Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: let's make a poll

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 146762 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29375
you don't need all that. You have everything you need right in prices published works.  all you need is number of carious teeth and information on what kind of food they ate. You don't need all this fancy stuff that you're talking about.

Of course you don't, Dave.

All you need is a nice simple fairy tale that tells you what you want to be true.

No need for all that messy reality.

Sleep well.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29376
I think this goes back to your basic philosophy of reductionism. You have this deep seated NEED to reduce everything to its components  and in doing so you end up making a horrible complicated mess. Reality is not complicated at all from a control perspective if you know which buttons to push.

:ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:


"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29377
Dave, you have two Big Buttons  you can push. One marked "Nutrition", and one marked "Mouth pH". How, based on the data Price provides, do you know which one to push?
Why do I bother?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29378
"YOU are the one "reducing" the cause of dental caries to one Big Button."

That's just the opposite of reductionism.

 I recognize that things are complicated from a design and construction standpoint, but they are exceedingly simple from a control standpoint.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29379
OK Pingu I have a question for you ... I want to see if I understand your view about the causes of dental caries. Consider again the two swiss groups that price studied.  We'll abbreviate them to LV and SM.  The caries rate in LV was 3.4% but it was 29.8% in SM.  I think I understand your view to be that the reason for the higher rate in SM was because they ate some sugar and refined carbohydrates, whereas in LV today they probably did not eat refined sugar and probably not  bread made with white flour and so forth but they did eat whole-grain breads and possibly got some sweets via fruits and/or honey.  they may have had other sweets too, we don't know. I do know that the Wai Wai people that my dad worked with raised sugarcane and it was very sweet.  I cannot imagine LV children going completely without sweets.

 anyway, what is your view on this?

Why don't you go back to my response to you on this?

Price thought that bacterial acid, like the Poor, Are Always With Us.  And so variation in dental caries must be due to differences in susceptibility to its effects.

And so he thought that the association that he observed between refined sugar and flour and dental caries (a very real association) was due to the nutrients removed from these high calorie foods, and thus not being there to protect against the acid.

However, what he does not mention (presumably because he was not aware of it - he certainly did not measure it) is the local effects of sugar IN THE MOUTH on pH.

And so an equally good fit to his data is that the reason the candy-eating children had more caries is not because they were less resistant to the effects of acid, but that their candy-eating caused steeper, deeper drops in pH.

And that's what later research showed.  Yes, poor nutrition can make you more vulnerable to the effects of low pH.  But even with good nutrition, low pH will still tend to cause dental caries.  And even with poor nutrition, without foods that lower the pH, caries is rare (as with children in famines).

One exception is that fluoride really has reduced the association between sugar consumption and dental caries.  But fluoride wasn't something that Price was interested in, or indeed aware of. And of course the WAPF are dead set against fluoride.
But you keep ignoring the fact that these indigenous groups ate starchy and sweet foods  and they NEVER brushed their teeth so it's quite certain that plenty of their children went to bed after sucking on a piece of sugar cane  or sweet fruit and did not rinse before going to sleep.  do you doubt this for some reason?
Yes I do, for no other reason than you are simply speculating about something you know nothing about, so your point is based on nothing. Do you really believe the children of LV were sucking on sugar cane or sweet fruit? What evidence do you have to support that claim? I'd note many indigenous peoples did not have access to sugar cane. Did the Maasai? Or many of the Pacific Islanders?
Back up your claims before you suggest others support they doubts about them.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29380
"YOU are the one "reducing" the cause of dental caries to one Big Button."

That's just the opposite of reductionism.

 I recognize that things are complicated from a design and construction standpoint, but they are exceedingly simple from a control standpoint.
It's like the hallucinating deductionst had a baby with the inductionist turkey.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29381
 it's the strangest thing to me that you guys cannot understand something so simple as reductionism

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29382
"YOU are the one "reducing" the cause of dental caries to one Big Button."

That's just the opposite of reductionism.
No. It's not.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29383
it's the strangest thing to me that you guys cannot understand accept something so simple as my idiosyncratic davinition of reductionism
fyp
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29384
 maybe it's because you really don't understand the true nature of biological entities.  most Darwinists don't seem to. Bruce Alberts is a rare exception.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29385
maybe it's because you really don't understand the true nature of biological entities.  most Darwinists don't seem to.
Who better to judge others' understanding of "the true nature of biological entities" than the Dunning-Kruger poster child who's never cracked an introductory textbook on the subject? 
Quote
Bruce Alberts is a rare exception.
::)  What books - or even research papers - by Alberts have you read?

Such a poser.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29386
What books or research papers did you need to read in order to know that the sun is a sphere and that it's very hot?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29387
What books or research papers did you need to read in order to know that the sun is a sphere and that it's very hot?
Kepler and Copernicus are a good place to start.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29388
You needed to read their books to learn those two basic facts?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29389
You needed to read their books to learn those two basic facts?

How do you think they became basic facts?

More accurately why do you think the sun is a sphere?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29390
What books or research papers did you need to read in order to know that the sun is a sphere and that it's very hot?
Way to go, Dave "Sucks at Analogies Even More Than He Sucks at Science!" Hawkins!  :golfclap:

What we're talking about knowing here is not anything about the sun, or even anything about "biological entities".
What we're talking about is Bruce Alberts' views.
And, yeah. You DO have to read what he wrote on that if you want to have a non-stupid opinion about it.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29391
 you are dodging my question

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29392
you are dodging my question
I'm pointing out why your question is too stupid to merit consideration, let alone an answer.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29393
Quote
But food production in our world today does NOT work.  It's broken in so many ways.

What you are doing is the same as saying "Airplanes are broken! They are environmentally unfriendly!" and then proceeding to tie lots of pigeons to a bicycle and call that an experiment in avionics, completely ignoring a lot of things we already know, and causing completely unnecessary harm to animals in your care.
God what an idiot

I fully understand that the truth hurts sometimes and that this makes you resort to this kind of schoolboy name-calling. I don't mind a bit. Just make sure to actually look in to what you are doing this time before you kill off your animals out of easily avoidable ignorance? Maybe look at the minimal dietary requirements of the breed of chickens you intend to keep this time?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29394
Dave honestly seems to think that "simplistic! = "holistic" and "appreciation of the complexities of systems with interconnected parts" = "reductionist".

Which is fine.  In which case, I am proud to be a reductionistDaveDefinition and reject holisticDaveDefinition analyses and solutions.

Does google translate do Davespeak?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29395
You needed to read their books to learn those two basic facts?

No, but you need to learn it from somewhere.  Otherwise  you might think it was, say, a disk, or a circular hole in the dome of heaven.  And that it was scarcely hot enough to burn skin, let alone hot enough to convert anything within it to a plasma.

So, let's hear your answer to VoxRat's question: What books - or even research papers - by Alberts have you read? 
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29396
Dave honestly seems to think that "simplistic! = "holistic" and "appreciation of the complexities of systems with interconnected parts" = "reductionist".

Which is fine.  In which case, I am proud to be a reductionistDaveDefinition and reject holisticDaveDefinition analyses and solutions.

Does google translate do Davespeak?
I appreciate the complexities of Nature as much as anyone here.  But one thing different about me is that I understand that all this complexity - like a Boeing 777 - can be controlled with a few simple levers from the cockpit.  We do not need to station tiny elves next to each control surface to "help" the aircraft fly better. 

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29397
You needed to read their books to learn those two basic facts?

No, but you need to learn it from somewhere.  Otherwise  you might think it was, say, a disk, or a circular hole in the dome of heaven.  And that it was scarcely hot enough to burn skin, let alone hot enough to convert anything within it to a plasma.

So, let's hear your answer to VoxRat's question: What books - or even research papers - by Alberts have you read? 
None.  Only snippets.  Which is all most people read in order to understand that the sun is a sphere and very hot.  That's my point.  I'm not addressing where this info came from originally.  Of course some scientists in both cases had to do some excellent work so that people generations later could read simple snippets and have true understanding.  See?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29398
So my statement prevails against Voxrat's objection.  I maintain that Bruce Alberts is one of the few Darwinists I've read who actually understands the true nature of organisms.  Denton is another one.  And yes, I base that on snippets I've read and that's perfectly legit.
  • Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 04:12:40 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29399
Dave honestly seems to think that "simplistic! = "holistic" and "appreciation of the complexities of systems with interconnected parts" = "reductionist".

Which is fine.  In which case, I am proud to be a reductionistDaveDefinition and reject holisticDaveDefinition analyses and solutions.

Does google translate do Davespeak?
I appreciate the complexities of Nature as much as anyone here.  But one thing different about me is that I understand that all this complexity - like a Boeing 777 - can be controlled with a few simple levers from the cockpit. 

No, you do not know that.  You hope it can, and you hope you know what levers do.  Many ecological disasters have resulted from people under that same delusion.  Sometimes a single lever has huge effects.  Sometimes those effects are not what the lever-puller intended.  Sometimes single levers have no effect whatsoever.  Sometimes levers only work in combination. Sometimes there is a lever, but we don't have access to the handle. Sometimes there may be no lever.

We do not need to station tiny elves next to each control surface to "help" the aircraft fly better.

Nobody is suggesting we do.  As usual, you make shit up.

For instance, putting fluoride in water is a very simple lever that has transformed dental health for millions. 

I bet  you think that's "reductionist" though.  The WAPF does.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.