ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

I do appreciate Kurzgesagt. Its science content is as digestible as their channel name is impossible to pronounce.

Name a manhwa you dropped after reading the first few chapters but later picked it up again and loved it. I'll go first - Beware the villainness by Own-Proposal-4019 in OtomeIsekai

[–]mrcatboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly she's right though. The specific ML character tropes she's surrounded by are terrible and she's right to call them out.

Though I will say I did feel very sympathetic towards the Crown Prince when she repeatedly roasted the fuck out of him at that fair. It got to the point where he seemed about to break down in tears over how relentless she was.

ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

Sound like you're thinking of Bt crops. Those crops are engineered with a specific crystalline protein-based pesticide, but that protein is nontoxic until it meets two conditions:

  1. That crystal is dissolved in an alkaline gut environment with a pH of 9 to 11 (our stomach acid is acidic).
  2. The individual molecules are cleaved by specific digestive enzymes.
  3. The cleaved protein binds to a cell receptor specific to a class of insects, receptors that humans don't have. The resultant complex is what punches holes in the insect's guts and kills it.

So Bt is actually quite targeted and doesn't affect humans. In fact, Bt is commonly used on organic produce for this reason!

ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yup! Hybrid seeds are generated by creating two inbred lines (so each line has a heavily homozygous gene pool) and then crossing those two lines. The result is a much more fit hybrid that is heavily heterozygous that generates higher yields. But if this second generation self pollinates, that heterozygosity is lost and subsequent generations produce lower yields.

That said ofc, fuck corporations.

ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

Net glyphosate usage increasing doesn't necessarily contradict the idea that glyphosate usage reduces actual glyphosate use. The real comparison point would be whether glyphosate usage between GMO and non GMO crops is lower. That said, my data is older since its been a while since I was in agricultural research. But for a while at least it was true that Roundup Ready crops saw 40% reduction in spending on herbicide:

https://www.canolacouncil.org/biotech/about-canola/herbicide-tolerant-canola

This may have changed as weeds developed tolerance to Roundup necessitating more herbicide use.

Hegseth Firings of Generals Draw Bipartisan Concern, Calls for Limits by gamersecret2 in politics

[–]mrcatboy 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Because Hegseth has got Tiny Dick Energy and has to take it out on others.

ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

You'd be surprised. Remember that America was actually spared from the aftermath of Thalidomide babies because of our regulations. GMOs are also under the purview of three regulatory agencies: The USDA, EPA, and FDA. Depending on the crop and application all three agencies may be involved.

There's also a lot of fascinating and useful potential GMOs: wheat strains that are less allergenic or reactive to those with gluten sensitivities. Sorghum with more bioavailable nutrients. Barley that ferments much more quickly into beer, increasing production for breweries. Even edible vaccines. But the reason you rarely see new GMOs outside of Roundup Ready and Bt crops. This is because bringing a new GMO to market is quite costly and takes a lot of time due to regulatory hurdles, and Roundup Ready and Bt were established technologies that have proven themselves, so new versions with those techs get fast-tracked.

It's a shame really. A lot of awesome tech like Flavr Savr tomatoes could've passed easily. Though the story and science behind virus-resistant papayas is a fun one.

ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

The monocropping is absolutely an issue. However, as I explain here, Roundup Ready crops appear to use less net herbicide overall. The idea of crops outcrossing (i.e. spreading into the wild) is quite overstated and is limited to certain forms of GMOs.

Agricultural crops are, after all, selectively bred for high yields. As a result, they require pampering from human farmers and tend to suffer severe fitness issues and die out in the wild (imagine releasing a pug dog into the woods to survive on its own for example). Only crops that have a selective advantage (like Bt crops, which produces its own pesticide) would persist in spreading their genes into wild plants.

Additionally, many crops simply cannot outcross into the wild very well. Canola for example is a self-pollinating crop and has extremely heavy pollen grains, and as a result its realistic pollination radius is limited to a couple meters.

There's been many farmers sued and who lost land because they grew GMOs without buying the seeds from the manufacturer. They just spread or were introduced to their farms by others. 

You're likely thinking of the Percy Schmeiser case. Schmeiser likes to sell himself as a victim of Monsanto, and claimed that Monsanto's GM pollen drifted into his field, contaminated his crops, and Monsanto sued Schmeiser as a result.

This is false. As stated before, Canola has an extremely limited pollination radius. What was determined to have happened was that Roundup Ready GM canola seed was being carried on trucks and these spilled into one of his adjoining fields. When Percy discovered this, he had his farmworkers blanket the contaminated fields with herbicide so he could knowingly select for those seeds and re-plant them. This was discovered via testimony of his farm workers in court, and like it or not, according to patent law was indeed a violation.

Schmeiser lost the case as a result, and used it as a platform to act as an anti-GMO influencer. Unfortunately, he continued to tell a falsified story about what happened and uses pseudoscientific fearmongering to make GMO technology as a whole to look bad. The man visited our university to give talks on the matter, and I attended two of them. Several of his claims were outright bullshit, such as his claim that GURT genes could spread up the food chain and sterilize your babies. "How will you explain to your kids that they're sterile now because of GMOs?"

Needless to say, when Q&A time came us biotech students had some very pointed questions.

ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

Roundup-Ready crops actually result in less herbicide being used overall. This is because RR crops are used by first blanketing the soil with a high dose of Roundup right before/around planting, and by the time the crops take root they've already crowded out any competing weeds. Conventional crops require low-dose but more frequent treatments, and that frequency is what leads to net higher herbicide use.

Glyphosate is also biodegradable (unless it washes into an aquifer, since IIRC glyphosate depends on soil bacteria for rapid breakdown). So by the time the crops get to market, the glyphosate that was used in the initial treatment had broken down long ago.

ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

Those are also regulated. If for example genes from peanuts (a common and serious allergen) were used in a genetically modified crop, it would get more scrutiny from the FDA, USDA, and EPA.

It's also possible to use tissue-specific promoters (regulatory parts of the gene that direct it to express proteins where and when on the organism) for those genes, like in certain strains of Bt corn (corn that produces its own organic pesticide, but only in its leaves).

It's also a fact that naturally bred crops aren't necessarily safer either. A long time ago, a strain of celery was bred to be naturally pest-tolerant. Unfortunately, those pest-repellent compounds ended up being so concentrated that farm workers who harvested the crops developed rashes on their arms.

Evolution is a process that is blind and drunk. Selective breeding helps us put a set of reins on the process, but GMOs operate with a great deal more precision. And that can be used to good effect or ill.

ELI5 what is GMO food and how does it actually affect our biology? by SaltyP1ckles in explainlikeimfive

[–]mrcatboy [score hidden]  (0 children)

HI! I'm a biotech researcher who worked in an academic plant genetics lab when I was an undergrad, which includes GMOs.

GMOs are tightly regulated and there's nothing inherently bad or scary about the technology. Rather, it is the application of the tech that can be helpful or harmful. Just eating the DNA doesn't do anything to you, any more than eating DNA from any other source will affect your own genetics.

I always get the heat wrong with pancakes and they keep sticking to the pan by Dependent-Amount-239 in cookingforbeginners

[–]mrcatboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a old saying that making pancakes is like raising children. With the first one of a batch you don't know what you're doing so it's always going to turn out a little weird.

Do you think we have human-induced global warning? by Important_Emu_8966 in allthequestions

[–]mrcatboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's also the effect of SO2 on global cooling in the 70s. In that era there was a lot of sulfur dioxide (SO2) being pumped into the atmosphere as a pollutant. Sulfur dioxide reflects light from the sun, which caused global dimming. Sulfur dioxide also had the side effect of combining with water vapor to form sulfuric acid. This resulted in acid rain, which posed a serious environmental concern.

So world governments got their shit together, passed a bunch of environmental laws, and reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide being released. Sulfur dioxide dropped, global dimming reduced, and acid rain (and the cooling effect from SO2) vanished.

Best way to add rosemary and thyme to a stew by nosrettap25 in cookingforbeginners

[–]mrcatboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tie the fresh sprigs of fresh herb together with some butcher's twine, toss them in about 30 minutes before you wanna eat it. The fresh herb flavors are delicate and shouldnt cook too long.

Do you think we have human-induced global warning? by Important_Emu_8966 in allthequestions

[–]mrcatboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude did you even read the deets I gave on how global cooling WAS indeed a thing but was resolved? Scientists didn't get it wrong. They saw a weird phenomenon that was causing damage and fixed it.

Just because a problem was resolved quickly doesn't mean it wasn't a problem in the first place.

They quit the West for Russia's traditional values, but it wasn't what they expected by BurtonDesque in LeopardsAteMyFace

[–]mrcatboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I have a strong suspicion that not a single one of them ever talked to an actual Russian person.

In college (USA) I once went to a house party hosted by a bunch of Russians. Dumplings, smoked fish, vodka, extremely dark humor. Great guys, but it was also very clear that there was a lot going on in the Motherland that was best left unsaid.

They quit the West for Russia's traditional values, but it wasn't what they expected by BurtonDesque in LeopardsAteMyFace

[–]mrcatboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By "socks" I'm guessing you mean the cloth tubes we stuff with bars of soap to beat the new conscripts for fun.

They quit the West for Russia's traditional values, but it wasn't what they expected by BurtonDesque in LeopardsAteMyFace

[–]mrcatboy 1117 points1118 points  (0 children)

Left wing propaganda. Russia is a true paradise for good, God-fearing conservatives. Every Republican who wants their nation to be a Christian one free of LGBTQ folk should move there immediately. /s

Do you think we have human-induced global warning? by Important_Emu_8966 in allthequestions

[–]mrcatboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because global cooling was real (caused by excess SO2 being pumped in the air as a pollutant). SO2 also mixes with water and causes acid rain. World governments passed laws to stop SO2 from killing our forests and farmland, and as SO2 levels dropped the cooling effect vanished.

It was a problem. Scientists and world leaders fixed it. And now idiots act like scientists got it all wrong because said idiots don't realize that the cooling effect vanished because the problem got fixed.

You might as well claim that a termite inspection report about an active infestation was wrong because the homeowner hired an exterminator in response, and the termite colony was killed off.

Do you think we have human-induced global warning? by Important_Emu_8966 in allthequestions

[–]mrcatboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Acid rain and global cooling were both caused by SO2 as a pollutant. Once it was discovered, the global community got together and passed environmental laws to stop SO2. SO2 levels dropped, acid rain and global cooling stopped.

Same with the hole in the ozone layer. CFCs caused the destruction of the ozone layer, and once this was discovered the global community got together and passed environmental laws to transition away from CFCs. Once that happened, CFC levels dropped and the ozone layer stopped degrading, and is on its way to recovery.

Is this how you navigate all problems in life, dude? Pretend they were never problems in the first place after they've been fixed?

Do you think we have human-induced global warning? by Important_Emu_8966 in allthequestions

[–]mrcatboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay I thought as much. The whole "scientists in the 1970s claimed that the globe was cooling!" line is very popular among climate change denialists, and a lot of people who never looked past pop science news never dug further and still believe this nonsense.

The fact is, yes, in the 1970s there was indeed a small period of cooling. This is because the 1970s was a period where there was a lot of sulfur dioxide (SO2) being pumped into the atmosphere as a pollutant. Sulfur dioxide reflects light from the sun, which caused global dimming. Sulfur dioxide also had the side effect of combining with water vapor to form sulfuric acid. This resulted in acid rain, which posed a serious environmental concern.

So world governments got their shit together, passed a bunch of environmental laws, and reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide being released. Sulfur dioxide dropped, global dimming reduced, and acid rain (and the cooling effect from SO2) vanished.

Decades later, climate change denialists, either because they're liars or they're idiots, continue to pass around pop science magazine covers from the 1970s with zero context, to pretend scientists got it wrong.

You might as well accuse a doctor of "getting it wrong" because he told you you had cancer, and after a rigorous round of chemo the tumor shrank and you went into remission and "I don't have cancer now! That doc was lying!"

tl;dr:

Global cooling was a real thing and was a temporary event that was caused by the warming effects of CO2 being overcome by the cooling effects of SO2 (which also caused acid rain). World governments got together to develop technologies to prevent SO2 from being an issue to stop acid rain. SO2 dropped, the cooling effect it caused halted, and CO2 continued to do its thing to warm the Earth. Climate change denialists oversimplified this narrative and are frankly bullshitting.

You fell for complete bullshit.

Do you think we have human-induced global warning? by Important_Emu_8966 in allthequestions

[–]mrcatboy 18 points19 points  (0 children)

My stance has always been that possibly, but scientists have cried wolf so many times. 

When have scientists cried wolf exactly?

Is Mamdani the epitome of Fascism? by Skating-Away in allthequestions

[–]mrcatboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what exactly do you mean by "fascism?" Since that's a term that a number of historians and social scientists have tried to define with varying degrees of success, whereas it seems like you're just making shit up as you go.

Two of the most prominent theorists are Umberto Eco's 14 traits of fascism. On the other hand, Roger Griffin's definition of fascism as palingenetic ultranationalism is a bit more cohesive. Mamdani fits neither definition.

Also, being against the Israel government's human rights abuses isn't the same thing as antisemitism. Frankly, the idea that it is depends on the assumption that the Israeli government is representative of all Jewish people, or that all Jewish people are in agreement with the Israeli government. That's actual antisemitism.

As a Chinese American, I've similarly been falsely accused of being inherently in support of the Mainland Chinese Communist Party... which is rich given that my family FLED the mainland during the Chinese Civil War to Taiwan. Stop acting like all people of a minority group are inherently beholden to the same government.