I've been hearing for a while now that farmers in certain parts of the country were having a hard time, but I didn't think things were this bad. First of all, farmers had a weed problem. That led to superweeds. And now, farmers are relying on hoes to support them.
According to Progressive Farmer writer Pam Smith (paywalled), farmers are turning back to this old technology -- the garden hoe (wait, what did you think I was talking about?) -- to combat weeds, now that many plants have gained resistance to herbicide. Twenty years ago, Smith writes, it was common for farmers to employ "hoe crews." But that work stopped when herbicide-tolerant GMO soy made it possible for a quick pass with a sprayer to replace a team of laborers.
"Weeds are getting the last laugh, though," Smith writes. A few plants could survive the sprays, and those spread their seeds far and wide. Now, only old-fashioned elbow grease will get rid of them.
I do have one semi-serious point to make here: We often talk about herbicide-resistant superweeds as if they were a massive catastrophe. Yet here we are seeing the worst-case scenario: A lot of manual weeding. It's hot, unpleasant work, and it drives up the price of food, but it's not the end of the world.
People who think that chemical herbicides are unremittingly bad should be on the side of superweeds. The only thing that makes them "super" is that they make chemical herbicides obsolete. Other than that, they are just plants. I've suggested that we should embrace superweeds -- maybe they are super in that they are flying in to save the day.
By the way, if Smith's descriptions of "frisky boys" with hoes gets you going, check out Aiden Turner with a scythe.
|
Friday, August 28, 2015
This is a story about weed and hoes
Are women obligated to have children? This man thinks so
Are women obligated to have children? This man thinks soby Katie Herzog |#Woman |
Vox recently commissioned an essay by Torbjörn Tännsjö, Swedish professor and public intellectual, and then rejected it after finding his submission too loony for their tastes. In his manifesto, Tännsjö argues that humans have a moral obligation to reproduce -- and to do it early and often. "I am very, very uncomfortable telling anyone that it is their obligation to bear child after child, starting at the moment of first fertility and ending only at menopause," editor-in-chief Ezra Klein explained after Tännsjö published his rejection letter. "And I didn't think the piece made its case convincingly enough for us to stand behind a conclusion so sweeping and dramatic."
After the piece was rejected by Vox, Gawker decided that it fit their editorial guidelines just fine, and published the essay in full. It begins:
You should have kids. Not because it’s fun, or rewarding, or in your evolutionary self-interest. You should have kids because it’s your moral duty to do so.My argument is simple. Most people live lives that are, on net, happy. For them to never exist, then, would be to deny them that happiness. And because I think we have a moral duty to maximize the amount of happiness in the world, that means that we all have an obligation to make the world as populated as can be.Of course, we should see to it that we do not overpopulate the planet in a manner that threatens the future existence of mankind. But we’re nowhere near that point yet, at least not if we also see to it that we solve pressing problems such as the one with global warming. In the mean time, we’re ethically obligated to make as many people as possible.This idea, that having children is a moral obligation, is controversial, so much so that it’s known in philosophy as the “repugnant conclusion.” But I don’t think it’s repugnant at all.
Where should I begin? Let's start with happiness, which Tännsjö seems to believe to be the default state for most people. Now, I've heard that life is good in Sweden, but where is Tännsjö getting his data? Perhaps he looked around his office, saw his own reflection beaming back at him from his darkened iMac screen and thought: "Look at that happy fellow! Life is good!" He certainly didn't ask me.
Aside from the sweeping assumption that people are mostly happy, the idea that we are "ethically obligated to make as many people as possible" is, frankly, dangerous -- andexactly the opposite of the conclusion of many bioethicists. Population scholars have posited that there are already too many people on this planet (I can think of 17 in particular right now) and it cannot sustainably support exponential growth. Tännsjö acknowledges the hazards of a growing population, but he seems to think that cumulative happiness is more important than quality of life -- not that the two have anything to do with each other, of course.
Contrary to Tännsjö's beliefs, more people won't mean more happiness -- more people will mean fewer resources for everyone. It's like when your whole building is stealing your neighbor's WiFi at the same time and no one can watch Netflix. Don't they steal WiFi in Sweden? My metaphor may be flawed, but not so much as Tännsjö's logic.
Ironically, one study suggests that parents are actually less happy than non-parents. If we all listened to Tännsjö and started expelling children as soon as we're old enough to bleed, we won't just be fighting for resources -- we'll also be in terrible moods because our kids won't stop bickering and no one ever helps with the laundry. To add insult to injury, it's not like Tännsjö is the one who has to bear all these hypothetical children anyway. After all, it's a lot easier to argue for childbirth if you never have to go through it.
I'd say Ezra Klein was right to pull this one. But free speech and unpopular opinions have value, and I'm glad to know there's a place for insane ideas. I thought they lived on Reddit, but it seems that Gawker's made a home for them as well.
10 Perfect, Sarcastic Responses To Annoying Humblebrags
You're The Worst
1. “I just don’t think I have the same stamina for travelling anymore. Last month I went to Paris and after the first week I was exhausted.”
Sarcastic response: “That sucks! What are you going to do? Are you going to have to limit your Paris trips to six days? The horror!!”
2. “I was really hoping to travel for a year after graduating, but job offers like this one don’t come around every day. Looks like I’ll be starting the #9to5grind!”
Sarcastic response: Express the appropriate level of enthusiasm, then let this handsome, cheeky British man (aka Jimmy from You’re The Worst) do the talking:
3. “Ugh I was so lazy this week. I only went to the gym four times instead of my usual five.”
Sarcastic response: “Yeah totally. I was going to tell the exact same story, but I didn’t want you to think I was being super annoying and humblebragging or something.”
4. “I bought a homeless man lunch today. He was so happy he started crying and telling me that I’m the kindest person he’s met in a long time. Really makes you appreciate what you have.”
Sarcastic response: “That is so great. So great. You’ve actually been nominated for a ‘Good Samaritan’ award. Yeah, it’s between you and Mother Teresa.”
5. “It’s such a bummer that I can’t dance to ‘Single Ladies’ now that I’m engaged!”
Sarcastic response: Smile politely, then remind them what a good asset their ring will be should they ever need to make a quick exit. Or you could just have this badass (aka Gretchen from You’re The Worst) tell them for you:
6. “It’s so hard to find someone that likes me for my personality. All anyone ever compliments me on is my body.”
Sarcastic Response: “Seriously. Attractive people have the worst lives. I honestly don’t know how you cope. It must be that fantastic personality you also have. It keeps you grounded.”
7. “My date tonight is sooo attractive, I’m going to be too nervous to speak!”
Sarcastic Response: “I’ve actually heard that conversation is overrated. Just try not speaking at all. In fact, let’s go ahead and start that now.”
8. “I feel so sick, I think it’s because I’ve been working such long hours on this presentation.”
Sarcastic response: Subtly let them know you see right through their excuses. Feel free to steal some lines from Jimmy while you’re at it:
9. “Living in a big house can be SUCH a hassle. I had to search through like five rooms before I found my good iPhone charger.”
Sarcastic Response: “That IS the worst! It’s super easy to find things in my studio apartment. Everything’s so cramped; I can pretty much search the entire place in five steps or less. In fact, if I were to search for any f*cks to give you, it would only take like two seconds to know that I’m completely out!”
10. “Everyone says I have a natural talent for teaching, so I guess I’m heading to grad school rather than accepting that job!”
Sarcastic response: Give them all your condolences—er, congratulations—by saying how awesome it is that they’re basically reliving undergrad, sans fun. Or just copy this:
Get more You're The Worst wisdom here to share with your friends.This post is brought to you by You're The Worst. Don't miss the new season premiere September 9th at 10:30PM – only on FXX.
|
10 Struggles Of Being In A Relationship When You Hate Anything Cheesy Or Romantic
You're The Worst
It’s not that you don’t love spending time with your person. There’s just something about having that fact congratulated via bouquets of roses that makes your inner Grinch want to throw those roses right across the room. To celebrate the new season of FXX’sYou’re The Worst, commiserate over these 10 tedious, inevitable struggles of being in a so-called ‘romantic relationship’:
1. Fending off people’s fawning questions about you two.
Every time someone asks how you’re doing (wink wink), and if there are any wedding bells in your future, you would greatly prefer to hit them over the head with these much-anticipated bells and get the f away from that conversation.
2. Attending weddings together.
There’s really nothing more mind-numbing that attending someone else’s celebration of love and happiness with your partner. Everyone expects you to look like some sappy couple because love is in the air and you have to sit there and gag on this poison gas for hours. And if they start reciting Corinthians? More like Love is patient, love is kind, love can kiss my ass. Preferably french it.
3. Deciding on social media statuses.
Are we “Facebook Official?” Who gives a sh*t. You honestly only tolerate four of your ‘Friends’ and the rest you keep around to hate-stalk when you’re hungover. You’d rather ignore the status altogether and avoid the maddening OMG I’M SO HAPPY 4 UUUU!!! comments that everyone insists on posting.
4. Celebrating ‘romantic’ holidays.
Valentine’s Day. New Year’s Eve. WE GET IT. Some people like to have mandatory romance scheduled on the calendar with their teeth cleanings. Just let the rest of us live in peace. They wouldn’t like it if you made a national holiday for your foot fetish, so they should keep their flowers-and-chocolate cheesiness to themselves.
5. Celebrating anniversaries.
Congrats! You tolerated each other for an extended period of time! Gold stars all around. You would much prefer to ignore the day and just hang on the couch with a fancier bottle of wine than usual.
6. Going on double dates.
What’s more insufferable than hanging out with your friend and her boyfriend? Having to go out and do “Couples Activities” with them. Hard pass.
7. Cuddling.
You really do enjoy their company. Really. But cuddling is just a terrible purgatory between sex and sleep. Either have some real fun or go to sleep. You’re not thirteen anymore, you don’t spend your days looking forward to some chaste embrace.
8. Public displays of affection.
Is it really necessary to run around holding sweaty hands and sneaking kisses along the street? You’re secure enough in your relationship that you don’t need to run around calling dibs on one another and acting like you just leapt out of a sappy movie.
9. Getting unsolicited relationship advice.
Just because you don’t ooze enough cheese to be mistaken for a mozzarella stick, doesn’t mean you aren’t in a successful relationship. So all those people who think they’re helping by telling you ways to spice up the bedroom can go find someone else to annoy. That newly married couple that recited Corinthians might need it.
10. Posting photos to social media.
You’re not posting this photo of you and your partner to brag to everyone that This person changed my life. Big effing deal. You’re going to make this picture your profile, hide the update from your timeline, and people are going to deal. with. it. [tc-mark]
This post is brought to you by You're The Worst. Don't miss the new season premiere September 9th at 10:30PM – only on FXX.
|
Buying organic veggies at the supermarket is a waste of money
Buying organic veggies at the supermarket is a waste of money |#Supermarketby Deena Shanker |
It has happened to all of us. You're standing in the produce aisle, just trying to buy some zucchini, when you face the inevitable choice: Organic or regular?
It's a loaded question that can mean many different things, sometimes all at once: Healthy or pesticide-drenched? Tasty or bland? Fancy or basic? Clean or dirty? Good or bad?
But the most important question for many customers is: Is it worth the extra money?
The answer: Probably not.
Here's why:
Higher price doesn't really mean higher quality
It'll come as no surprise to most shoppers that organic produce is typically more expensive than the other options. In March, a Consumer Reports analysis found that, on average, organic foods were 47% more expensive than their conventional counterparts.USDA numbers bear out this difference too. The wholesale price of a 25-pound sack of organic carrots in San Francisco in 2013, for example, was more than three times the price of a conventional bag.
[pullquote]"Organic" has essentially become another way of saying "luxury."[/pullquote]
(It's worth noting that not all items see such drastic markups: Three-pound cartons of mesclun were only 23% more expensive, according to the USDA, and sometimes organic produce is actually the less expensive option—but that's a rarity.)
But this price difference does not just reflect the added cost of organic agriculture techniques: It's also because people will pay more for the label—often without knowing what it means. "Organic" has essentially become another way of saying "luxury."
As a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found, the "premium" markup on organic food is 29-32%, when only a 5-7% markup would be needed to break even—making organic farms more profitable than conventional ones. (Of course, it takes three years of organic practices to get certified, so farmers may still be left covering their additional investment after that period.)
Organic produce is not necessarily better for the environment
There is little doubt that synthetic pesticides and fertilizers substances can have negative impacts on the environment, from potentially endangering pollinators topolluting natural waterways. But many organic farmers, especially the large ones, don't skip pesticides and fertilizers—they just use natural options, which are hardly risk-free.
[pullquote]Organic farming can release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than conventional farming.[/pullquote]
In 2010, a study found that organic pesticides can actually have a worse environmental impacts than conventional ones. Rotenone, a common organic pesticide made from subtropical plants, for example, is "highly dangerous," Scientific American explains, because it attacks cells' mitochondria (which you may remember from high school biology as the "powerhouses" of cells).
Plus, a recent study found that because organic agriculture is now done mostly en masse by big corporations (what's known dismissively by advocates as "Walmart organic"), the lower yields combined with the use of heavy machinery means it actually releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than conventional farming.
Organic farms aren't necessarily better for the environment.
Any health benefits from organic produce are teeny-tiny
The science available thus far says any additional nutritional benefit from organic produce, compared with conventional, are very small.
A 2009 meta-analysis said there was no nutrient difference in organic versus conventional. Since then, two larger meta-analyses have found slight differences, but ones that are probably too small to really matter. The 2012 study found slightly higher phosphorous levels in the organic produce, and a 2014 study found higher antioxidant levels and lower cadmium levels in organic foods.
But as Jeffrey Blumberg, a professor of nutrition at Tufts University told NPR, because there are so many variations within organic and conventional production systems, drawing overarching conclusions about their products isn't really methodologically sound. And any differences in nutrition are relatively insignificant. Ultimately, if you want more nutrients, eat more vegetables, organic or not.
Even the "Dirty Dozen" vegetables we're told to avoid aren't really that dirty
Every year, the Environmental Working Group puts out a highly anticipated list called the "Dirty Dozen"—the fruits and vegetables it says have the highest pesticide residues, and are therefore most worth buying organic.
But in 2011, scientists from the University of California published a report finding that even the fruits and vegetables in the Dirty Dozen had less than 2% of the maximum allowable amount of the measured pesticides established by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The researchers criticized EWG's methodology and concluded that that there was no "appreciable reduction of consumer risks" in eating these organic foods.
For its part, EWG told Quartz that it disagrees with Winters' conclusions for several reasons, including that they used the risk for adults, not children, in their calculations, and that they looked at average amounts instead of the highest levels used.
Organic farms don't treat their workers any better
Farm work is hard and those doing it are often exploited. Unfortunately, this is no less true at organic farms—the USDA certification doesn't include any labor requirements.
In 2006, the eco-minded news site Grist published a story detailing the many waysorganic farmworkers were being mistreated, including violations of minimum wage laws, laborers allegedly being barred from speaking with inspectors, and sexual discrimination.
“The exploitative conditions that farmworkers face in the US are abysmal—it’s a human-rights crisis,” Richard Mandelbaum, a policy analyst at the Farmworker Support Committee, told Grist. “In terms of wages and labor rights, there’s really no difference between organic and conventional.”
And there's no reason to expect your organic vegetables to taste better, either
Want tasty asparagus? Buy it in season from nearby—organic or not.
Taste depends on so many factors, and organic certainly doesn't come with any guarantees. "My jet-setting Argentine asparagus tasted like damp cardboard," the journalist Michael Pollan wrote of the organic asparagus he purchased at Whole Foods in his 2007 manifesto Omnivore's Dilemma. Seven years later, the chef and food advocate Dan Barber wrote in The Third Plate about his shock when he tested his Mexican organic carrots for their sugar content—and discovered it was zero (probably making for a rather muddy-tasting bite).
So, what's the best option?
Bottom line: If you want to know more about your fruits and vegetables, buy them at the local farmers market, organic or not. The prices are often competitive with supermarkets, the in-season goods will be fresher than those shipped long distances, and any questions you have on production practices can be asked and answered on the spot. If you can't make it to the farmers market, don't waste your money on that little label.
The Organic Trade Association did not respond to a request for comment.
Growth Hormone May Lower Odds of Fractures in Older Women
webmd.com
Growth Hormone May Lower Odds of Fractures in Older Women |#Women
WebMD News from HealthDay
But researcher says high cost, need to get shots in clinics make it an unlikely osteoporosis treatment
By Amy Norton
HealthDay Reporter
THURSDAY,
Aug. 27, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Older women with osteoporosis could
get lasting benefits from a few years on growth hormone, a new, small
trial suggests.
Researchers found that when women
with the bone-thinning disease took growth hormone for three years,
their fracture risk was still reduced seven years later. Before entering
the study, 56 percent of the women had suffered a bone break; over the
10-year study period, 28 percent sustained a fracture.
But the study, reported online Aug. 27 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, only involved 55 women who used growth hormone.
And experts said it is unlikely to become an approved treatment for osteoporosis any time soon.
Still,
the results are "pretty exciting," since they show a sustained effect
on women's fracture risk, said Dr. Jerome Tolbert, an endocrinologist at
Mount Sinai Beth Israel in New York City.
"Osteoporosis
is a serious problem, and we need to do a better job of preventing and
treating it," said Tolbert, who was not involved in the study.
However,
more research is needed before growth hormone could become a treatment
option. "Do we need more studies to confirm the safety and
effectiveness? Yes, we do," Tolbert said.
In the
United States, about 52 million people have low bone mass or full-blown
osteoporosis, according to the National Osteoporosis Foundation. And
among women older than 50, roughly half will suffer a fracture due to
thinning bones.
There are a number of bone-protecting medications that can cut that fracture risk, including bisphosphonates such as Actonel, Boniva and Fosamax, plus generics; the injection drugs denosumab (Prolia) and teriparatide (Forteo); and raloxifene (Evista), a pill that has estrogen-like effects on bones.
A recent review found that, overall, the drugs reduce the risk of spine fractures by 40 percent to 60 percent. They also curb the risk of other bone breaks, including hip fractures, by 20 percent to 40 percent.
But while many options exist, Tolbert said he could foresee "a place for growth hormone to fit in."
What's
"interesting," he added, was that it only had to be taken for a finite
amount of time in this trial, and not continuously. So that's a
potential advantage, he said.
Right now, growth hormone is approved to treat just a few medical conditions, including growth hormone deficiency in children and adults.
It
is not approved to remedy the normal decline in growth hormone that
comes with aging. However, some "longevity clinics" have been promoting
growth hormone as a fountain of youth that can increase muscle, trim fat
and improve stamina in aging adults, according to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).
For women with
osteoporosis, growth hormone does indeed stimulate bone formation,
according to Dr. Emily Krantz, the lead researcher on the new study.
It
may also enhance muscle mass and balance, which could help women avoid
falls, said Krantz, of Sodra Alvsborgs Hospital in Boras, Sweden.
But there are also risks. According to the FDA, the side effects of growth hormone include fluid retention, joint and muscle pain, and elevated cholesterol and blood sugar. There are also concerns about a potential link to cancer risk.
In
this trial, though, there were few side effects, according to Krantz.
Some women had swelling in their hands and feet, but there were no
lasting effects on blood sugar or cholesterol levels.
The
findings are based on 80 women with osteoporosis who were randomly
assigned to take daily injections of either growth hormone or a placebo for 18 months. After that, the hormone group continued on the treatment for another 18 months. All of the women took calcium and vitamin D.
Krantz's
team also compared the study group with a random sample of 223 women
the same age who did not initially have osteoporosis. Over 10 years, the
rate of bone fracture in that group rose from 8 percent to 32 percent.
In contrast, the study patients saw their fracture rate drop by half over time -- from 56 percent to 28 percent.
That decline, Tolbert said, is "pretty remarkable."
It's
not clear, though, how much of the credit goes to growth hormone. There
was no significant difference in fracture rates between women who'd
used the hormone and those who'd used a placebo. And part of the
benefit, Krantz's team said, could have come from awareness of fall
prevention and other medications that some women took during the
seven-year follow-up.
And in the "real world," there are practical barriers to using growth hormone for osteoporosis -- including its high cost.
"It's unlikely," Krantz acknowledged, "that it will be used [for osteoporosis] in the foreseeable future, because the treatment is so expensive and has to be overseen by a specialist clinic."
Krantz said her team has no plans for a larger trial, but will keep following the patients who've already received growth hormone.
And in the "real world," there are practical barriers to using growth hormone for osteoporosis -- including its high cost.
"It's unlikely," Krantz acknowledged, "that it will be used [for osteoporosis] in the foreseeable future, because the treatment is so expensive and has to be overseen by a specialist clinic."
Krantz said her team has no plans for a larger trial, but will keep following the patients who've already received growth hormone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)