Aidan Dwyer Controversy and its lessons
806 views
Skip to first unread message
Jeswin
Jan 6, 2012, 10:57:00 AM1/6/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Maybe you all recall the boy, Aidan Dwyer, who did an experiment to
see if solar panels arranged in a tree-like pattern according to the
Fibonacci sequence would be more efficient than other methods. His
work had gotten a lot of attention. It was only yesterday that I
learned that there was controversy regarding his work. It seems that
in the experiment, he measured voltage when the appropriate
measurement was the current. What happened next baffles me. People
derided his efforts and considered him a fool for making such a "silly
mistake". In the Wall Street article, one Dr Jan Kleissl says "I'm
certain that he will not find that his arrangement is better. I think
it's a romantic ideal that nature has many lessons for us, and there
are a few cases where this is true, but in the majority of cases we
could teach nature, in a way, how to be better, faster. [1]"
see if solar panels arranged in a tree-like pattern according to the
Fibonacci sequence would be more efficient than other methods. His
work had gotten a lot of attention. It was only yesterday that I
learned that there was controversy regarding his work. It seems that
in the experiment, he measured voltage when the appropriate
measurement was the current. What happened next baffles me. People
derided his efforts and considered him a fool for making such a "silly
mistake". In the Wall Street article, one Dr Jan Kleissl says "I'm
certain that he will not find that his arrangement is better. I think
it's a romantic ideal that nature has many lessons for us, and there
are a few cases where this is true, but in the majority of cases we
could teach nature, in a way, how to be better, faster. [1]"
Aidan Dwyer, however, has persevered and has accepted the major flaw
in his experiment. Now he is working to change his experiment to
include data on currents. Remember that Dwyer is 13 years old and
self-taught. His idea is unique and he set out to test his idea. I do
not like the fact that Dr Kleissl dismisses the idea. I would like to
see this theory tested by other scientist or anybody else. I do not
accept a theory without proof and in the same way, I will not dismiss
a theory without proof. The scientific community is taking a dangerous
road and the only outcome will be a great loss of innovation.
Coming back to the DIYbio movement, I believe that if someone in an
amateur lab were to discover something novel, there might be a
backlash from the "scientific" community. The scientific community
should not be compartmentalized into academics and hobbyists. I don't
know how to make the other side embrace DIY movements, not just in
biology but any other scientific field. I do know that we can set a
precedent by testing out claims in such a way that the academic
community cannot ignore it. Maybe we can start by testing out Aidan
Dwyer's Fibonacci solar panel arrangement.
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138511287470508.html
Simon Quellen Field
Jan 6, 2012, 11:59:11 AM1/6/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
I would have thought watts or watt hours would be the measurement
to use. You might have half a volt and two amps, or a volt and an amp,
and think you have a difference in energy between the two.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
Ethan
Jan 6, 2012, 12:24:16 PM1/6/12
to DIYbio
I think that the scientific community has taken somewhat of a bad
turn. It is my opinion that pure science (something that has been
moved away from due to funding issues) holds so much more potential
for innovation than practical science funded by people with monetary
interest in the results. But that is a whole different story.
I think some of the reactions to Aiden's work are ridiculous. He is 13
years old and self-taught on the subject. I am sure the issue that
arose was an honest mistake, and it is a shame that people are
deriding him for it. Additionally I think that curiosity, and often a
little intuition, are key to innovation in science. Instead of telling
him that he is wrong, I think people with better understanding on the
subject should address the flaws and encourage him to continue
experimenting.
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020355030457713851128747...
turn. It is my opinion that pure science (something that has been
moved away from due to funding issues) holds so much more potential
for innovation than practical science funded by people with monetary
interest in the results. But that is a whole different story.
I think some of the reactions to Aiden's work are ridiculous. He is 13
years old and self-taught on the subject. I am sure the issue that
arose was an honest mistake, and it is a shame that people are
deriding him for it. Additionally I think that curiosity, and often a
little intuition, are key to innovation in science. Instead of telling
him that he is wrong, I think people with better understanding on the
subject should address the flaws and encourage him to continue
experimenting.
CoryG
Jan 6, 2012, 12:36:14 PM1/6/12
to DIYbio
Technically it would be VAs - Watts vary with load wiring - though I'm
not really against a separation between academic and hobby sciences -
primarily because of the difference I see. For a good span of time
(hundreds, arguably thousands of years) academia was the place to be
for science but the only people really working on scientific projects
were those wealthy enough to afford it (likewise, academia wasn't the
run-of-the-mill certification center it is today). Now, formal
sources of education are just for those seeking certification for the
requirements of employment or tenure with little purposeful aim
(disclaimer: speaking of America - I know people from other
nationalities have chimed in previously on this subject saying it
isn't like this where they live - I can't speak to that one way or
another). The American education system is pretty appalling, and
anyone with the perseverance to study in class rather than listen to
the same thing over and over - to continue doing so outside of class,
and to ultimately theorize and experiment - deserves to be held in a
different tier. "Hobbyist" in this context is a badge of honor and
only a sub par certification when considered the direct result of not
paying for the approval of others, that which you can achieve
yourself. Besides, who cares if they discredit the kid - all it means
is he is safe to pursue his idea and see it to profit with little to
no competition.
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020355030457713851128747...
not really against a separation between academic and hobby sciences -
primarily because of the difference I see. For a good span of time
(hundreds, arguably thousands of years) academia was the place to be
for science but the only people really working on scientific projects
were those wealthy enough to afford it (likewise, academia wasn't the
run-of-the-mill certification center it is today). Now, formal
sources of education are just for those seeking certification for the
requirements of employment or tenure with little purposeful aim
(disclaimer: speaking of America - I know people from other
nationalities have chimed in previously on this subject saying it
isn't like this where they live - I can't speak to that one way or
another). The American education system is pretty appalling, and
anyone with the perseverance to study in class rather than listen to
the same thing over and over - to continue doing so outside of class,
and to ultimately theorize and experiment - deserves to be held in a
different tier. "Hobbyist" in this context is a badge of honor and
only a sub par certification when considered the direct result of not
paying for the approval of others, that which you can achieve
yourself. Besides, who cares if they discredit the kid - all it means
is he is safe to pursue his idea and see it to profit with little to
no competition.
Jeswin
Jan 6, 2012, 12:45:50 PM1/6/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Ethan <argen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think some of the reactions to Aiden's work are ridiculous. He is 13
> years old and self-taught on the subject. I am sure the issue that
> arose was an honest mistake, and it is a shame that people are
> deriding him for it. Additionally I think that curiosity, and often a
> little intuition, are key to innovation in science. Instead of telling
> him that he is wrong, I think people with better understanding on the
> subject should address the flaws and encourage him to continue
> experimenting.
>
> I think some of the reactions to Aiden's work are ridiculous. He is 13
> years old and self-taught on the subject. I am sure the issue that
> arose was an honest mistake, and it is a shame that people are
> deriding him for it. Additionally I think that curiosity, and often a
> little intuition, are key to innovation in science. Instead of telling
> him that he is wrong, I think people with better understanding on the
> subject should address the flaws and encourage him to continue
> experimenting.
>
Isn't it odd that people in the ivory tower (see Wolfe-Simon
controversy) find public scrutiny difficult and yet don't mind
subjecting amateurs to this. It is really simple to verify the kid's
claim. He had a $75 budget. How hard can it be to look at his pictures
and notes and even ask him for more details? I believe that the
so-call scientists don't want to accept the fact that they over-looked
a simple solution. It is also not a romantic idea to still believe
nature holds unique ideas and solutions.
I think his work is original, and if not, I really would like to read
the other material out there.
Jacob Shiach
Jan 6, 2012, 2:00:58 PM1/6/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com, diy...@googlegroups.com
Its good the kid is reforming his experiment, failure and being bluntly told you are wrong is all part of science. The only people who should be ashamed are all the science bloggers and "journalists" who took his results as fact without double checking. So many times people will just repost things without checking sources.
As for his theory, In a fixed light test or where the panel has solar tracking, I wouldn't expect the tree which places panels in suboptimal positions, to be more effective. The only situation I could see the tree working is where you can't spread out horizontally and need to build vertically.
-
Jacob Shiach
Simon Quellen Field
Jan 6, 2012, 2:33:58 PM1/6/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Plants arrange their leaves so as not to shade one another.
This can't be done perfectly, since the plant has limited ability
to track a moving sun.
In a situation where the solar panels cannot be co-planar, a
similar arrangement might provide the same benefit the plant gets.
Jeswin
Jan 6, 2012, 2:52:53 PM1/6/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Simon Quellen Field <sfi...@scitoys.com> wrote:
> Plants arrange their leaves so as not to shade one another.
> This can't be done perfectly, since the plant has limited ability
> to track a moving sun.
> In a situation where the solar panels cannot be co-planar, a
> similar arrangement might provide the same benefit the plant gets.
>
> Plants arrange their leaves so as not to shade one another.
> This can't be done perfectly, since the plant has limited ability
> to track a moving sun.
> In a situation where the solar panels cannot be co-planar, a
> similar arrangement might provide the same benefit the plant gets.
>
I just realized that it is possible to create a program and
positioning system that can measure the current (or voltage, not my
expertise) at each "leaf" and optimize the position for maximum
efficiency.
Giovanni Lostumbo
Jan 7, 2012, 6:45:35 AM1/7/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
from the WSJ article,
"Dr. Kleissl praised Aidan's work, but added that even if Aidan had measured the right variables, "I'm certain that he will not find that his arrangement is better," he said. "I think it's a romantic ideal that nature has many lessons for us, and there are a few cases where this is true, but in the majority of cases we could teach nature, in a way, how to be better, faster."
"Better, and faster" implies one ambiguity and one predisposition. "Better" is not a scientific measurement- it is a overgeneralized (ambiguous), subjective accentuation of an natura phenomenon that all scientists will be biased towards (by omitting one variable over another, unless they specialize in studying all the possible aspects of matter that are part of the the system. For example, any aspect of matter which can serve as a source of renewable energy utility engineering includes energy from nuclear, chemical, and biological energy theory. In this case, Dr. Kleissl wants to make nature "better" (in what way?), at the expense of sustainability. Suggesting that nature has few arrangements that are "better" than man-made, or artificial constructs suggests that the purpose of environmental engineering is to overproduce manufactured inorganic or biodegradeable goods instead of subsistance-level production, which does not lead to landfills of gadget waste as is presently the issue in the growth-based economy.
The predisposition towards "faster" suggests that sustainably may not be the goal, but rather, solar panels that are beefed up in in terms of insolation and wattage production efficiency but would one day stack up as obsolete heaps in landfill which would not be practical for sustainability.
Jacob,
when you said, "The only people who should be ashamed are all the science bloggers and "journalists" who took his results as fact without double checking. So many times people will just repost things without checking sources."
I can't speak on behalf of other bloggers (I consider myself one) and journalists, but as a blogger, I am primarily interested in the business of ideas, innovations and intellectual curiosity. Ideas and discussion lead to a wider field of testable hypotheses. When I am in this role, it is not my obligation nor important that I concern myself with whether the science was proven, because it is implying that the scientific establishment is making such a reactionary dismissal of an idea, and science isn't about shaping ideas, it's about differentiating original hypotheses and proliferating endlessly new variations on those original ideas. The parent idea is never supposed to be permanently modified or removed. Ideas are like an immortal fountain. For the purpose of science, they are a renewable resource or repository, but they are not for appropriation. The scientific method is used to vet ideas after they have been duplicated from this intangible source of living memory or readily reconstructable hypotheses (a.k.a. frequently asked questions), thus it is dangerous for scientific establishment to suggest they should re-appropriate the activity of "speculating," which is the domain of science fiction, which is a domain of the the liberal arts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
"Dr. Kleissl praised Aidan's work, but added that even if Aidan had measured the right variables, "I'm certain that he will not find that his arrangement is better," he said. "I think it's a romantic ideal that nature has many lessons for us, and there are a few cases where this is true, but in the majority of cases we could teach nature, in a way, how to be better, faster."
"Better, and faster" implies one ambiguity and one predisposition. "Better" is not a scientific measurement- it is a overgeneralized (ambiguous), subjective accentuation of an natura phenomenon that all scientists will be biased towards (by omitting one variable over another, unless they specialize in studying all the possible aspects of matter that are part of the the system. For example, any aspect of matter which can serve as a source of renewable energy utility engineering includes energy from nuclear, chemical, and biological energy theory. In this case, Dr. Kleissl wants to make nature "better" (in what way?), at the expense of sustainability. Suggesting that nature has few arrangements that are "better" than man-made, or artificial constructs suggests that the purpose of environmental engineering is to overproduce manufactured inorganic or biodegradeable goods instead of subsistance-level production, which does not lead to landfills of gadget waste as is presently the issue in the growth-based economy.
The predisposition towards "faster" suggests that sustainably may not be the goal, but rather, solar panels that are beefed up in in terms of insolation and wattage production efficiency but would one day stack up as obsolete heaps in landfill which would not be practical for sustainability.
Jacob,
when you said, "The only people who should be ashamed are all the science bloggers and "journalists" who took his results as fact without double checking. So many times people will just repost things without checking sources."
I can't speak on behalf of other bloggers (I consider myself one) and journalists, but as a blogger, I am primarily interested in the business of ideas, innovations and intellectual curiosity. Ideas and discussion lead to a wider field of testable hypotheses. When I am in this role, it is not my obligation nor important that I concern myself with whether the science was proven, because it is implying that the scientific establishment is making such a reactionary dismissal of an idea, and science isn't about shaping ideas, it's about differentiating original hypotheses and proliferating endlessly new variations on those original ideas. The parent idea is never supposed to be permanently modified or removed. Ideas are like an immortal fountain. For the purpose of science, they are a renewable resource or repository, but they are not for appropriation. The scientific method is used to vet ideas after they have been duplicated from this intangible source of living memory or readily reconstructable hypotheses (a.k.a. frequently asked questions), thus it is dangerous for scientific establishment to suggest they should re-appropriate the activity of "speculating," which is the domain of science fiction, which is a domain of the the liberal arts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
Reason
Jan 7, 2012, 5:30:27 PM1/7/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
The SENS Foundation (their research center is in the Bay Area) runs an
academic initiative, which makes modest grants and is an umbrella for a
range of projects suited for life science and biotech undergrads and
postgrads - so it may be of interest to the group here. The Foundation
volunteers recently updated the initiative site to provide a great deal more
information about what's going on and what is available:
academic initiative, which makes modest grants and is an umbrella for a
range of projects suited for life science and biotech undergrads and
postgrads - so it may be of interest to the group here. The Foundation
volunteers recently updated the initiative site to provide a great deal more
information about what's going on and what is available:
http://sens.org/academic-initiative/research-projects/available
"The following projects are available - they have been written for use by
our students, but work on them has yet to begin. Please note that these are
not the only research projects that you can complete through the Academic
Initiative - we encourage you to get hands-on experience and form
relationships with your university's faculty by finding a
rejuvenation-related research project at your own university and registering
it with the Initiative."
To the casual eye, it seems that there should be the potential for much
synergy between programs that aim to fund discrete $1 - $10k biotech
projects and some of the ongoing projects within the DIYbio community.
Reason
mad_casual
Jan 9, 2012, 1:57:34 AM1/9/12
to DIYbio
On Jan 7, 6:45 am, Giovanni Lostumbo <giovanni.lostu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Zeno's Paradox of solar energy where solar panels get built better,
and recycled faster until we just 'magically' harness the Sun's energy
with no consumption, turnover, or waste. I would assume Dr. Kleissl,
to be more realistic than that, but at the very least I found no
reason to suggest his advocacy of poisoning kittens or testing nuclear
bombs on the fault lines.
You're view of Environmental Engineering could be interpreted and
portrayed equally nefariously; without a command economy (and evidence
would suggest even with), environmental engineering and subsistence-
level production are just a pipe-dream. Even if we had perfectly
heartless dictators and perfectly subjugated denizens, without
flawless precognition, subsistence-level production is a recipe for
annihilation. This massive accounting of variables combined with rigid
adherence to algorithms would suggest 'computational-heavy
leadership'. I don't know that I'd enjoy a subsistence-level life
under the command of a computer-centered leadership, especially
considering said leadership would probably care very little for the
organic beings or systems of the planet.
I agree that we could stand to shift away from consumption, but
subsistence just isn't a good survival mechanism, whether we're
talking about gluconeogenesis, sleep and hibernation, or the starving
of wolf packs after they've over-consumed local deer, animals are
engineered for cyclic over/under-consumption from the cells up.
They've been selected in an iterative method to do it "better" and
"faster" than their predecessors.
wrote:
> "Better, and faster" implies one ambiguity and one predisposition. "Better"
> is not a scientific measurement- it is a overgeneralized (ambiguous),
> subjective accentuation of an natura phenomenon that all scientists will be
> biased towards (by omitting one variable over another, unless they
> specialize in studying all the possible aspects of matter that are part of
> the the system. For example, any aspect of matter which can serve as a
> source of renewable energy utility engineering includes energy from
> nuclear, chemical, and biological energy theory. In this case, Dr. Kleissl
> wants to make nature "better" (in what way?), at the expense of
> sustainability. Suggesting that nature has few arrangements that are
> "better" than man-made, or artificial constructs suggests that the purpose
> of environmental engineering is to overproduce manufactured inorganic or
> biodegradeable goods instead of subsistance-level production, which does
> not lead to landfills of gadget waste as is presently the issue in the
> growth-based economy.
>
> The predisposition towards "faster" suggests that sustainably may not be
> the goal, but rather, solar panels that are beefed up in in terms of
> insolation and wattage production efficiency but would one day stack up as
> obsolete heaps in landfill which would not be practical for sustainability.
Or... maybe Dr. Kleissl means 'better' and 'faster' in a good way; A
> is not a scientific measurement- it is a overgeneralized (ambiguous),
> subjective accentuation of an natura phenomenon that all scientists will be
> biased towards (by omitting one variable over another, unless they
> specialize in studying all the possible aspects of matter that are part of
> the the system. For example, any aspect of matter which can serve as a
> source of renewable energy utility engineering includes energy from
> nuclear, chemical, and biological energy theory. In this case, Dr. Kleissl
> wants to make nature "better" (in what way?), at the expense of
> sustainability. Suggesting that nature has few arrangements that are
> "better" than man-made, or artificial constructs suggests that the purpose
> of environmental engineering is to overproduce manufactured inorganic or
> biodegradeable goods instead of subsistance-level production, which does
> not lead to landfills of gadget waste as is presently the issue in the
> growth-based economy.
>
> The predisposition towards "faster" suggests that sustainably may not be
> the goal, but rather, solar panels that are beefed up in in terms of
> insolation and wattage production efficiency but would one day stack up as
> obsolete heaps in landfill which would not be practical for sustainability.
Zeno's Paradox of solar energy where solar panels get built better,
and recycled faster until we just 'magically' harness the Sun's energy
with no consumption, turnover, or waste. I would assume Dr. Kleissl,
to be more realistic than that, but at the very least I found no
reason to suggest his advocacy of poisoning kittens or testing nuclear
bombs on the fault lines.
You're view of Environmental Engineering could be interpreted and
portrayed equally nefariously; without a command economy (and evidence
would suggest even with), environmental engineering and subsistence-
level production are just a pipe-dream. Even if we had perfectly
heartless dictators and perfectly subjugated denizens, without
flawless precognition, subsistence-level production is a recipe for
annihilation. This massive accounting of variables combined with rigid
adherence to algorithms would suggest 'computational-heavy
leadership'. I don't know that I'd enjoy a subsistence-level life
under the command of a computer-centered leadership, especially
considering said leadership would probably care very little for the
organic beings or systems of the planet.
I agree that we could stand to shift away from consumption, but
subsistence just isn't a good survival mechanism, whether we're
talking about gluconeogenesis, sleep and hibernation, or the starving
of wolf packs after they've over-consumed local deer, animals are
engineered for cyclic over/under-consumption from the cells up.
They've been selected in an iterative method to do it "better" and
"faster" than their predecessors.
CoryG
Jan 9, 2012, 9:40:47 AM1/9/12
to DIYbio
> Or... maybe Dr. Kleissl means 'better' and 'faster' in a good way; A
> Zeno's Paradox of solar energy where solar panels get built better,
> and recycled faster until we just 'magically' harness the Sun's energy
> with no consumption, turnover, or waste. I would assume Dr. Kleissl,
> to be more realistic than that, but at the very least I found no
> reason to suggest his advocacy of poisoning kittens or testing nuclear
> bombs on the fault lines.
Come on everyone, just hit Report Spam and we can be rid of these
> Zeno's Paradox of solar energy where solar panels get built better,
> and recycled faster until we just 'magically' harness the Sun's energy
> with no consumption, turnover, or waste. I would assume Dr. Kleissl,
> to be more realistic than that, but at the very least I found no
> reason to suggest his advocacy of poisoning kittens or testing nuclear
> bombs on the fault lines.
thread-hijacking-hyperbole-spewing hippies today (personally I'd opt
for bringing back public burning, but I fear we have too many hippies
and too little kindling).
Cathal Garvey
Jan 9, 2012, 9:53:34 AM1/9/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
> Come on everyone, just hit Report Spam and we can be rid of these
> thread-hijacking-hyperbole-spewing hippies today (personally I'd opt
> for bringing back public burning, but I fear we have too many hippies
> and too little kindling).
> thread-hijacking-hyperbole-spewing hippies today (personally I'd opt
> for bringing back public burning, but I fear we have too many hippies
> and too little kindling).
Google "spontaneous human combustion wicking" for an explanation of how
human tissues can become quite flammable when combined with clothing.
As much as I find hippies endearing, I imagine all that flax and hemp
would work wonders as a wicking material. No need for additional
kindling. :P
Anyways, it's a suitable discussion topic for the DIYbio list in my
view; it deals with indie science, citizen science legitimacy and
there's even an element of biomimicry in there. I find myself torn
whenever I see discussions on "Us Versus Institutional Science" though.
I'm not sure where that's going; it's my gut feeling that a lot of the
gaps between the two are destined to crumble in due course, so drawing
lines in the sand won't make much of a difference.
i.e.; When DIYbio-favoured methods for routine lab tasks are easier and
cheaper than institutional methods without sacrificing efficiency, how
long until Institutional labs start adopting them? In the other
direction, as our equipment resources approach the complexity and power
of institutional offerings, how long until the complexity of our
experimental methods rise to match?
If a given "Scientist!" is talking like an asshole, it's not the fault
of "Big Science", it's the fault of that scientist. If a little
scientist makes a mistake and aims to address it with improved methods,
that's laudable; mistakes aren't a cause for shame or excuses, they are
an oft-ignored aspect of normal, good science.
--
www.indiebiotech.com
twitter.com/onetruecathal
joindiaspora.com/u/cathalgarvey
PGP Public Key: http://bit.ly/CathalGKey
mad_casual
Jan 9, 2012, 6:13:56 PM1/9/12
to DIYbio
On Jan 9, 8:53 am, Cathal Garvey <cathalgar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyways, it's a suitable discussion topic for the DIYbio list in my
> view; it deals with indie science, citizen science legitimacy and
> there's even an element of biomimicry in there. I find myself torn
> whenever I see discussions on "Us Versus Institutional Science" though.
> I'm not sure where that's going; it's my gut feeling that a lot of the
> gaps between the two are destined to crumble in due course, so drawing
> lines in the sand won't make much of a difference.
+1
> Anyways, it's a suitable discussion topic for the DIYbio list in my
> view; it deals with indie science, citizen science legitimacy and
> there's even an element of biomimicry in there. I find myself torn
> whenever I see discussions on "Us Versus Institutional Science" though.
> I'm not sure where that's going; it's my gut feeling that a lot of the
> gaps between the two are destined to crumble in due course, so drawing
> lines in the sand won't make much of a difference.
Thank you, the line 'at the expense of sustainability' struck me as
unfounded and even unnecessarily insulting, especially when leveled at
an Environmental Engineer and an otherwise upstanding scientist;
http://maeresearch.ucsd.edu/kleissl/
Giovanni Lostumbo
Jan 9, 2012, 6:35:43 PM1/9/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Nice, but it doesn't answer the question about whether "faster" compromises sustainability. Agriculture with pesticides and irrigation (as opposed to dryland farming) is procuring food "faster" and dubiously "better". Organic farming is potentially healthier food for humans but can be as equally intensive and "nonrenwewable" (as seen by desertification) on the land. Biodynamics, according to the following links, is apparently the most sustainable form of organic farming.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biodynamicFarming.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture
also, permaculture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo ""How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Earth, but Not Civilization"
So, when someone says "better" in regards to the environment, there is a possibility that "better" is trading off something sustainable/subsistence in exchange for acquiring more of an engineered technology/environment/harvest. I'm not denying that many of the products of industrialization I enjoy today are made this way, but I'm just making an observation of alternative models.
--
Giovanni Lostumbo
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biodynamicFarming.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture
also, permaculture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo ""How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Earth, but Not Civilization"
So, when someone says "better" in regards to the environment, there is a possibility that "better" is trading off something sustainable/subsistence in exchange for acquiring more of an engineered technology/environment/harvest. I'm not denying that many of the products of industrialization I enjoy today are made this way, but I'm just making an observation of alternative models.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
--
Giovanni Lostumbo
Giovanni Lostumbo
Jan 9, 2012, 6:56:52 PM1/9/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
I should specify the type of biodynamic farming as "vegan biodynamic farming," since Bovine spongiform encephalopathy/CJD is something I'd like avoid too.
--
Giovanni Lostumbo
Giovanni Lostumbo
Giovanni Lostumbo
Jan 9, 2012, 7:15:21 PM1/9/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
"I don't know that I'd enjoy a subsistence-level life
under the command of a computer-centered leadership, especially
considering said leadership would probably care very little for the
organic beings or systems of the planet."
I don't see why it was assumed that I meant a command center leadership for subsistence-level life. Decentralized, self-organizing networks would not be subject to groupthink blind spots and tyranny, with more polycephalous or acephalous leadership strategies:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netwar#All-channel_networks. It's more difficult, but it's the potentially most legitimate form of organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitory_Democracy under the command of a computer-centered leadership, especially
considering said leadership would probably care very little for the
organic beings or systems of the planet."
Giovanni Lostumbo
Jan 9, 2012, 7:20:29 PM1/9/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhocracy
--
Giovanni Lostumbo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/t9BSlSW17kEJ.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
--
Giovanni Lostumbo
mad_casual
Jan 10, 2012, 12:06:08 PM1/10/12
to DIYbio
On Jan 9, 5:56 pm, Giovanni Lostumbo <giovanni.lostu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
antibiotics, and equipment to sterilize/purify fertilizers, you're
trading a relatively unlikely, slow, painless death from CJD for a
significantly more likely, quicker and more painful death from
trichinosis. And rather advanced and stabilized self-organizing
network is required to adequately prevent invasive species/diseases;
Blaga, R., Durand, B., Antoniu, S., Gherman, C., Cretu, C.M., Cozma,
V., Boireau, P. (2007). A dramatic increase in the incidence of human
trichinellosis in Romania over the past 25 years: impact of political
changes and regional food habits. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 983–986.
Every year, 10,000 subsistence-level farmers die painfully from
Trichinosis. Presumably, they are part of some ad hoc social network
that the Chinese and other S. Asian gov'ts don't know or really don't
care about.
wrote:
> I should specify the type of biodynamic farming as "vegan biodynamic
> farming," since Bovine spongiform encephalopathy/CJD is something I'd like
> avoid too.
Unless your idea of subsistence-level farming involves concrete,
> farming," since Bovine spongiform encephalopathy/CJD is something I'd like
> avoid too.
antibiotics, and equipment to sterilize/purify fertilizers, you're
trading a relatively unlikely, slow, painless death from CJD for a
significantly more likely, quicker and more painful death from
trichinosis. And rather advanced and stabilized self-organizing
network is required to adequately prevent invasive species/diseases;
Blaga, R., Durand, B., Antoniu, S., Gherman, C., Cretu, C.M., Cozma,
V., Boireau, P. (2007). A dramatic increase in the incidence of human
trichinellosis in Romania over the past 25 years: impact of political
changes and regional food habits. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 983–986.
Every year, 10,000 subsistence-level farmers die painfully from
Trichinosis. Presumably, they are part of some ad hoc social network
that the Chinese and other S. Asian gov'ts don't know or really don't
care about.
Nathan McCorkle
Jan 10, 2012, 1:54:40 PM1/10/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
How does vegan farming relate to trichinosis? No one said to give up
good practices of keeping animals healthy and clean even if it wasn't
vegan farming.
That is unless there are other non-ingested ways to get that parasite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trichinella_LifeCycle.gif
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
--
Nathan McCorkle
Rochester Institute of Technology
College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics
Giovanni Lostumbo
Jan 10, 2012, 4:52:13 PM1/10/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
I avoid beef and pork when possible, so it's a non-issue for me unless, like Nathan says. trichinosis can be transmitted via non-digestive pathways. I trust omnivores would be interested in maintaining their livestock and the advanced, self-organization of networks to prevent diseases/invasive species would be similar to the vegan biodynamics networks I would be part of.
Jeswin
Jan 10, 2012, 4:56:31 PM1/10/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
to his mistaken data, not livestock and farming. Go start a new topic
for that.
Thank you
Nathan McCorkle
Jan 10, 2012, 6:22:52 PM1/10/12
to diy...@googlegroups.com
we should get him to chime in personally... I've had no luck sorting
through google for his email, or even a screen name on a forum if he
ever used one for his project research or methods. :/
through google for his email, or even a screen name on a forum if he
ever used one for his project research or methods. :/
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
--
mad_casual
Jan 10, 2012, 8:13:50 PM1/10/12
to DIYbio
On Jan 10, 12:54 pm, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That is unless there are other non-ingested ways to get that parasite:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trichinella_LifeCycle.gif
>
>
> That is unless there are other non-ingested ways to get that parasite:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trichinella_LifeCycle.gif
>
On Jan 10, 12:54 pm, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That is unless there are other non-ingested ways to get that parasite:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trichinella_LifeCycle.gif
>
>
> That is unless there are other non-ingested ways to get that parasite:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trichinella_LifeCycle.gif
>
On Jan 10, 12:54 pm, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That is unless there are other non-ingested ways to get that parasite:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trichinella_LifeCycle.gif
>
1. Kinda hard to die from E. coli or salmonella without ingesting them
>
> That is unless there are other non-ingested ways to get that parasite:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trichinella_LifeCycle.gif
>
either. Somehow 45 people were killed last year from Organic(!)
sprouts that were contaminated with O104:H4. I'm not sure about the
relative sizes of the North American and British beef markets relative
to the European raw sprout market, but I think it's safe to say that
the beef market was far more successful last year in successfully
nourishing humans than the sprout market by virtually any metric. A
carbon footprint analysis would be much more complicated (You just
subtract from the carbon footprint for killing people, right?).
2. One might equally ask, cattle are herbivores, how to they contract
and transmit a meat-based food-borne pathogen? Industrial farms in the
North America grow cows almost overwhelmingly on good ole industrial
soy protein (occasionally, sweet whey). Less 'industrial', more
subsistent, and more ecologically friendly farmers in Europe would
grind up the by products of slaughtered animals as well as injured and
diseased animals and supplement feed with the protein. North American
beef markets were forced to recall as once ground up and blended, the
source animal becomes significantly harder to determine.
3. The probability of dying from CJD from any source is one in a
million. That's 6000 people worldwide, annually. That's 4,000 less
than people who died from trichinosis.
4. You're absolutely right, no one said to give up good agricultural
practices, willingly or unwillingly European cattle and sprout growers
did. Also keep in mind, anyone who was reported killed by trichinosis
had access to postmortem medical facilities that diagnosed trichinosis
and/or a social network for reporting but apparently didn't get or
ignored the message about washing hands or cooking meat thoroughly.
The problem involves humans and social interaction and is therefore
much more complicated than just simple biology and 'one size fits all'
socio-political theories, if it's even solvable at all.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages