Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 568

On January 11 2017 21:54 Pontual wrote:
Meh, I still think it's a thing worth the whole going to the past. And also think that in the right conditions one could have success. So yes, i honestly think that even with just 0,001% of the population educated i could spread the idea of education between men and women. Not that i would for sure make so woman and man are equals, but the ideology would have a foundation, so at least if there's no education in my period, perhaps in the next 150 years most leaders would think that education for all is something that should be pursued.
Imo it would be more game changer than gunpowder, agriculture upgrades and most scientific things you know, since i'm guessing explaining math, biology and physics would just not reach enough people.

On January 11 2017 22:10 Simberto wrote:
The problem is that in a medieval society, men and women are very much not equal. They both have very different responsibilities.

With high infant and child mortality, and a high chance of dying in childbirth, you require women to spend a lot of time being pregnant so the total numbers don't decline. No matter what you do, men will never be able to do that. And one man can impregnate a bunch of women if necessary, so you can use men for more dangerous tasks, because it doesn't matter that much if they don't come back. If you lose half your men in one generation for some reason, it doesn't matter that much. If you lose half your women, your total population is cut in half.

The biggest gamechangers are things that give people free time. Education sounds nice and all. But if you have to spend literally all of your time on fields or starve, you don't have time to pursue an education.

As history shows, the most important thing you can do is reduce the amount of labor that is absolutely necessary to survive. This gives people free time that they can use to further society, and free resources that they can risk on gambles that may pay off.

In my opinion, this is the effect that most drove the rapid advance of human civilisation in the last few centuries. You suddenly have a lot of people who have a lot of free time that they don't need to use to provide for basic necessities like food or clothing.

This is true both for men and women. I once heard someone say that the washing machine was the one thing that most importantly advanced womens right. Because suddenly women have time to do things, instead of constantly being busy washing clothes.

So if you want to speed up human civilisation, figure out something that makes a time-consuming task that lots of people have to perform daily less time consuming. Farming, washing, weaving, whatever. Give them free time, and they will advance civilisation.

Abstract

Glyphosate tolerant genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 was assessed as ‘substantially equivalent’ to its isogenic counterpart by a nutrient composition analysis in order to be granted market approval. We have applied contemporary in depth molecular profiling methods of NK603 maize kernels (sprayed or unsprayed with Roundup) and the isogenic corn to reassess its substantial equivalence status. Proteome profiles of the maize kernels revealed alterations in the levels of enzymes of glycolysis and TCA cycle pathways, which were reflective of an imbalance in energy metabolism. Changes in proteins and metabolites of glutathione metabolism were indicative of increased oxidative stress. The most pronounced metabolome differences between NK603 and its isogenic counterpart consisted of an increase in polyamines including N-acetyl-cadaverine (2.9-fold), N-acetylputrescine (1.8-fold), putrescine (2.7-fold) and cadaverine (28-fold), which depending on context can be either protective or a cause of toxicity. Our molecular profiling results show that NK603 and its isogenic control are not substantially equivalent.

This study is the first and most detailed multi-omics characterization of a widely commercialized GMO crop and its isogenic counterpart. In conclusion, our integrative statistical and bioinformatics analysis allowed us to suggest a mechanistic link between the proteome and metabolome alterations observed and the insertion of a particular transgene. The transformation process and the resulting expression of a transgenic protein cause a general disturbance in the GM plant and it is clear that NK603 maize is markedly different from its non-GM isogenic line at the proteome and metabolome levels. In addition, our data correlates with previous studies, which observed higher amounts of ROS that act as free-radicals promoting oxidative stress in those transgenic plant materials. We also confirm a metabolic imbalance in energy and carbohydrate metabolism. Although a clear mechanistic link between alterations in the GM feed and the possible health effects following long-term consumption of this product remains to be established, the evidence we present clearly shows that NK603 and non-GM isogenic maize are not substantially equivalent and the nutritional quality of GM feed might be hampered by metabolic imbalances related to plant energy and stress metabolism.

On January 11 2017 23:05 JimmiC wrote:
With the whole power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely thing. I wonder how long a person with good intentions to change the world for the betterment of all people who end out just bettering it for themselves (with some spin off possibly for society.)

On January 12 2017 00:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:


I'd say about 2-3 days. That's about all it would take.

On January 12 2017 00:42 xM(Z wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

nothing comes out of talking about it imo so!, what do GMO buddies think about this: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37855
An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process ...

On January 12 2017 01:19 Uldridge wrote:


It's talking about a proteomic imbalance, and they aren't talking about other nutritional values. I don't have any issues with certain proteins being different, as long as you can maintain a certain nutritional value, not having too many ROS species and ofcourse, the polyamines can't be too abundant if you want to counteract carcinogenic effects.

However, that all being said, I'm actually all for an independent regulatory organ which controls all these GMO's that are claimed by companies to be completely safe. This paper could set something like this in motion. I'm also kind of sad that this paper came out, because the general public is going to be even more scared of the big bad GMO's, which are going to be our saving grace in times where global temperatures are peaking and to counteract certain pathogens.
However, if we don't care about our global population, we shouldn't really care about supercrops and just reduce it back to what lives in a natural equilibrium with what nature offers. GMO's should go through a similar process like drugs, where they need to go through a regulatory process before being offered on the market.

On January 12 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:


GMO research is not allowed to touch anything for 10 years, and then its 5 years of FDA regulations after that. And that's for each type of GMO. So when a company sells 100 different types of GMO products, that is 100 separate decade long studies before being put in front of the FDA.

In recent testimony before Congress, the FDA stated that it is “confident that the GE foods in the U.S. marketplace today are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”[1]

However, FDA does not itself test whether genetically engineered foods are safe. The FDA has repeatedly made this clear. As Jason Dietz, a policy analyst at FDA explains about genetically engineered food: “It’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to insure that the product is safe.”[2] Or, as FDA spokesperson Theresa Eisenman said, “it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the [GMO] food products it offers for sale are safe…”[3]

Nor does the FDA require independent pre-market safety testing for genetically engineered food. As a matter of practice, the agrichemical companies submit their own studies to the FDA as part of a voluntary “consultation.” Moreover, the FDA does not require the companies to submit full and complete information about these studies. Rather, as the FDA has testified, “After the studies are completed, a summary of the data and information on the safety and nutritional assessment are provided to the FDA for review.”[4]

That the FDA does not see the complete data and studies is a problem, according to a Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews article by William Freese and David Schubert:

the FDA never sees the methodological details, but rather only limited data and the conclusions the company has drawn from its own research….the FDA does not require the submission of data. And, in fact, companies have failed to comply with FDA requests for data beyond that which they submitted initially. Without test protocols or other important data, the FDA is unable to identify unintentional mistakes, errors in data interpretation, or intentional deception…[5]

At the end of the consultation, the FDA issues a letter ending the consultation. Here is a typical response from FDA, in its letter to Monsanto about its MON 810 Bt corn:

Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA…. as you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome [emphasis ours] and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.[6]

I don't have any issues with certain proteins being different

On January 12 2017 03:40 xM(Z wrote:
FDA does nothing: https://usrtk.org/the-fda-does-not-test-whether-gmos-are-safe/ it's about 13 years and $130mill per GMO seed from what i've read; you then send your test conclusion to FDA and they just let you market it saying it's your fault if people die.

@Uldridge - come on man one wrong protein signaling and you get Parkinson, diabetes or some chronic autoimmune disease; not to mention allergies or other degenerative disorders that only need a mismatch in protein shape and the body can't digest it or place it properly.

On January 12 2017 03:48 opisska wrote:
No, you come on - this what you wrote here is absurd nonsense. The "wrong protein" problem relates to proteins you body produces, based on your own genes. You do not eat protein to use it directly, but to break it into aminoacids and build you owm proteins from that. You could freely eat people with protein malformations with no risk of contracting those. The digestibility of a protein is virtually unchanged by details if its configuration.

On January 12 2017 03:48 opisska wrote:


No, you come on - this what you wrote here is absurd nonsense. The "wrong protein" problem relates to proteins you body produces, based on your own genes. You do not eat protein to use it directly, but to break it into aminoacids and build you owm proteins from that. You could freely eat people with protein malformations with no risk of contracting those. The digestibility of a protein is virtually unchanged by details if its configuration.

On January 12 2017 03:55 Uldridge wrote:

Actually no, you're generally correct, but Kuru, a prion disease, happens because of cannibalism. It's malformed protein from the brain I think which reproduces and developes to a disease stadium over a course of 10-20 years.
More about the disease found here