Showing posts with label Gizmodo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gizmodo. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

"To Stop Climate Change, We Must Genetically Engineer Humans"

"A lot of researchers are thinking about how to genetically engineer crops and food animals to help them withstand post-climate change heat and parched conditions. But what about genetically engineering humans to slow our constant carbon contributions?"
The first proposal we cover is night vision — the idea that we could genetically engineer humans to have more rods so we could better see at night, and thus reduce our dependence on electric lights. The problem here is that there are only so many spots for rods and cones in our eyeballs, and our particular balance of the two is a tradeoff. Humans are day creatures, so they have more cone cells. Animals like cats are night creatures, so they have more rods. So during the day, humans can actually see motion about 10 to 12 times better than a cat. And many experts think that cats don’t see the same number of colors we do, although they’re divided over whether cats see in mostly blues and grays, or whether they see more like dogs where everything is less saturated. So if we want night vision, we might have to compromise some of our day vision to get it.
Another modification that Liao proposed was an induced allergy to meat, to help people reduce their consumption of animals. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States 14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution comes from livestock. So the idea here is to make people allergic to eating meat. The problem is that there’s no real way to control the severity of the allergy, and the two proteins that Liao talks about targeting (BSA and alpha-gal) are both found in all kinds of places like milk, eggs, dogs, cats and pork. People allergic to alpha-gal seem to be able to eat poultry and fish, but if they were to eat pork or lamb or beef the allergic reaction includes everything from hives to gastrointestinal upset, to anaphylactic shock. Not something most people would want to sign up for.
Next we talk about breeding people to be shorter, something Liao says could reduce our carbon footprint. Smaller people require less energy and use fewer resources, Liao argues. But selecting for height genetically would be a nightmare, according to the most recent paper that Maxmen found there are 697 genes involved in height. Since there’s not a good way to select for height genetically, another method Liao talks about in his paper is using treatments that cause babies to be born light — to have a low “birth weight.” But that comes with a set of very real dangers to the baby, and few mothers would opt to take that risk. Not to mention set their kid up for society’s bias against people (particularly men) who are shorter.
Via Rush Limbaugh radio show

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Though they have not been officially linked...

...it seems reasonable that problems with the website are another impetus to delay penalty enforcement so every citizen can get enrolled and avoid paying fees. If this isn't one of the motivations it is at least a convenient byproduct of the deadline modifications.

Lily Hay Newman serves room temperature pablum to Gizmodo readers. The shallowest description of the state of affairs that I've seen to date. This, on the most important development bearing on the subject of their magazine, their reason for being. In importance bearing on their readers, this beats a new Apple rollout by a magnitude of order and yet this is the surface reading assembled  from USA Today, The Verge, and Market Watch.


One expects more. I'm disappointed in Gizmodo. What else is as shallow? 


Commenters write the article that needed to be written, so the subject is covered.  All except one. One commenter over there is still  stuck in the trees, too thick to step out of partisan fog. I picture a copse shrouded in fog, the sounds coming from it, "bonk" someone hitting a tree.