Let me tell you a little story about brassicas... broccoli, cabbage, bok choi, cauliflower, kohlrabi, canola oil. They're all this little guy.
Edit: Shit! I missed the exploding part.
Wait kohlrabi is related to broccoli. My mind is blow since I always think of it as a root vegetable(I know it’s not but still). Also I should add to my garden this year you don’t see it very often at store and my parents and grandparents loved it
Bananas are a similar one to corn too. Take something almost entirely inedible and cultivate it into something edible. Makes you wonder what convinced them to start.
Could be. We still don't know why people became sedentary farmers over hunter-gatherers, but it's happened many times in history.
Somehow, farming happened independently but around the same time around the world, between 8000 and 10000 years ago. This is everywhere from Europe to the Americas to New Guinea, all apparently independently of each other!
Saying we don't know is kinda dumb though, farming allows a population group to massively outperform a hunter gatherer group in terms of food and energy collected over a year, this allows them to have more children, and results in fewer deaths due to accidents while hunting. Farming also means fewer people are required for the same amount of food intake leaving more people free to do other things like develop tools and weapons
This all snowballs resulting in massive growth that allows the farming group to kill off or absorb any group that doesn't farm.
Same as natural selection/evolution, random choices/changes occur and the ones that lead to more children are the ones that last 1000s of years.
If I'm going off my own experience and behaviors, I would assume that laziness made it seem like simply planting things would take less effort than hunting down an animal without doing hard calculations on total calories in/out and without imagining what could go wrong with the "lazy" approach.
Probably used is processed in a dish or alcohol were the seeds didn't matter much, and over time farmers just made it easier to eat raw because "why not?"
"memorable people do memorable things. Followers are seldom remembered. The herd mentality is the killer of innovation. When appropriate, fuck a chair"
I remember the chair leg. It was obviously gross and dirty though. Door knobs and the round balls on top of bed posts (not the ceiling height kind, but the waist levels) were also fair game.
This is what these non GMO types always seem to forget: we've been modifying the crap out of everything for the past thousands of years. We're now justuch more efficient and smart about it.
They always picture someone in a lab with syringes and special machines to "modify DNA". Most of the time it's just a couple of potted plants under a lamp and a cotton swab. For fruit trees, you're pretty much just replacing a branch with another branch. Tape and staples might be involved.
Genetically modified plants is very different from selective breeding. Selective breeding mimics the natural evolution process, removing natural selection and replacing it with human decisions.
Using a separate root stock from your fruiting trees isn't genetic modification or breeding. It's just taking desirable size features from a root stock and growing your desired fruit from that. It still remains two different plant, with two different DNAs. The fruit would produce a child of the fruit tree, the same as if it was grown from seed. If the root tree was allowed to flower it would create a seed the same as if it were never grafted.
GMO are an extremely useful technology. When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population. The big problems with it are the consequences of it. Plant have been modified to tolerate high doses of weed killer, pesticides and fertilisers. These all help increase the productivity of the land, but the impacts are terrible on the local environment. Residual weed killer and pesticide may pose a risk to human as well.
Thanks. Comments above yours are a bit disingenuous, trying to bunch up intrusive lab techniques with selective breeding. While the definition of GMO is pretty vague, let's not pretend what Monsanto does is exactly the same as what Native Americans did.
It's not. It's more advanced, and yes, it's better.
You know, more technology becomes available, you use it to make life better for everyone. Monsanto execta can go pound dicks, but in principle, GMO food is perfectly fine, safe, and healthy. If anything, it'll be more healthy (more vitamins), more plentiful as new crops can withstand droughts better, etc. etc. etc.
So far the only counter argument to that that I've heard here is "nuh uh!"
When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population.
No. It won't.
The Bill Gates/Monsanto Bootlicker Brigade wants to pretend that it's (somehow) the actual foodcrops we have at our disposal that is (somehow) "flawed" and therefore requires unnecessary and (thoroughly patentable) meddling to "fix" - but, like all capitalist "solutions" to the problems caused by capitalism, it is merely a disasterous (but profitable) distraction.
And, of course, this is quite apart from the fact that the right-wing histrionics about "population growth" has turned out like all other right-wing histrionics - false. In a few decades' time, you'll see these same capitalist bootlickers peddling the dubious wonders of GMOs now whining about population shrinkage.
You realize that if you cross breed plants and come up with something new, you can patent it? The only point you actually made about GMO is not specific to GMO.
You realize that if you cross breed plants and come up with something new, you can patent it?
Yes... I can cross-breed plants. Hell, it's happening right now in my garden - cross-bred avocados, chillies and mokapanos. And since I'm not a parasitic organisation that only exist to make "red arrow go up" at the expense of everybody and everything on the planet, I can easily decide to simply give it all away for free.
After all - I don't benefit in any way when my fellow human beings live in a food insecure hellscape one paycheck away from starvation... but the parasites you lot are shilling for does.
And you sound pretty defensive about your stance for no good reason. Usually people are happy to expand on a thought but you just instantly resort to hostility
Also just looked up the definition of sealioning which boils down to trolling/harassment. If being asked a singular and simple question counts as harassment, then you've got some real problems when it comes to civil discussion
That's not what sealioning is, but the fact that you instantly resorted to crying 'sealion' that when asked to expound on your opinion shows you know it's not all that different from GMO in the first place.
This is what these non GMO types always seem to forget
This is what these nauseating pro-GMO types always seem to forget - developing a food crop for thousands of years to become useful to humanity is not the same thing as destroying food security through capitalist monocropping with the aid of a few dodgy genes injected into something that never needed it in the first place.
That's such a stupid statement I don't even know how to respond. Like I'd probably need to recreate several years of basic education before we could even be in the framework to consider a proper answer to your question. But which point you'd realize what a stupid premise it is.
Let's start here: why the hate for GMOs, when your problem is with capitalism?
The only reason we have GMO food crops in the first place is due to capitalist profiteering - nobody else has any need for it, genius. GMO food crops is a "solution" to a "problem" that never existed.
This has nothing to do with being a liberal. Scientists have said it's more sustainable to use GMOs because genetic manipulation is just a tool you can use for good or evil. We have a larger population than ever before and an environmental crisis to deal with. We need every technological advantage we can get. This problem isn't just about capitalism. Even if we get rid of capitalism and find we have enough food it's always better to use less land and cause less environmental damage by using pest resistant crops and nutritional crops like golden rice. That's assuming a revolution solves all food shortages despite the progress of climate change and pollution taking their toll on global food security.
Yes it does, liberal - you swallowing this liberalese hook, line and sinker has everything to do with your shitty liberal politics.
Scientists have said it’s more sustainable to use GMOs
Oh, really? And where is their evidence?
We have a larger population than ever before
So your shitty liberal politics have absolutely nothing to do with the right-wing histrionics you are regurgitating here? You do know that shills get paid for shilling, right? Are you getting yours?
it’s always better to use less land and cause less environmental damage
You mean that exact thing GMO foodcrops have abysmally failed at accomplishing so far?
Yes, while monocultures aren't great, GMO crops just speed up the process you mentioned first. Developing a food crop over thousands of years. If we can speed up that process and generate better crops, why wouldn't anyone want that?
The whole politics around GMOs and greedy companies is something I wish didn't exist, but GMOs is the way to go.
GMO crops just speed up the process you mentioned first.
No. It doesn't. It shits all over the process I mentioned first and then it gets called "progress" by techbros like you.
If we can speed up that process and generate better crops, why wouldn’t anyone want that?
Why would we want that when our food crops have already been developed for us over thousands of years before our food supply was hijacked by a class of profiteering parasites?
Are you listening to yourself?
but GMOs is the way to go.
No. It isn't. Unless you're a fan of everybody but the ultra-rich suffering famine - then it's pretty much a ready-made recipe for you.
Yeah, companies like Monsanto can suck dicks, but it's not the only one and even they make loads of advanced too. Blame the managers, not the biologists. Changes to tomato DNA makes it that they stay good much longer, those are the results of GMO, these are the things that people like you are trying to stop.
If the world is to survive the coming climate change disaster, we'll NEED GMO more than anything but we can rest easy knowing that people like you will be on the line to stop that and make sure we'll continue to go hungry.
You mean the people whose propaganda you are shilling here?
makes it that they stay good much longer,
Yeah... that's what's been holding our civilization back, genius - tomatoes that don't act according to what your techbro sci-fi fantasies dictate they should.
If the world is to survive the coming climate change disaster, we’ll NEED GMO
Right, right... it just so happens (totally coincidentally) that we will (allegedly) "need" the (alleged) "solution" the very capitalists who caused the problem in the first place happens to be selling.
What else do you believe, liberal? That Musk will reserve a spot for you on his Mars colony?
No one is mentioning Musk. He can go fuck himself on Mars, he's a pile of shit.
It's a harsh reality that food may become hard to produce with the climate crisis. Obviously it's large corporations to blame for that, but regardless of the blame, we may need to find new ways to farm depending on the climate.
I'd rather rely on science than "thousands of years of selective breeding" to achieve the same result.
He can go fuck himself on Mars, he’s a pile of shit.
Harsh words for a bunch of people who shares his ideology, methinks. You should'nt be. Either be nice to your idols - or critique him properly. You're a scientist, right? Shouldn't be too difficult for you.
Obviously it’s large corporations to blame for that,
Oh look... another "scientist" that completely fails to apply their "scientific mind" to political reality. Why is that a feature amongst scientists?
“thousands of years of selective breeding” to achieve the same result.
What kind of scientist doesn't recognize the scientific process in action? That is... unless you believe that it's only white people in lab coats who could possibly ever do "science."
Yes, because we don't already have the ability to do this, right? Our food crops is so "non-hearty" one has to wonder why we bothered with civilization at all.
Ah, yes... another "scientist" that wants to fix the climate crisis while completely ignoring the very thing that caused the climate crisis in the first place.
Do you think the Native Americans hundreds of years ago were wearing lab coats in clean rooms, CRISPRing fucking maize? Selective breeding is different than genetic modification. If you don't even know what it is or what you're talking about about AT ALL, to the point where you're conflating two completely dissimilar terms, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself.
Sorry, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about. It's essentially the same process, the GMO process is just faster. Also, it was done well before CRISPR was a big thing.
Iirc they did come up with the wheel as some children's toys involved it, but just didn't find a practical use for it because they didn't have beasts of burden to pull carts.
Take this with a grain of salt though because I have no idea where this trivia came from, it was just rattling away on my head.
A lot is used for animal feed, but we eat it in corn flakes, corn tortillas, and cornbread, plus it's where they get corn syrup which is in damn near everything. It's also processed into ethanol for both fuel and bourbon.
I have seen this image many times in my uni courses.
when european first reached the continent, the breeding of the plant was heavily advance, somewhat on the right side of thr image
this is one of the staple crops without which we could not survive.
the current varieties are so productive, but they require all modern farming methods, which can be impactful
if you want to apply biological agriculture, the mkst recent varieties are not a good pick, unless they actively support that
that image also serve as a quick explaination as to how our food systems evolved. When you read ancient folk tales, or even when you read about these plants in Biblical texts, imagine the one on the mid left. A small plant capable of supporting a limited amount of people
What I think is more interesting in terms of New World staples is what the indigenous people of the Andes did with the potato. Not only did the cultivate dozens of varieties, they also learned how to freeze-dry them for long-term storage. That's amazing for people who just barely entered the bronze age by the time of European contact.
I seem to remember Bill posting a iscorngrass.com (or similar) site on twitter back when the riff was first popular. I'm not finding it if it still exists.
It is true. They can trace the genetic lineage. The original plant isn't totally inedible, it's just less nutritious and harder to process. The same is true with wild grains in the Middle East. precursors of domesticated crops like wheat and barley were cultivated from wild grasses which produced less, had less nutrition and took more effort to process into flour.
It's wrong to say they were useless like OP suggests. They were very useful. It was a crop you could reliably grow and come back to harvest.
It also stored very well. The breeding was only to make it more useful. It was always useful.
Much of the breeding was just selection. The crops you would pick and store would be larger. So we it came to plant your were using the biggest largest variety every year. A few generations of this would produce notable results. Then even finer and more deliberate selection would be done.
The one all the way on the right is what used to be stock corn, meaning we gave it to stock animals or ground it into flower. It's not for human consumption the way it's eaten now. Actual maize is quite colorful and was modified for easier human consumption. Ever wonder why corn shits out whole? It's because America gave you our stock corn instead human corn. Congratulations America, I you played yourself.
You can see corn in your poop because the outside of the corn kernal is made of cellulose, a.k.a. dietary fiber, that stuff that's good for you because it isn't digested and you poop it out. Meanwhile the nutritious inside of the corn kernal has been easily digested by your body as normal.
The corn in your doody is not the nutritional content, it's the nutritional content's used empty packaging which helps clean the pathways on its way out.
Have we checked all food to see if exploding them makes them into something better or did we just stop with corn?
Let me tell you a little story about brassicas... broccoli, cabbage, bok choi, cauliflower, kohlrabi, canola oil. They're all this little guy. Edit: Shit! I missed the exploding part.
And yet I love broccoli but hate cauliflower.
Can you elaborate? Texture differences?
One tastes good, the other does not.
Ya cauliflower is nast, it stinks like sweaty ugly. Brocolli is delish and the texture is perfect for sauces.
I hate raw cauliflower but boiled with rice is pretty good. By far, it's my favorite vegetable to deep fry or air fry.
Roast that shit. Hot sheet tray, olive oil, salt, 400° till it's brown and crispy on the bottom. So good.
I'd try it deep fried.
Imma change your life bro, Mashed Cauliflower, like you do mashed potatoes, just change the potatoes for cauliflower, so fucking smooth and tasty
I've had it and I do not agree.
Wait kohlrabi is related to broccoli. My mind is blow since I always think of it as a root vegetable(I know it’s not but still). Also I should add to my garden this year you don’t see it very often at store and my parents and grandparents loved it
More than related. They're the same plant just different cultivars bread for different traits.
Looks similar to wild parsnip. But yeah, crazy how so many things can come from one species? Phylum? Can't remember the order of them.
Kevin Please Come Over For Gay Sex
https://youtu.be/EAy58a8qqDI?si=mT35A12Hbs_K8vHE
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species
Hahaha. Thanks for that. Been a while since I've watched Community, totally forgot about that part.
I literally used this this year for a test I took in a BioAnth course that I'm enrolled in.
I've been dipping stuff in hot oil for awhile now and it appears to work for most of them.
Potatoes Apples Marijuana Bananas Tulips Etc...
Bananas are a similar one to corn too. Take something almost entirely inedible and cultivate it into something edible. Makes you wonder what convinced them to start.
Starvation was probably a good motivator
Could be. We still don't know why people became sedentary farmers over hunter-gatherers, but it's happened many times in history.
Somehow, farming happened independently but around the same time around the world, between 8000 and 10000 years ago. This is everywhere from Europe to the Americas to New Guinea, all apparently independently of each other!
it was likely so humans could make booze
Beer was one of the first processed foods, but I don't think that was the reason for the development of agriculture.
They were farming taro on New Guinea 10,000 years ago. There's no tradition, as far as I know, of making alcohol from taro.
Saying we don't know is kinda dumb though, farming allows a population group to massively outperform a hunter gatherer group in terms of food and energy collected over a year, this allows them to have more children, and results in fewer deaths due to accidents while hunting. Farming also means fewer people are required for the same amount of food intake leaving more people free to do other things like develop tools and weapons
This all snowballs resulting in massive growth that allows the farming group to kill off or absorb any group that doesn't farm.
Same as natural selection/evolution, random choices/changes occur and the ones that lead to more children are the ones that last 1000s of years.
Actually, farming underperformed compared to hunter-gathering, which allowed for more food to be gathered and more leisure time to be spent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/
If I'm going off my own experience and behaviors, I would assume that laziness made it seem like simply planting things would take less effort than hunting down an animal without doing hard calculations on total calories in/out and without imagining what could go wrong with the "lazy" approach.
Ever seen the happening?
I bet its like that only instead of killing us the plants tricked humans into farming them
Probably used is processed in a dish or alcohol were the seeds didn't matter much, and over time farmers just made it easier to eat raw because "why not?"
Tell me more about this exploded marijuana you speak of.
It grows huge in Alaska
Most starchy things can to some degree. Rice is one of the most popular alongside corn
Detonating rice is also well respected.
I mean, you basically have every modern fruit.
Lot of work for a dildo.
It's not worth it if you don't make an effort.
ITS BEEN A LOOOOOONG ROAD GETTIN FROM THERE TO HERE
THIS IS NOT TEN FORWARD!
I have altered the location. Pray I do not alter it further.
I will touch the skyayyyy!
Fire photonic cannons.
Everything's a dildo if you're brave enough.
Maybe, but an aerogel dildo wouldn't be especially fun.
What's fun got to do got to do with it?
What's love got to do with it?
I mean, that's what I was trying to riff on, but thanks, it always helps to explain the joke. :p
I know of a teen girl who fucked a chair leg... Horny insanity.
"memorable people do memorable things. Followers are seldom remembered. The herd mentality is the killer of innovation. When appropriate, fuck a chair"
-Gad Saad (sorta)
I remember the chair leg. It was obviously gross and dirty though. Door knobs and the round balls on top of bed posts (not the ceiling height kind, but the waist levels) were also fair game.
Ow. My vagina hurts thinking about that
Do lesbians even enjoy using things resembling a penis?
Yes, we have a tendency to use strap ons
Double sided?
country girls make do
You know, you could've just said: "What an interesting story, thanks for sharing."
I, on the other hand, came up with a different response then the one you just chose :)
That may be. But next time I'm gonna have to write you up to HR.
She knows all to well about corn.
You tell me which of the two you are.
Im the computer
Stop all the downloading!
Hello, I'm the corn-dildo
I'm the phone. The one she least suspects.
This is what these non GMO types always seem to forget: we've been modifying the crap out of everything for the past thousands of years. We're now justuch more efficient and smart about it.
They always picture someone in a lab with syringes and special machines to "modify DNA". Most of the time it's just a couple of potted plants under a lamp and a cotton swab. For fruit trees, you're pretty much just replacing a branch with another branch. Tape and staples might be involved.
Genetically modified plants is very different from selective breeding. Selective breeding mimics the natural evolution process, removing natural selection and replacing it with human decisions.
Using a separate root stock from your fruiting trees isn't genetic modification or breeding. It's just taking desirable size features from a root stock and growing your desired fruit from that. It still remains two different plant, with two different DNAs. The fruit would produce a child of the fruit tree, the same as if it was grown from seed. If the root tree was allowed to flower it would create a seed the same as if it were never grafted.
GMO are an extremely useful technology. When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population. The big problems with it are the consequences of it. Plant have been modified to tolerate high doses of weed killer, pesticides and fertilisers. These all help increase the productivity of the land, but the impacts are terrible on the local environment. Residual weed killer and pesticide may pose a risk to human as well.
Thanks. Comments above yours are a bit disingenuous, trying to bunch up intrusive lab techniques with selective breeding. While the definition of GMO is pretty vague, let's not pretend what Monsanto does is exactly the same as what Native Americans did.
It's not. It's more advanced, and yes, it's better.
You know, more technology becomes available, you use it to make life better for everyone. Monsanto execta can go pound dicks, but in principle, GMO food is perfectly fine, safe, and healthy. If anything, it'll be more healthy (more vitamins), more plentiful as new crops can withstand droughts better, etc. etc. etc.
So far the only counter argument to that that I've heard here is "nuh uh!"
No. It won't.
The Bill Gates/Monsanto Bootlicker Brigade wants to pretend that it's (somehow) the actual foodcrops we have at our disposal that is (somehow) "flawed" and therefore requires unnecessary and (thoroughly patentable) meddling to "fix" - but, like all capitalist "solutions" to the problems caused by capitalism, it is merely a disasterous (but profitable) distraction.
And, of course, this is quite apart from the fact that the right-wing histrionics about "population growth" has turned out like all other right-wing histrionics - false. In a few decades' time, you'll see these same capitalist bootlickers peddling the dubious wonders of GMOs now whining about population shrinkage.
You realize that if you cross breed plants and come up with something new, you can patent it? The only point you actually made about GMO is not specific to GMO.
Yes... I can cross-breed plants. Hell, it's happening right now in my garden - cross-bred avocados, chillies and mokapanos. And since I'm not a parasitic organisation that only exist to make "red arrow go up" at the expense of everybody and everything on the planet, I can easily decide to simply give it all away for free.
After all - I don't benefit in any way when my fellow human beings live in a food insecure hellscape one paycheck away from starvation... but the parasites you lot are shilling for does.
Your complaint seems to be with capitalism and is completely separate from GMO.
Who do you think is peddling the (alleged) "need" for GMO food crops, genius? The tooth fairy?
Made me think immediately about GMO and non-GMO anti-science scaredy cats.
You're right. It's far more precise, quick, and predictable.
How so
An arbitrary distinction based on timeline and ease of methodology
I wanted to understand what the difference between the two approaches is, I have no idea what you mean by sealioning
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
https://lemmy.world/post/Sealioning
And you sound pretty defensive about your stance for no good reason. Usually people are happy to expand on a thought but you just instantly resort to hostility
Also just looked up the definition of sealioning which boils down to trolling/harassment. If being asked a singular and simple question counts as harassment, then you've got some real problems when it comes to civil discussion
That's not what sealioning is, but the fact that you instantly resorted to crying 'sealion' that when asked to expound on your opinion shows you know it's not all that different from GMO in the first place.
You clearly don't know what that word means.
What's the difference?
This is what these nauseating pro-GMO types always seem to forget - developing a food crop for thousands of years to become useful to humanity is not the same thing as destroying food security through capitalist monocropping with the aid of a few dodgy genes injected into something that never needed it in the first place.
This has very little to do with GMOs.
You want to claim that capitalists are (somehow) not the only people that stands to benefit from GMOs?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That's such a stupid statement I don't even know how to respond. Like I'd probably need to recreate several years of basic education before we could even be in the framework to consider a proper answer to your question. But which point you'd realize what a stupid premise it is.
Let's start here: why the hate for GMOs, when your problem is with capitalism?
Good lord - I so hate dealing with liberals.
The only reason we have GMO food crops in the first place is due to capitalist profiteering - nobody else has any need for it, genius. GMO food crops is a "solution" to a "problem" that never existed.
Is this hard to understand, liberal?
This has nothing to do with being a liberal. Scientists have said it's more sustainable to use GMOs because genetic manipulation is just a tool you can use for good or evil. We have a larger population than ever before and an environmental crisis to deal with. We need every technological advantage we can get. This problem isn't just about capitalism. Even if we get rid of capitalism and find we have enough food it's always better to use less land and cause less environmental damage by using pest resistant crops and nutritional crops like golden rice. That's assuming a revolution solves all food shortages despite the progress of climate change and pollution taking their toll on global food security.
Yes it does, liberal - you swallowing this liberalese hook, line and sinker has everything to do with your shitty liberal politics.
Oh, really? And where is their evidence?
So your shitty liberal politics have absolutely nothing to do with the right-wing histrionics you are regurgitating here? You do know that shills get paid for shilling, right? Are you getting yours?
You mean that exact thing GMO foodcrops have abysmally failed at accomplishing so far?
You think people don't need to eat food?
Do you mind being a bit more coherent, liberal?
Yeah, all scientists are evil, all corporations are evil, all people working there are evil, it's all evil.
Oh look... the bootlicker brigade has shown up.
Yes, while monocultures aren't great, GMO crops just speed up the process you mentioned first. Developing a food crop over thousands of years. If we can speed up that process and generate better crops, why wouldn't anyone want that?
The whole politics around GMOs and greedy companies is something I wish didn't exist, but GMOs is the way to go.
No. It doesn't. It shits all over the process I mentioned first and then it gets called "progress" by techbros like you.
Why would we want that when our food crops have already been developed for us over thousands of years before our food supply was hijacked by a class of profiteering parasites?
Are you listening to yourself?
No. It isn't. Unless you're a fan of everybody but the ultra-rich suffering famine - then it's pretty much a ready-made recipe for you.
You literally make one argument: "nuh-uh!"
Maybe read into GMO, what it does?
Yeah, companies like Monsanto can suck dicks, but it's not the only one and even they make loads of advanced too. Blame the managers, not the biologists. Changes to tomato DNA makes it that they stay good much longer, those are the results of GMO, these are the things that people like you are trying to stop.
If the world is to survive the coming climate change disaster, we'll NEED GMO more than anything but we can rest easy knowing that people like you will be on the line to stop that and make sure we'll continue to go hungry.
Learn a little, become less extremist.
You mean the people whose propaganda you are shilling here?
Yeah... that's what's been holding our civilization back, genius - tomatoes that don't act according to what your techbro sci-fi fantasies dictate they should.
Right, right... it just so happens (totally coincidentally) that we will (allegedly) "need" the (alleged) "solution" the very capitalists who caused the problem in the first place happens to be selling.
What else do you believe, liberal? That Musk will reserve a spot for you on his Mars colony?
No one is mentioning Musk. He can go fuck himself on Mars, he's a pile of shit.
It's a harsh reality that food may become hard to produce with the climate crisis. Obviously it's large corporations to blame for that, but regardless of the blame, we may need to find new ways to farm depending on the climate.
I'd rather rely on science than "thousands of years of selective breeding" to achieve the same result.
Harsh words for a bunch of people who shares his ideology, methinks. You should'nt be. Either be nice to your idols - or critique him properly. You're a scientist, right? Shouldn't be too difficult for you.
Oh look... another "scientist" that completely fails to apply their "scientific mind" to political reality. Why is that a feature amongst scientists?
What kind of scientist doesn't recognize the scientific process in action? That is... unless you believe that it's only white people in lab coats who could possibly ever do "science."
I'm not into tech, but I am a scientist (chemistry, not biology) but I have a pretty good grasp on it.
If it can generate more hearty crops, it's a net good for everyone.
Yes, because we don't already have the ability to do this, right? Our food crops is so "non-hearty" one has to wonder why we bothered with civilization at all.
That's an asinine take on everything. The only reason we need "more hearty" crops is the increase in population, and the climate crisis.
Also "food crops are" not is.
Ah, yes... another "scientist" that wants to fix the climate crisis while completely ignoring the very thing that caused the climate crisis in the first place.
How "scientific."
Do you think the Native Americans hundreds of years ago were wearing lab coats in clean rooms, CRISPRing fucking maize? Selective breeding is different than genetic modification. If you don't even know what it is or what you're talking about about AT ALL, to the point where you're conflating two completely dissimilar terms, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself.
Sorry, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about. It's essentially the same process, the GMO process is just faster. Also, it was done well before CRISPR was a big thing.
I know what you're saying in a way but with crispr you can change single genes and have specific targets. A cross changes thousands of genes at a time
GMO is not monocropping either.
Monocropping sucks for other reasons
Nope. Both are genetic modifications.
Also not true. CRISPR is bacteria mechanism and is not used in plants.
CRISPR would work for other organisms wouldn't it?
It would if they had it. AFAIR usually viral vector is used. I recommend you watching thisl channel.
I can't imagine an organism (other than a virus) that doesn't have a virial vector to exploit.
Viral vector is virus that can't self-replicate
I thought it was the method a virus uses to splice itself into the hosts DNA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector
So you should indeed keep your opinion to yourself, then.
Hilariously ironic of you
uh-maize-ing
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) tireless breeding
Sorry, i don't eat gmo /s
I don't know if tireless is the right word, I'm sure they had time to sleep.
They never came up with the wheel. Of course they were tireless.
Booooo! 🍅🍅🍅
You loved it and you know it.
You see that single downvote? Guess who did it. :P
The Phantom of Krankor?
Iirc they did come up with the wheel as some children's toys involved it, but just didn't find a practical use for it because they didn't have beasts of burden to pull carts.
Take this with a grain of salt though because I have no idea where this trivia came from, it was just rattling away on my head.
I believe the Aztecs were the ones with wheeled toys (although it might have been the Maya).
Some tribes used stone wheels to crush maize. Full circle.
Stone wheels are a full circle!
Yeah, it was either one of those two or the Inca.
They were in no rush because they weren't forced to make red arrow go up.
Best
What about all of the other varieties of corn? Are they not relatives to each other?
Look, if you keep asking questions, we're never going to get these crappy corn husk crafts finished.
They're called tamales!
I just watched the Good Eats episode about corn so I can answer this: Yes, popcorn, hard corn, and sweet corn are all related to each other.
What about candy corn?
It's a candy grass.
Corn syrup.
It's to be thrown back at the asshole who gave you candy corn.
I knew of popcorn and sweet corn, but what is hard corn used for today? Animal feed?
A lot is used for animal feed, but we eat it in corn flakes, corn tortillas, and cornbread, plus it's where they get corn syrup which is in damn near everything. It's also processed into ethanol for both fuel and bourbon.
The most important use of all.
The cause and relief from all our problems.......
And the most useful!
I'm about to use it.
You forgot degradable packing peanuts. Turns out you can modify Cheetos(tm) enough they become viable for packing items for shipment.
All corn varieties are all the same species.
Domesticated corn can also still cross freely with the wild teosinte.
All the corn we eat is basically the same, this is referring to the original ancestor to all of them
I have seen this image many times in my uni courses.
when european first reached the continent, the breeding of the plant was heavily advance, somewhat on the right side of thr image
this is one of the staple crops without which we could not survive.
the current varieties are so productive, but they require all modern farming methods, which can be impactful
if you want to apply biological agriculture, the mkst recent varieties are not a good pick, unless they actively support that
that image also serve as a quick explaination as to how our food systems evolved. When you read ancient folk tales, or even when you read about these plants in Biblical texts, imagine the one on the mid left. A small plant capable of supporting a limited amount of people
What I think is more interesting in terms of New World staples is what the indigenous people of the Andes did with the potato. Not only did the cultivate dozens of varieties, they also learned how to freeze-dry them for long-term storage. That's amazing for people who just barely entered the bronze age by the time of European contact.
Damn I've never seen the evolution of corn like this before. Really interesting stuff!
For real tho - any estimations on how many gens/years it took/takes to get from A to at least C?
But is it non-GMO? /s
I seem to remember Bill posting a iscorngrass.com (or similar) site on twitter back when the riff was first popular. I'm not finding it if it still exists.
corn-y
Is this even true? Why would they keep breeding something inedible and practically useless hoping in thousands of years it'd be edible?
I really don't know, it just seems like a stretch
Edit: spelling
It is true. They can trace the genetic lineage. The original plant isn't totally inedible, it's just less nutritious and harder to process. The same is true with wild grains in the Middle East. precursors of domesticated crops like wheat and barley were cultivated from wild grasses which produced less, had less nutrition and took more effort to process into flour.
It's wrong to say they were useless like OP suggests. They were very useful. It was a crop you could reliably grow and come back to harvest.
It also stored very well. The breeding was only to make it more useful. It was always useful.
Much of the breeding was just selection. The crops you would pick and store would be larger. So we it came to plant your were using the biggest largest variety every year. A few generations of this would produce notable results. Then even finer and more deliberate selection would be done.
I didn't make the picture. I just felt that it was finally time to answer the question: Is corn a grass?
It has puzzled Bill Corbetts the world over.
Are grains grasses then? Is wheat and barley grass?
I believe most grains are grasses, I don't know about all.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks
The one all the way on the right is what used to be stock corn, meaning we gave it to stock animals or ground it into flower. It's not for human consumption the way it's eaten now. Actual maize is quite colorful and was modified for easier human consumption. Ever wonder why corn shits out whole? It's because America gave you our stock corn instead human corn. Congratulations America, I you played yourself.
You can see corn in your poop because the outside of the corn kernal is made of cellulose, a.k.a. dietary fiber, that stuff that's good for you because it isn't digested and you poop it out. Meanwhile the nutritious inside of the corn kernal has been easily digested by your body as normal.
The corn in your doody is not the nutritional content, it's the nutritional content's used empty packaging which helps clean the pathways on its way out.