Wow...that thing is huge! Hard to even comprehend.

Here some more information, and part of the reason why they arent extinct:

Sunfish live on a diet consisting mainly of jellyfish, but because this diet is nutritionally poor, they consume large amounts to develop and maintain their great bulk. Females of the species can produce more eggs than any other known vertebrate. Adult sunfish are vulnerable to few natural predators, but sea lions, killer whales, and sharks will consume them.

Couldn't agree more. But (there's always a 'but')... if a person convinces themself that they feel better without gluten, then the most passionate and data filled argument presented to tell them that what they feel is not justifiable scientifically, they're still going to be silly and tell the informed individual to screw off. The point is, some people have a reason that is good enough for them, and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. Are we really that dialed in to what's healthy and what nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle? (whatever that means...). By example, consider the history of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - in the early 90's, people were feeling shitty and weak, in pain and suffering. They were labeled as fakers or diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, but certainly not a verifiable medical condition related to any consistent physiological disorder. Thousands then and now millions of people have been diagnosed with the disease that is finally recognized as a true medical ailment. The point: we know a lot but we don't know it all when it comes to physiology, nutrition and "sensitivities", and there is no one size fits all solution to guarantee we will be healthy. It's understandable that some are dismissive of this gluten thing as completely irrational based on current science, but parallel that with the irrational and mocked CFS sufferers from 30 years ago who now carry a disease that is has a clear diagnostic methodology and is to varying degrees treatable. Sometimes we don't even know what we don't even know, and for some if it makes them feel better, they're going to do it. Harmful? To each their own.

What Neil deGrasse Tyson and some of the other scientists/doctors (myself include) have are saying is that the IDEA of GMO's is a great one. The fact that we can engineer our foods to get the traits we want or add additional beneficial traits is an incredibly useful tool. We've already engineered rice that is able to produce vitamin A, which has been a huge help for places with vitamin A deficiencies and we can engineer potatoes to absorb less fats and oils when we fry them, there is also a professor at SUNY-ESF who is using GMO's to try and save the American Chestnut tree from extinction.

GMing is simply another tool in humanity's struggle to survive. First it was finding which foods were safe to eat, then it was breeding organisms within species to make inbred organisms that had the traits we wanted (think cattle, dogs, cats, corn, banana's; some of these things are more inbred than the Hapsburgs), then we starting creating our own hybrids across different species, and now we have GMO's.

However, what I object to is the current corporate use of GMO's to exploit farmers over patents, and breed for traits that people do necessarily need. NdT I'm sure is not advocating for that, but is advocating for the use of transgenic organisms/GMO's to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

GMO's are probably the most powerful tool we have to curb world hunger, and mal-nutrition, and it could also be the thing that allows humans to venture beyond the solar system. What the Sift seems to be objecting to, and the rest of the "developed" world is the use of GMO's by greedy corporations who care more about turning a profit than solving world problems (there isn't very much money in feeding the needy and hungry). They are the one's making what appear to me more or less useless and potentially dangerous GMO's. Turn your anger away from GMO's specifically and narrow it to the ill use of GMO's by greedy corporations.

Lastly, the argument that "we don't know what they'll do" is for the most part unfounded, there are a decent amount of studies (find them yourself sorry) which show that GMO's in general won't cause harm (though it really depends on what you're trying to make). The same argument was made about the LHC "We don't know what will happen when we turn it on!" but everyone was fine.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nutritional, supplement, magic, pill, weight, loss, senate, hearing, FDA, june 22' to 'nutritional supplement, magic pill, weight loss, senate hearing, FDA, june 22' - edited by xxovercastxx

Agree on pretty much all of that, apart from the copyright part.

There are a caveats like smoking in non-smoking areas (smoke all you want, just not near me), parents who feed their kids crap (it's one thing for an adult to make an informed decision to eat crap, but kids should be given at least some nutrition), or drug related crime (and I don't mean possession or use). All are fairly grey areas though and beyond the scope of this topic.

One thing I don't get is WTF "use of her body" has to do with copyrighted works (other than in a sense so broad as to be meaningless)? It's a really weird connection to make, and it seems like you're arguing for something that pretty much already exists. No-one is going to stop you singing a copyrighted song, or reciting a copyrighted poem.

I genuinely don't get what your point is.

@SDGundamX

Thanks!

@shveddy

Bit confused since you say there's a point of no return at the end, but yes your argument is not really about that.

People not meeting their nutritional needs right now is not due to an under supply but due to general poverty. If sufficient employment and income existed in impoverished countries the world supply of food would be able to cope. As far as a lack of balance, see my earlier point about bringing people out of poverty, closing global income gaps and all sharing the available resources.

I don't think you could characterise any of the global conflicts in the past 100 years as being primarily due to resource scarcity. Perhaps Japan's aggression in SE Asia around WWII because of its lack of energy resources but that's an isolated case in the post-Depression era brought about by misguided isolationist economic policies. If you really want to prevent resource wars, your best bet is to be a staunch advocate of free trade.

Large countries have gone to war because of personalities, territorial ambitions and a general desire for power, not out of necessity because of scarcity.

As far as a point of population balance, that's entirely subjective. Like I said before, his bandying around of exponential is completely unfounded. Population growth is rising at a much reduced rate, proportionate growth relative to current levels is much smaller than in the 1950s during the baby boomer period.

When you say 20Bn as an example, I don't think you appreciate how much we're going to plateau. Have a read of:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/06/daily-chart-10

9.6Bn by 2050
10.9Bn by 2100

There is a good chance we will never hit anywhere close to 20Bn short of life enhancing technology which at this point doesn't exist. If we do, then I could equally argue we will invent technology that will reduce our individual resource needs dramatically.

Do I wish population growth was lower and there were more for each of us? Sure. Louis CK has a great bit on it. Agreed on women's rights and education, but as with everything it's correlated to societal poverty. You may as well kill two birds with one stone by just focussing on that. Every policy action has an opportunity cost, given what I've said, I would rather focus on something more pressing.

Willing to guess..that the so-called heckler there who asked Obama aloud his inane shit and reset the wannabe president's unscripted ass, was followed home by assholes, or is inna box being questioned somewhere as we speak so....fuck all you Obama dick-riders out there, you suck sweaty, unwashed and hope-ridden ballzack

Oh wait! You can vote for someone else in one of the 2 parties that makes you feeeeel goood because of what you heard while trying to decide what frappa-latte-jizmo yer gonna have for the fast-breaking, non-nutritive brain-lozenge before unconsciousness grips you and then beddy-bye.

There's yer choice peeps. 1 of 2 shit-heals, whoever they may be.

Election 2016-As flat 'n refreshing as an un-fizzy soda pop found in a bus terminal with some hideous shade of lipstick on the cap and you drink it anyway...cause yer whore-mongering ways are so, so cozy....

....gonna write-in 'cocksucker' when floating by the polls next go-round, maybe watch some Finnish porn after-

It will only be a choice of one international criminal over another unless thoughtful citizens ditch both parties provided for anyone to vote for, and perform the voter's coup d'etat.....The naivete that you have a choice in the matter without taking a real choice, is a systemic disease.You are not alone in your inebriation on the political-Koolaid beverage.

Try smashing a few televisions and encourage others to do so. It's cathartic and will free your mind, Neo.

Anti-Obama people aren't trolls by the way @ChaosEngine-They're either seriously deluded into thinking that they are not in some sort of state of willful denial that the prescribed systems of electoral chicanery actually functions as they blindly assume as is spelled-out since they were kids in elementary school, or they can see through the ruse that is, a government by and for her peoples.

Lump me in such a simplistic and obtuse category as 'Obama-for-or-anti' and you may or not, recognize yourself in the former category.

If there's a 'guy' with his finger on the nuclear missile (otherwise known as a false-flag event), it's the same guy or guys who called-in the drone-strike. Who is the 'imaginary' guy you speak of?? Ask yourself, is the insane scenario your offered-up, even possible? Bad guys, good guys? Gimme a break, you're smarter than that.

I believe that "ignore" is the operative and self-delusional tag word here. Keep ignoring the obvious. Seems to work well for some to quell fear of the unknown.

'Republicans bad, democrats good', a broken-record and at least 10 other peep's in any room of folks' discussing politics-as-usual, comforting "safety phrase."

All it sounds like to me is apes in a cage, bellowing for a nutritive meal and the freedom to roam to find it for themselves.

It's 2014 lantern-five-three, nothings a fucking toss-up anymore....It's an insidious program.

Choice and chance are illusory in the political realm.

No sir. Sensible sane and rational people(sarcasm intended) would treat sponsorship of Olympic games similarly if sayyy, the Olympic committee used child labor or trashed the environment building the arena and got corporate sponsors behind them....Wouldn't we then have to listen to the same type of gimps, the same who trash their own powers of reason, come out of the wood-works to protest that horrifying scenario!?? Watch them boycott coco-cola and mc donalds then?



WHAT CREATES THE LOWER-CLASS PEOPLE anyway, duh???

All governments work the same dude, a few people force the masses to perform according to their rules or be fined or imprisoned.

Draaakonian bullshit.

Personally, I boycott coke and mc donalds because their food is non-nutritive shit that causes diabetic epidemics in adults and children-Less is more.

Besides, corporate sponsorship of anything is a waste of resources when the same could be used for advancement both physically and spiritually of the entire species.

It's 2014 sir, and pretty much ALL governments and law enforcement works on the same arcane model, be they called democracies or dictatorships....po-tay-to, fucking pa-tah-to

I hate the business of GMO, mainly because of Evil Monopolistic Monsanto®, but are there any scientific studies that even claim these products are less safe for human consumption?

Of course, modifying an organism can have side effects such as decreasing nutritional value, but so can not rotating crops correctly or failure to maintain soil properly.

As much as I disagree with Kevin O'Leary on most things, I'm with him on this. The girl is impressively assured and sharp for her age, but a lot of what she is saying with such confidence is simply false.

For instance, she says that Golden Rice has been shown not to work. Untrue. There is plenty of scientific evidence showing that Golden Rice is a good source of vitamin A (example). Given the huge problems associated with vitamin deficiency in the third world, and the strong scientific support for the efficacy of Golden Rice, the movement against its use is basically like the anti-vaccination movement -- uninformed and dangerous.

Also, Golden Rice is distributed for free to poor farmers (thanks to Ingo Potrykus, its creator), so its not like farmers have to go into debt to pay Monsanto or something in order to use it.

There were other falsehoods in what she said (like her absurd claim that GM crops don't produce higher yields) but this one really stood out for me. Golden Rice seems like a no-brainer: an unambiguously positive scientific development that is being distributed in an ethical manner. Spreading misinformation about it in order to discourage its adoption is unconscionable.

I think its important to have people out there protesting and warning against the excesses of companies like Monsanto, which has an unfortunate stranglehold over most GMO distribution. I just wish the most vocal activists weren't also science-deniers.

I delivered my five boys at home, and most everyone I know gives birth at home. So I guess I'm coming from the opposite background.

I drafted a response, then realized it was over 1,000 words. There is much to say. I'll just say the most important single element of birth is father and mother preparation. Take a child birth class. Read a minimum of 3 books on the topic. Excercise. Research nutrition.

Don't just hire 'the best doctor' and trust everything will go perfect. The health of mother and child isn't determined at the point of birth, but it is built over a lifetime.

Hospital births CAN be successful, but you are often fighting the staff and hospital policies. Hospitals and doctors don't know much about NORMAL birth. They study, train, and get PAID to handle ABNORMAL births.

@Trancecoach

I never said people don't have self control, but if it were as simple as "eat less and exercise," no one would be unhealthy or obese. Instead, we're looking at a majority of the population that's overweight.

http://www.nourishinteractive.com/system/assets/general/images/nutrition-facts/portion-control-larger-portions.png

I'm not saying that it's the only reason for weight problems, but as the original article I posted points out "No one eats one and one quarter of an apple." Portion size increases provide correlative data that coincide with weight problems in developed countries. I've yet to see any data that suggests that people in the world, collectively, suddenly have less self control.

I'm no dietician, but I'd say that the low-fat food crazes of the 1980s and 90s played a role as well: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/low-fat/

Typical low-fat options replace the fat (and protein in some cases) with sugar which is burned quicker by the body.

I could go on and on, but I stand on the position that it's NOT just a simple matter of self control. AND even if it is, people have varying levels of self control that need to be accounted for: http://cess.nyu.edu/caplin/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Measuring-Self-Control-Problems.pdf

Surely, you don't think everyone has the same level of self control as you?


Edit: One last thing, sometimes people rely on food labels to restrict their diet and come up short because nutrition facts are often unreliable: http://nutritionovereasy.com/2011/04/can-you-trust-the-nutrition-facts/ Self control without good information is a bad mix.

A) Not here in Ozland. Certainly remember seeing it on nutritional information but here's from their site:

https://mcdonalds.com.au/maccas-food/whats-in-it

"85% less trans fat than our previous blend." Certainly not none though

B) Interesting how in the link it talks about mold growth being dependant on it breaking out before loss of moisture in the first few days. The rate it decomposes is still hardly normal though. Especially the fries (mostly because of the sodium content):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfSTjLavkA8

The whole issue about calories is a misdirect, there are dozens of other more important reasons why McD's is worse than trash. A couple of examples - the food is loaded with all manner of artificial ingredients, it's lacking in quality fiber, it's highly processed (low nutritional value), and the quality of the macro ingredients is very poor - i.e. the use of trans-fats as @RedSky points out, as well as the use of poor quality sugars (i.e. HFCS) to sweeten the dough.

That's not even to mention the exploitation of their workers, rainforest clearing to raise cattle, wasteful use of plastic packaging etc.