primroot

I had in mind what you are saying re CFCs, and more specifically that the approach was not "messing up first and cleaning after." The harmful practice was discontinued early enough to allow natural recovery processes to take place. So this is a counterexample to the claim that people "mess up first clean after." I still agree that, unfortunately, Climate Change so far does not seem to provide such counterexample.

Abusing its power to exceptionally shield itself from international justice, while at the same time practicing extraterritorial judicial reach, is also not a good sign of being a net force for good.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc/u-s-imposes-visa-... https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu...

I am not so sure about the "as a consequence" part. If people engineer a fix, it is because the problem is grave enough that it calls for a fix, on the other hand it might be so grave that engineering anything beyond simple stick and stone tools might become impossible.

The problem we are talking about here is in the geologic scale of things (250 million years without a precedent perhaps, going back to the Permian-Triassic extinction event), which means our mental models and analogies become dubious.

And as for people messing up first and cleaning after, I'm not so sure either. That's not the way things turned out to be with the Ozone Layer Hole.

10 years ago I was attending a US college with a Student Visa. The few times I was returning from my home country I would bring only a backpack with barely anything inside it (all the clothes I needed were already in my dorm). This was cause for suspicion and further questioning each time.

You are right then. I missed it because I was focusing on the way the Italian judiciary handled the case afterwards, which indicates the clandestine nature of the co-operation.

Where is the cooperation here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case I really fail to see it.

Besides, if the person really means it, they probably have no idea what "every food on the planet" means.

The result of industrialized food production and distribution has been a steady ongoing loss of food diversity. You can search for the stats from the FAO. I believe it's 75% of food diversity gone in the last century. 12 species providing for 75% of the world's nutritional needs.

The current system does not have food diversity as its goal, let alone taste or nutrition. It does a good job at nourishing the pockets of big businesses, that have an interest in turning all manner of food production and distribution into economies of scale by commoditizing (as in "commoditize your complements") the product. Uniformity and shelf-life win, farmers lose.

I've seen all this happen right where I live (Panama). Tasteless tomatoes, thanks to having Nestle as the main buyer. A local cultivar of Dioscorea (Yam) almost gone, when Frito Lay's told farmers what cultivar they wanted, which exposed the local cultivar to a disease. Countless edible plants and fruits, better suited for the climate and environment, have become simply unknown to people, as cattle farming took over thanks to the introduction of herbicides (it's also destroying the Darien rainforest, and violently displacing indigenous communities, btw). I could go on and on. Meanwhile, you have technicians (Ingenieros Agronomos) talking about such great achievements as tropicalized potatoes. It makes me think of the Great Irish Famine.

So there you have it, food from all around the planet, and the whole planet producing mostly the same. We are going full circle from abundance to scarcity. You have to then question people inferring rather unfoundedly that it is the abundance of food (along a sedentary lifestyle) what is driving the obesity-related chronic disease pandemic. You have to wonder what is abundance. Mindlessly following the commoditization trend has driven us to unquestioningly counting food only by such fungible measures as USD, kg, and calories, as if humans fed on food like cars feed on gas. And this brings us to that process that I think is parallel to the commoditization of food: the turning of humans into machines.

This reminds me of the Summer's memo [0]:

This does not even follow from the parent comment. I quote:

" it's not only the very poor, it's also in front or in gardens of villa's in those countries. "

I live in Panama, which might have higher per capita GDP than some of those countries, but it still has high income inequality. I have been to neighborhoods with small houses, no glass windows, and no painted walls, all markers of low income, given the somewhat americanized consumption habits of the middle class population. The worst you would see is that they burn their trash, because no one is coming to pick it. They have gardens will plants, both for food and decoration. People with higher income just buy more land, a grass mower, and irrigate their grass in the dry season. So, I see this behavior as a matter culture. Clearly in neither case are people "too occupied with bare survival" but neither has a cold-minded science-based idea of what it means to care for one's surroundings.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo

Ever heard of systemic pesticides?

"Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests. A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. With insecticides and most fungicides, this movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result. Systemic insecticides, which poison pollen and nectar in the flowers, may kill bees and other needed pollinators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

This, a thousand times. Besides, I recall someone saying (I think it was Bruce Schneier) that the way technology is making privacy something that cannot be taken for granted is similar to a process of pollution, in that the small effects accumulate until they become more visible in the future.

I think the analogy is even more appropriate, because the general attitude to pollution (especially Climate Metldown) seems to display that same cognitive mechanism you mention. There are the small cumulative effects, the ways in which taking any meaningful measure would uncomfortably interfere with our habits. The social fabric has just molded itself to the absurd reality, and our comfort and complicity is what makes the absurdity inspire oblivion and indifference instead of alarm and indignation. And then one day, unbreathable air, food insecurity, and nominal democracy become facts of life, and the dogma of progress (rather than progress itself) is what remains a constant.

Somewhat unrelated, but doesn't this principle apply very often in agriculture? I can see this as one of the reasons why only 12 plant species provide 75% of world food. [0] I should say I take it as evident that raw food is only a fungible commodity insofar as it adapts to market needs (which are not necessarily immediate consumer needs).

[0] http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5609e/y5609e02.htm

The first thing I recalled after learning about this case, was the case of Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton [0].

I have heard arguments in the past for this kind of censorship. In my country (Panama) the closest thing is called "reserva del sumario," (secrecy of the proceedings) but there is no way enforce it legally against parties not involved in the trial afaiu. The most the former chief prosecutor (of a very corrupt governement) was able to call on the main journalistic association to remind journalists of their dury to respect the secrecy of the proceedings.

I stand in favor of not limiting freedom of expression. We should not limit ourselves to framing the issue as one of free expression vs a free trial (or a free election, since I just mentioned a Latin American country). Risking being too optimistic, I think that instead of framing the issue as one overexposed potentially false suspicions or opinions, one should see it as one of underexposed relevant opinions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Chamberlain-Creighton

Speaking of outside companies...

"It is as part of this PR campaign that Bin Salman’s visit should be viewed. In exchange for cash, elite universities offer the veneer of a progressive agenda. For instance, Bin Salman’s foundation, MiSK, was accepted as a “member company” to MIT’s Media Lab in 2017, which requires a minimum annual contribution of $250,000 (with a three-year commitment) to the lab. In return, MiSK receives access to the lab’s personnel, technology, and intellectual property." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/30/elite-...

So this is how cool and forward-thinking MBS is. Now the prince of KSA supports organizations handing out disobedience awards. Who would have thought?

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/30/elite-...

Thanks. As the article states, Smith was clearly not some sort of proto-left-wing intellectual. Here is the source of your quote http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS4.html#IV.I.10

Evidently, Smith was unfamiliar with golf courses. I see the whole paragraph (of your quote) as being even more detached from today's reality than his oft-cited quote regarding famine and government.

Smith does not seem to be a private-propery-idealist as almost anyone in the mainstream today. Take this passage for example, also from book V.

"Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and*23 extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days labour, civil government is not so necessary.

Civil government supposes a certain subordination. But as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property. "

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN20.html

I'm wondering what other HN users think of the merits of reducing the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio as an alternative to aspirin (in certain cases).

Aspirin works by irreversibly inactivating the COX enzyme [0], which is involved the Arachidonic Acid Cascade [1], which at the same time is affected by the aforementioned essential fatty acid ratio.

COX enzyme inactivation supresses the production of thromboxanes, which explains your bleeding.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid_interacti...

Edit: Added last parragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid_interacti... . Some recommended keywords that are not mentioned in the article: inflammation, essential fatty acids (EFA), and the Arachidonic Acid Cascade.

A feature that significantly distinguishes modern diets, especially after the advent of "vegetable" oils and grain-fed meat, is the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 (the two types of EFA).

Aspirin works by irreversibly inactivating the cyclooxigenase enzyme, which is involved in the Arachidonic Acid Cascade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin

Edit: Added last parragraph.

"Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016201341...

The issue of yields is also relevant. Here is a report from 2014. The original page has been changed.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

"While the target level of beta-carotene in the grain was attained, average yield was unfortunately lower than that from comparable local varieties already preferred by farmers."

Do you know any rice cultivars, to which Golden Rice genes have been added without a decrease in yields in regions where Vit. A deficiency is currently a problem (e.g. the Philippines)?

> The modern sedentary lifestyle with enormous quantities of extra calories at our fingertips is quite a recent invention of humanity.

Some people have concluded otherwise. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/debunking-t...

Also we can blame caloric intake, but we should also look at the nutritional quality of the sources of calories and whatever other elements might negatively affect the capacity to become satiated.

Living in a tropical country (Panama) I'm always bemused at people's conception of apples as a staple of a healthy diet, when at the same time we can easily find Bromelia Pinguin growing wild in the driest regions of the country, a fruit containing at least 10 times as much vitamin C.

Yes, and the article doesn't tell us how Soyuzmultfilm cartoons were dictated by government policy rather than influenced by a well established "unofficial religion."

The article seems to imply that any work of art created within the context of an organization must be regarded as propaganda by default. "The Mystery of the Third Planet" was produced by a studio, which according to wikipedia enjoyed an "unprecedented degree of artistic freedom" [1]. Yet this film is mentioned right after the remark that "children were a key target of propaganda with space-themed films and cartoons cranked out for a younger audience." I don't really disagree with this way of categorizing certain art as propaganda but I'd like to see the same line of thought applied more often to Hollywood.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuzmultfilm#History_during_t...

The only vertical farming I see as part of a sustainable future is Agroforestry. As for the rest of vertical farming, their wastefulness becomes even more evident once one considers that the nutritional profile of its production is often comparable (or even inferior) to that of weeds.

For an alternative framework (rather than an alternative technique) take a look at Agroecology http://www.srfood.org/en/report-agroecology-and-the-right-to...

I cannot access that link, but I think it's important to note that the subject of the publication is mainly cereal grains (seeds of gramineae). Other sources of carbohydrates (such as root vegetables) have very different nutritional profiles (e.g. many are a source vitamin C). Chris Masterjohn has written about the consumption of starch among hunter-gatherers.

And then, there's the (IMO certain) outcome that, when we come to "really understand," we'll realize that "eating a variety of foods, both fresh and cooked" is the most economically viable option for keeping optimal health, when there is access to a healthy natural environment.

> I cringed because, in my adult mind, having "daily Nerf wars" at work means they really don't know what the word "fun" is supposed to mean.

This brought to my mind some scenes of the film Inside Job (those that included among other things a psychologist). :)

What is the point of arguing who owns what? Does that refute the idea that people who are most directly affected should have a greater say?

Also the world hardly operates according to that concept of owning that you mention with regards to environmental protection. Is the international community pledging resources to support countries that choose to protect the environment instead of seeking so-called economic development? See for example this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuní-ITT_Initiative

I agree. Especially when those "cute" animals have long ceased to have any significant role in their ecosystem due to their reduced numbers. I think conservation efforts should primarily focus on the ecosystem not single species. In fact it is not uncommon for environmentalist organizations to follow this approach, to the apparent detriment of the ability to stir up any interest among the wider public. Biological corridors? Mangrove forests? Too many humans take this as faceless abstract technical entities, even when their face is more often than not also a human face.