(I know this is about Rifftrax, but we don’t have a Rifftrax community.)

  • Jakdracula@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Have we checked all food to see if exploding them makes them into something better or did we just stop with corn?

    • SonicDeathTaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Let me tell you a little story about brassicas… broccoli, cabbage, bok choi, cauliflower, kohlrabi, canola oil. They’re all this little guy. Edit: Shit! I missed the exploding part. gracile green plant with small yellow leaves that looks nothing like broccoli

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        8 months ago

        Bananas are a similar one to corn too. Take something almost entirely inedible and cultivate it into something edible. Makes you wonder what convinced them to start.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            8 months ago

            Could be. We still don’t know why people became sedentary farmers over hunter-gatherers, but it’s happened many times in history.

            Somehow, farming happened independently but around the same time around the world, between 8000 and 10000 years ago. This is everywhere from Europe to the Americas to New Guinea, all apparently independently of each other!

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                Beer was one of the first processed foods, but I don’t think that was the reason for the development of agriculture.

                They were farming taro on New Guinea 10,000 years ago. There’s no tradition, as far as I know, of making alcohol from taro.

            • Strykker@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Saying we don’t know is kinda dumb though, farming allows a population group to massively outperform a hunter gatherer group in terms of food and energy collected over a year, this allows them to have more children, and results in fewer deaths due to accidents while hunting. Farming also means fewer people are required for the same amount of food intake leaving more people free to do other things like develop tools and weapons

              This all snowballs resulting in massive growth that allows the farming group to kill off or absorb any group that doesn’t farm.

              Same as natural selection/evolution, random choices/changes occur and the ones that lead to more children are the ones that last 1000s of years.

                • hark@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  If I’m going off my own experience and behaviors, I would assume that laziness made it seem like simply planting things would take less effort than hunting down an animal without doing hard calculations on total calories in/out and without imagining what could go wrong with the “lazy” approach.

            • Restaldt@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Ever seen the happening?

              I bet its like that only instead of killing us the plants tricked humans into farming them

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Probably used is processed in a dish or alcohol were the seeds didn’t matter much, and over time farmers just made it easier to eat raw because “why not?”

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is what these non GMO types always seem to forget: we’ve been modifying the crap out of everything for the past thousands of years. We’re now justuch more efficient and smart about it.

    • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      They always picture someone in a lab with syringes and special machines to “modify DNA”. Most of the time it’s just a couple of potted plants under a lamp and a cotton swab. For fruit trees, you’re pretty much just replacing a branch with another branch. Tape and staples might be involved.

      • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Genetically modified plants is very different from selective breeding. Selective breeding mimics the natural evolution process, removing natural selection and replacing it with human decisions.

        Using a separate root stock from your fruiting trees isn’t genetic modification or breeding. It’s just taking desirable size features from a root stock and growing your desired fruit from that. It still remains two different plant, with two different DNAs. The fruit would produce a child of the fruit tree, the same as if it was grown from seed. If the root tree was allowed to flower it would create a seed the same as if it were never grafted.

        GMO are an extremely useful technology. When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population. The big problems with it are the consequences of it. Plant have been modified to tolerate high doses of weed killer, pesticides and fertilisers. These all help increase the productivity of the land, but the impacts are terrible on the local environment. Residual weed killer and pesticide may pose a risk to human as well.

        • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Thanks. Comments above yours are a bit disingenuous, trying to bunch up intrusive lab techniques with selective breeding. While the definition of GMO is pretty vague, let’s not pretend what Monsanto does is exactly the same as what Native Americans did.

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s not. It’s more advanced, and yes, it’s better.

            You know, more technology becomes available, you use it to make life better for everyone. Monsanto execta can go pound dicks, but in principle, GMO food is perfectly fine, safe, and healthy. If anything, it’ll be more healthy (more vitamins), more plentiful as new crops can withstand droughts better, etc. etc. etc.

            So far the only counter argument to that that I’ve heard here is “nuh uh!”

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          When well regulated and tested will help produce food for the growing world population.

          No. It won’t.

          The Bill Gates/Monsanto Bootlicker Brigade wants to pretend that it’s (somehow) the actual foodcrops we have at our disposal that is (somehow) “flawed” and therefore requires unnecessary and (thoroughly patentable) meddling to “fix” - but, like all capitalist “solutions” to the problems caused by capitalism, it is merely a disasterous (but profitable) distraction.

          And, of course, this is quite apart from the fact that the right-wing histrionics about “population growth” has turned out like all other right-wing histrionics - false. In a few decades’ time, you’ll see these same capitalist bootlickers peddling the dubious wonders of GMOs now whining about population shrinkage.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            You realize that if you cross breed plants and come up with something new, you can patent it? The only point you actually made about GMO is not specific to GMO.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is what these non GMO types always seem to forget

      This is what these nauseating pro-GMO types always seem to forget - developing a food crop for thousands of years to become useful to humanity is not the same thing as destroying food security through capitalist monocropping with the aid of a few dodgy genes injected into something that never needed it in the first place.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          You want to claim that capitalists are (somehow) not the only people that stands to benefit from GMOs?

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s such a stupid statement I don’t even know how to respond. Like I’d probably need to recreate several years of basic education before we could even be in the framework to consider a proper answer to your question. But which point you’d realize what a stupid premise it is.

            Let’s start here: why the hate for GMOs, when your problem is with capitalism?

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              That’s such a stupid statement

              Good lord - I so hate dealing with liberals.

              The only reason we have GMO food crops in the first place is due to capitalist profiteering - nobody else has any need for it, genius. GMO food crops is a “solution” to a “problem” that never existed.

              Is this hard to understand, liberal?

              • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                This has nothing to do with being a liberal. Scientists have said it’s more sustainable to use GMOs because genetic manipulation is just a tool you can use for good or evil. We have a larger population than ever before and an environmental crisis to deal with. We need every technological advantage we can get. This problem isn’t just about capitalism. Even if we get rid of capitalism and find we have enough food it’s always better to use less land and cause less environmental damage by using pest resistant crops and nutritional crops like golden rice. That’s assuming a revolution solves all food shortages despite the progress of climate change and pollution taking their toll on global food security.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  This has nothing to do with being a liberal.

                  Yes it does, liberal - you swallowing this liberalese hook, line and sinker has everything to do with your shitty liberal politics.

                  Scientists have said it’s more sustainable to use GMOs

                  Oh, really? And where is their evidence?

                  We have a larger population than ever before

                  So your shitty liberal politics have absolutely nothing to do with the right-wing histrionics you are regurgitating here? You do know that shills get paid for shilling, right? Are you getting yours?

                  it’s always better to use less land and cause less environmental damage

                  You mean that exact thing GMO foodcrops have abysmally failed at accomplishing so far?

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, all scientists are evil, all corporations are evil, all people working there are evil, it’s all evil.

      • BreadOven@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes, while monocultures aren’t great, GMO crops just speed up the process you mentioned first. Developing a food crop over thousands of years. If we can speed up that process and generate better crops, why wouldn’t anyone want that?

        The whole politics around GMOs and greedy companies is something I wish didn’t exist, but GMOs is the way to go.

    • Bizzle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      Do you think the Native Americans hundreds of years ago were wearing lab coats in clean rooms, CRISPRing fucking maize? Selective breeding is different than genetic modification. If you don’t even know what it is or what you’re talking about about AT ALL, to the point where you’re conflating two completely dissimilar terms, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Selective breeding is different than genetic modification.

        Nope. Both are genetic modifications.

        CRISPRing fucking maize?

        Also not true. CRISPR is bacteria mechanism and is not used in plants.

      • Doxatek@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I know what you’re saying in a way but with crispr you can change single genes and have specific targets. A cross changes thousands of genes at a time

      • BreadOven@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sorry, but it doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about. It’s essentially the same process, the GMO process is just faster. Also, it was done well before CRISPR was a big thing.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    What about all of the other varieties of corn? Are they not relatives to each other?

  • kinther@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    8 months ago

    Damn I’ve never seen the evolution of corn like this before. Really interesting stuff!

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    For real tho - any estimations on how many gens/years it took/takes to get from A to at least C?

  • RatBin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    I have seen this image many times in my uni courses.

    • when european first reached the continent, the breeding of the plant was heavily advance, somewhat on the right side of thr image

    • this is one of the staple crops without which we could not survive.

    • the current varieties are so productive, but they require all modern farming methods, which can be impactful

    • if you want to apply biological agriculture, the mkst recent varieties are not a good pick, unless they actively support that

    • that image also serve as a quick explaination as to how our food systems evolved. When you read ancient folk tales, or even when you read about these plants in Biblical texts, imagine the one on the mid left. A small plant capable of supporting a limited amount of people

  • groats_survivor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Is this even true? Why would they keep breeding something inedible and practically useless hoping in thousands of years it’d be edible?

    I really don’t know, it just seems like a stretch

    Edit: spelling

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 months ago

      It is true. They can trace the genetic lineage. The original plant isn’t totally inedible, it’s just less nutritious and harder to process. The same is true with wild grains in the Middle East. precursors of domesticated crops like wheat and barley were cultivated from wild grasses which produced less, had less nutrition and took more effort to process into flour.

      • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s wrong to say they were useless like OP suggests. They were very useful. It was a crop you could reliably grow and come back to harvest.

        It also stored very well. The breeding was only to make it more useful. It was always useful.

        Much of the breeding was just selection. The crops you would pick and store would be larger. So we it came to plant your were using the biggest largest variety every year. A few generations of this would produce notable results. Then even finer and more deliberate selection would be done.