Ned work for you? 

I liked my suggestion better 

[Carm_88]

10 minutes ago, CarrotCake said:

I liked my suggestion better 

Your suggestion could still include Pluto.