However, some UA crops (for example, tomatoes) and sites (for example, 25% of individually managed gardens) outperform conventional agriculture. These exceptions suggest that UA practitioners can reduce their climate impacts by cultivating crops that are typically greenhouse-grown or air-freighted, maintaining UA sites for many years, and leveraging circularity (waste as inputs).
Tomatos it is then ;)
It’s really hard to compete with the efficiency that economies of scale provide. So this result isn’t unexpected.
It doesn’t however negate the other positive impacts of urban gardening – in particular, the impacts on the people doing the gardening (everything from psychology, vitamin D, immune system benefits to playing in the dirt, etc.).
Absolutely. Urban agriculture is still great. The takeaway here is probably mostly that infrastructure has a high carbon cost so we should think about how that cost can be reduced or eliminated in urban ag. If we can do that then it will outperform more widely.
Water usage is also problematic. But that’s another story. It’s a multi-parameter optimization problem, but different people weight parameters differently.
Water is more of a local issue. In many places overall water use is kind of a pointless metric to seek to minimize. It completely depends on your supply of water and what the effects of using it are.
Honestly I personally think that most rhetoric around water conservation, even from environmentalists, is completely misinformed and wrongheaded. But it’s a very complex topic so I guess I can’t blame people too much.
Same cause, different parts of the brain. OCD, tourettes, autism, dyslexia, and ADHD are basically the same disorder (not sure about schizophrenia). Same disorder affecting different structures in the brain.
ADHD: prefrontal cortex
Tourettes: basal nuclei
Autism: amygdala
Broad strokes but you get the idea.
I have ADHD, autism, and a Masters in neuroscience so I’m not just talking out of my arse.
Not exactly it’s more like when you get an old am radio and it’s not quite tuned into the station correctly. The signal is just as strong but there’s a lot of interference so you have to make more of an effort to interpret it.
I remember seeing a hypothesis that ADHD would have been beneficial in Hunter-gathering, as you would more quickly move from plant to plant rather than fully depleting a resource. It was just one study where they had a sort of game/simulation to test it though, so very early days on that theory.
Hard to say. Diseases that leave no mark on the skeleton are impossible to ascertain in prehistorical context.
Additionally there is the thing with disease that it doesn’t exist until people find a way to diagnose it. That’s the problem with neurotipicallity in historical sense. Boomers saying ‘when I was young nobody had Asperger’s or ADHD’ like it didn’t exist back then is a good example. It did exist, but people didn’t have a way to diagnose it.
A disorder also doesn’t really “exist” if it’s not actually causing distress or… well, disorder. Mental disorders are basically cultural constructs in that what is disruptive in one culture isn’t necessarily disruptive in another. “ADHD” in one culture may be “wow, she’s really good at hunting” in another. A schizophrenic person in one culture may be a cleric in another.
A schizophrenic person in one culture may be a cleric in another.
yeah there are some zanyestablished differences in the manifestation of schizophrenia between cultures and how it’s treated—religious visions, interestingly, tend to be a rather Christian manifestation of schizophrenia and apparently are not so common even in other Abrahamic-dominated countries
Plenty of historical figures had what we now recognize as different forms of neurodivergence.
Peter Roget obsessively made lists throughout his life, beginning as early as 8 years old. He also liked to solve chess puzzles and invented the log log slide rule, useful for working out exponents and roots by hand. He appears to have suffered from depression, and used list creation as a mechanism for calming himself. After he retired, he catalogued lists of synonyms and compiled it into categories, creating what would eventually be known as Roget’s Thesaurus. Looking over his biography, it’s pretty obvious that he would be considered neurodivergent today.
Sherlock Holmes had trademark characteristics of what we would later call Asperger’s: obsessive attention to detail combined with disinterest in other humans or their emotions. He’s a fictional character, but his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, almost certainly drew on his own life and a few others in his life to create that character.
But we document these historical figures through writing, so anything prehistoric would likely not show up in the same way.
Probably for a very long time…we live in a very remote area…in the wilderness of Maine…our county has never allowed commercial development…the only things here are camps/cabins/homes.
My first thought was “WTF”, but then I considered the problem. You can grow beef cells, but only easily in a thin layer. So, get something porous but edible, and grow the cells all over it. Rice is just an obvious choice from a culinary perspective.
It’s weird, but I bet cooked up as a burrito or casserole this could actually be appealing, and it’ll be way easier to commercialise than more traditional meat shapes.
Edit: So, here’s Nature on the same. As usual, popsci left out the gotcha, and that’s that there’s not actually a significant amount of beef there. Rice is only slightly porous, just as it seems, I guess.
How do you define the two terms? I’m genuinely curious since the definitions I’ve seen for the terms imply that it is a type of plagiarism, but they definitely don’t have the same connotations.
A ghostwriter is usually someone hired to produce a piece of written work, with set terms like deadlines, payment, possibly confidentiality, and other things. Things like memoirs (even some presidents’) are ghostwritten by someone who listens to rambling stories and takes notes to produce something readable.
Plagiarism suggests Person B presenting Person A’s work as their own without Person A or their intended audience knowing that fact. In this scenario there is no compensation for the claimed work and presumably no communication or cooperation between the writer and plagiarizer.
Thanks for the comment, that was very insightful. I'm not sure I fully agree with this definition of plagiarism in academia though, but rather I am familiar with a broader one that includes both willful prearranged plagiarism and even self plagiarism.
In academia, the main discriminating factor to establish plagiarism would be the presence or absence of references, so in this case it would mean that the review would have had to include the ghostwriter as an author directly (and hence wouldn't be a ghostwriter anymore 😉
For those of you wondering how this is useful, tobacco is often used as a model organism in botany. The utility of this technique is less obvious in tobacco but more obvious in fruits, vegetables, etc. think seedless grapes, etc
Seedless grapes already exist, but I suppose you could now insert the gene into other plants/varieties to make those seedless as well.
I’m thinking more about how big ag companies could use this to prevent farmers from saving seeds/propagating a copyrighted variety (though I don’t know if that’s common with any crops where the seed itself isn’t the end product) or maybe more charitably, preventing their copyrighted plants from cross pollinating neighboring fields of the same species (e.g. ruining that neighbor’s non-gmo status).
Finally, this could be useful if it can be “switched on” i.e. by deliberately polluting an invasive plant’s gene pool with this gene and then switching it on to stall the invasive’s population growth. But I think most invasives are perennials, so would still need to be removed some other way.
science
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.