Food and plants (split from Why do scientist "think" they know everything??)

[Bartholomew Jones]

48 minutes ago, joigus said:

Don't forget half your children dying of dysentery, diphtheria, TB, and a long etc., was part of the equation in that misleadingly pictured "paradise of yore."

It's a nice mental exercise to imagine your family living next to crystal-clear waters, teeming with fish, provided with timber for the winter, and the children rejoicing in the sunny Spring morning with flower garlands on their heads.

That's not what the past was like. Would you say "welcome back" to polio? And this is just an example off the top of my head.

Lose the flower garlands.

The way I see it is that even in our earliest histories humankind was "towards" trends, which is always hurtful.  Our food regimen haven't ever really gotten better, only more conventional, at the expense of the furthest reaching convenience.  In other words, from the earliest ages we've always been toward better medicine at the expense of authentic wholesome foods.  That's just my point of view.

39 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Then get off the internet.

And don't let me catch using other advanced technology; no fires, nor clothes for you. 

That's the way I would have it; and the thing is, that's what I'm towards.  For example, my refrigerator is shut down.  I've discovered (as a personal convenience) fermentation is always a safe preservative method.  And folks love my Mediterranean style hospitality.

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones
Delete accidental duplication

[joigus]

19 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Lose the flower garlands.

Ok. I'll lose the flowers. Do I keep dysentery, diphtheria, TB, and polio?

19 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The way I see it is that even in our earliest histories humankind was "towards" trends, which is always hurtful.  Our food regimen haven't ever really gotten better, only more conventional, at the expense of the furthest reaching convenience.  In other words, from the earliest ages we've always been toward better medicine at the expense of authentic wholesome foods.  That's just my point of view.

As you said, that's just the way you see it. We have diets (or the possibility of having them) rich in different essential minerals, complete package of aminoacids, vitamins, etc., and the amazing possibilities of GM food. The fact is much more people in the world have access to a diet that's far more complete than that of the ancients --no matter where they lived-- than ever before. Quite a different thing is the matter of dietary habits. There is a cultural factor there. If people choose to daily intake far too much sugar, or palm oil, it's largely a cultural issue. 10'000 y.a. people stuffed themselves with hydrocarbons, and they died in their thousands due to combination of poor diet combined with miserable existence conditions. The Romans drank lead diluted in sapa, to sweeten wine and several dishes, which resulted in big swathes of the population being lead-poisoned and becoming sterile, or die prematurely. Nice picture.

Edited December 7, 2020 by joigus

[Bartholomew Jones]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Ok. I'll lose the flowers. Do I keep dysentery, diphtheria, TB, and polio?

As you said, that's just the way you see it. We have diets (or the possibility of having them) rich in different essential minerals, complete package of aminoacids, vitamins, etc., and the amazing possibilities of GM food. The fact is much more people in the world have access to a diet that's far more complete than that of the ancients --no matter where they lived-- than ever before. Quite a different thing is the matter of dietary habits. There is a cultural factor there. If people choose to daily intake far too much sugar, or palm oil, it's largely a cultural issue. 10'000 y.a. people stuffed themselves with hydrocarbons, and they died in their thousands due to combination of poor diet combined with miserable existence conditions. The Romans drank lead diluted in sapa, to sweeten wine and several dishes, which resulted in big swathes of the population being lead-poisoned and becoming sterile, or die prematurely. Nice picture.

Of course the older path is not always the good way.  But I have to think, and I myself doubt that it's imagined, that the VERY origin is more perfect.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Lose the flower garlands.

The way I see it is that even in our earliest histories humankind was "towards" trends, which is always hurtful.  Our food regimen haven't ever really gotten better, only more conventional, at the expense of the furthest reaching convenience.  In other words, from the earliest ages we've always been toward better medicine at the expense of authentic wholesome foods.  That's just my point of view.

You would do well to read The Poison Squad by Deborah Blum. It will dispel the notion of authentic wholesome foods being available (in the US, at least, in the late 1800s and on), and probably make you glad there are laws protecting the consumer. They weren't always there, and there's a reason they were implemented.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

You would do well to read The Poison Squad by Deborah Blum. It will dispel the notion of authentic wholesome foods being available (in the US, at least, in the late 1800s and on), and probably make you glad there are laws protecting the consumer. They weren't always there, and there's a reason they were implemented.

 

Okay, I will read that as an exercise in objective reading.

[John Cuthber]

5 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

In other words, from the earliest ages we've always been toward better medicine at the expense of authentic wholesome foods. 

Nonsense.
Why do you think that's an "either  / or" thing?

Microbiology gives you better medicine and better food.

[Bartholomew Jones]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Nonsense.
Why do you think that's an "either  / or" thing?

Microbiology gives you better medicine and better food.

The dietetics books I read and trust give reason to believe the human digestive tract/organs suffer for ingestion of non-foodstuff.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[John Cuthber]

21 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The dietetics books I read and trust give reason to believe the human digestive tract/organs suffer for ingestion of non-foodstuff.

Do they use evidence?

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do they use evidence?

Book sales.

 

 

It's easy to imagine that our modern diet has flaws, but our diets changed radically not so long ago. On an evolutionary scale, we're still adapting to a diet that benefits from agriculture and animal husbandry as opposed to the simpler fare hunter/gatherers consumed.

[Bartholomew Jones]

39 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do they use evidence?

Case-studies with patients.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Case-studies with patients.

Do they do proper double blind trials or should we be ignoring them?

[Bartholomew Jones]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Do they do proper double blind trials or should we be ignoring them?

I doubt so.

To me it just makes sense that the digestive tract is for foods, not foreign substances.  You don't have to prove, for example, by science, that proper applications of family-time is wholesome to the individual, and that lack thereof is detrimental, to reliably trust that those are fundamental truths.

[Sensei]

11 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

You're right.  I'm one of those opponents to everything we humans make more complex than is necessary; I'd rather everyone stay close to home and get around on mules when they had to.  Yeah, pretty radical.

Single individual can return to the way ancient and prehistoric people lived, but entire human population cannot. Significant increase of human population is result of invention of artificial fertilizers at the beginning of XX century. Without them, pesticides and GMO, and modern automated  agriculture, billions of people would die.

Reminding you, two (and more) centuries ago 90-95% of the all people were farmers. Not because they wanted. They had to produce food. Traditional agricultural work is ineffective.. Significant amount of production was lost due to bugs, illnesses, unpleasant weather conditions, and barren soil.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Sensei

[Bartholomew Jones]

They didn't raise crops in equilibrium after the pattern of nature; replenishing the soil with materials from the woods.  If people would farm and garden in equilibrium the volume and surface area of the earth would expand.  The lions share of substance of flora isn't from the soil; the plant converts radiant energy to matter.  The soil is primarily conditioning.

10 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Single individual can return to the way ancient and prehistoric people lived, but entire human population cannot. Significant increase of human population is result of invention of artificial fertilizers at the beginning of XX century. Without them, pesticides and GMO, and modern automated  agriculture, billions of people would die.

Reminding you, two (and more) centuries ago 90-95% of the all people were farmers. Not because they wanted. They had to produce food. Traditional agricultural work is ineffective.. Significant amount of production were lost due to bugs, illnesses, unpleasant weather conditions, and barren soil.

That was in reply

Edited December 8, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The lions share of substance of flora isn't from the soil; the plant converts radiant energy to matter. 

It’s not that, either. It’s the carbon in CO2, facilitated by the radiant energy. But the energy isn’t converted to matter

 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Year round I bring rich resources, daily, from the woods to my field here in the city to enrich my soil for the warm season crops.  It's very effective.  My refrigerator is unplugged year-round because I've learned safe preservation by fermentation.

Congratulations.

[Bartholomew Jones]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not that, either. It’s the carbon in CO2, facilitated by the radiant energy. But the energy isn’t converted to matter

 

It has to be.  The only substance a plant could get from co2 is carbon and oxygen.  Carbon is that necessary material element for formation of living tissue (the carbon bond); but that tissue forms with an abundance of other elements.  The oxygen aspect is required for the oxidation for the organic chemical changes constantly taking place.  Oxidation means oxygen is passing through effecting changes.  The abundance of substance is from the radiant energy which this guy recognizes at the very end at least as stored energy in the wood (the plant).

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The abundance of substance is from the radiant energy which this guy recognizes at the very end at least as stored energy in the wood (the plant).

6CO₂ + 6H₂O → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂

_{Grade school science.}

[Bartholomew Jones]

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

6CO₂ + 6H₂O → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂

_{Grade school science.}

Good.  What good deed are you going to leave to posterity?

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Congratulations.

What I say is to a purpose.  You must not know yours.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones
Insert accidental deficiency

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

What I say is to a purpose

Is that purpose to make yourself look like a willfully ignorant stubborn ass and to waste both bandwidth and readers time? If so, then you’re seriously crushing it!

[Bartholomew Jones]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is that purpose to make yourself look like a willfully ignorant stubborn ass and to waste both bandwidth and readers time? If so, then you’re seriously crushing it!

You're a mere person.  Why should I care what you think of me?  I'm here to say what I see in nature.  I include science as one very useful angle into nature.  You have a right to exalt it as high as like.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

You're a mere person

What else would I be? What a remarkably silly thing to say or to use as an attempted insult.

I am the universe expressing itself as a human being for a little while. So are we all. So what?

It often amazes me how arrogant the ignorant so consistently are. 

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

If people would farm and garden in equilibrium the volume and surface area of the earth would expand.  The lions share of substance of flora isn't from the soil; the plant converts radiant energy to matter.  The soil is primarily conditioning.

Got evidence for that?

LOL

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It has to be.  The only substance a plant could get from co2 is carbon and oxygen.  Carbon is that necessary material element for formation of living tissue (the carbon bond); but that tissue forms with an abundance of other elements.  The oxygen aspect is required for the oxidation for the organic chemical changes constantly taking place.  Oxidation means oxygen is passing through effecting changes.  The abundance of substance is from the radiant energy which this guy recognizes at the very end at least as stored energy in the wood (the plant).

Wood is primarily carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Carbon comes from CO2, which can be broken down via photosynthesis; O2 is a byproduct. Hydrogen and oxygen are present in water.

The radiant energy allows the carbon to be removed from CO2, but there is no conversion of this energy to matter.

6 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'm here to say what I see in nature.  I include science as one very useful angle into nature.  You have a right to exalt it as high as like.

I wish you would include correct science.

[Bartholomew Jones]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Got evidence for that?

LOL

Yeah.  2 years of doing it.