Why the simple life is not just beautiful, it’s necessary
Living simply now strikes many people as simply boring.
31 August, 2020
Oli Scarff/Getty Images
The good life is the simple life. Among philosophical ideas about how we should live, this one is a hardy perennial; from Socrates to Thoreau, from the Buddha to Wendell Berry, thinkers have been peddling it for more than two millennia.
<p> And it still has plenty of adherents. Magazines such as <em>Real Simple</em> call out to us from the supermarket checkout; Oprah Winfrey regularly interviews fans of simple living such as Jack Kornfield, a teacher of Buddhist mindfulness; the Slow Movement, which advocates a return to pre-industrial basics, attracts followers across continents.</p><p>Through much of human history, frugal simplicity was not a choice but a necessity – and since necessary, it was also deemed a moral virtue. But with the advent of industrial capitalism and a consumer society, a system arose that was committed to relentless growth, and with it grew a population (aka 'the market') that was enabled and encouraged to buy lots of stuff that, by traditional standards, was surplus to requirements. As a result, there's a disconnect between the traditional values we have inherited and the consumerist imperatives instilled in us by contemporary culture.</p><p>In pre-modern times, the discrepancy between what the philosophers advised and how people lived was not so great. Wealth provided security, but even for the rich wealth was flimsy protection against misfortunes such as war, famine, disease, injustice and the disfavour of tyrants. The Stoic philosopher Seneca, one of the richest men in Rome, still ended up being sentenced to death by Nero. As for the vast majority – slaves, serfs, peasants and labourers – there was virtually no prospect of accumulating even modest wealth.</p>
<p>Before the advent of machine-based agriculture, representative democracy, civil rights, antibiotics and aspirin, just making it through a long life without too much suffering counted as doing pretty well. Today, though, at least in prosperous societies, people want and expect (and can usually have) a good deal more. Living simply now strikes many people as simply boring.</p><p>Yet there seems to be growing interest, especially among millennials, in rediscovering the benefits of simple living. Some of this might reflect a kind of nostalgia for the pre-industrial or pre-consumerist world, and also sympathy for the moral argument that says that living in a simple manner makes you a better person, by building desirable traits such as frugality, resilience and independence – or a happier person, by promoting peace of mind and good health, and keeping you close to nature.</p><p>These are plausible arguments. Yet in spite of the official respect their teachings command, the sages have proved remarkably unpersuasive. Millions of us continue to rush around getting and spending, buying lottery tickets, working long hours, racking up debt, and striving 24/7 to climb the greasy pole. Why is this?</p>
<p>One obvious answer is good old-fashioned hypocrisy. We applaud the frugal philosophy while ignoring its precepts in our day-to-day lives. We praise the simple lifestyle of, say, Pope Francis, seeing it as a sign of his moral integrity, while also hoping for and cheering on economic growth driven, in large part, by a demand for bigger houses, fancier cars and other luxury goods.</p><p>But the problem isn't just that our practice conflicts with our professed beliefs. Our <em>thinking</em> about simplicity and luxury, frugality and extravagance, is fundamentally inconsistent. We condemn extravagance that is wasteful or tasteless and yet we tout monuments of past extravagance, such as the Forbidden City in Beijing or the palace at Versailles, as highly admirable. The truth is that much of what we call 'culture' is fuelled by forms of extravagance.</p><p>Somewhat paradoxically, then, the case for living simply was most persuasive when most people had little choice but to live that way. The traditional arguments for simple living in effect rationalise a necessity. But the same arguments have less purchase when the life of frugal simplicity is a choice, one way of living among many. Then the philosophy of frugality becomes a hard sell.</p>
<p>
That might be about to change, under the influence of two factors: economics and environmentalism. When recession strikes, as it has done recently (revealing inherent instabilities in an economic system committed to unending growth) millions of people suddenly find themselves in circumstances where frugality once again becomes a necessity, and the value of its associated virtues is rediscovered.
</p><p>
In societies such as the United States, we are currently witnessing a tendency for capitalism to stretch the distance between the 'have lots' and the 'have nots'. These growing inequalities invite a fresh critique of extravagance and waste. When so many people live below the poverty line, there is something unseemly about in-your-face displays of opulence and luxury. Moreover, the lopsided distribution of wealth also represents a lost opportunity. According to Epicurus and the other sages of simplicity, one can live perfectly well, provided certain basic needs are satisfied – a view endorsed in modern times by the psychologist Abraham Maslow's '<a href="http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm" target="_blank">hierarchy of needs</a>'. If correct, it's an argument for using surplus wealth to ensure that everyone has basics such as food, housing, healthcare, education, utilities and public transport – at low cost, rather than allowing it to be funnelled into a few private pockets.
</p><p>
However wise the sages, it would not have occurred to Socrates or Epicurus to argue for the simple life in terms of environmentalism. Two centuries of industrialisation, population growth and frenzied economic activity has bequeathed us smog; polluted lakes, rivers and oceans; toxic waste; soil erosion; deforestation; extinction of plant and animal species, and global warming. The philosophy of frugal simplicity expresses values and advocates a lifestyle that might be our best hope for reversing these trends and preserving our planet's fragile ecosystems.
</p><p>
Many people are still unconvinced by this. But if our current methods of making, getting, spending and discarding prove unsustainable, then there could come a time – and it might come quite soon – when we are forced towards simplicity. In which case, a venerable tradition will turn out to contain the philosophy of the future.
</p><p><a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10821.html"><em>The Wisdom of Frugality</em></a><em> (2016) by Emrys Westacott is published via Princeton University Press.</em><img src="https://metrics.aeon.co/count/839ab61b-7b15-4daf-8af3-a1c7ead64c41.gif" alt="Aeon counter – do not remove" width="1" height="1"></p><p>This article was originally published at <a href="https://aeon.co?utm_campaign=republished-article" target="_blank">Aeon</a> and has been republished under Creative Commons. Read the <a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/why-the-simple-life-is-not-just-beautiful-it-s-necessary" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Baby bees hatch with damaged brains thanks to pesticides
Study finds that a colony's exposure to pesticides impairs offspring.
11 March, 2020
Image source: Gill, et al/Tonio_75/Shutterstock/Big Think
- Pesticide contamination in bee hives damages the learning capabilities of offspring, according to a recently published study.
- A key area of the affected bees' brains never correctly develops after pesticide exposure.
- Early impairment appears to be irreversible and is likely a factor in falling bee populations.
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/pollinate/" target="_blank">U.S Department of Agriculture</a>, some 35% of our food crops depend on bee pollination. That means about one of out every three bites of food comes to us courtesy of insects including bees, butterflies, and beetles, or from birds and bats. With the world's pollinator populations in a <a href="https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/the-produce-aisles-in-trouble-if-the-bee-crisis-keeps-going-like-this" target="_self">snowballing state of decline</a>, scientists are racing to discover what's causing this and how it can be stopped. In the case of bees, pesticides — especially neonicotinoids — are the leading suspect, and studies find these chemicals infiltrating <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6359572/" target="_blank">a significant percentage</a> of bee hives. (Pesticides also show up in <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/roundup-beer-wine" target="_self">our own food and drink</a>.)</p><p>Research prior focused on the damaging effects these neurotoxins have on adult bees. Now a study of young bee brains, led by <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/r.gill" target="_blank">Richard Gill</a> of Imperial College in London and published in <em><a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2442#d3e1602" target="_blank">Proceedings of the Royal Society B</a>,</em> shows that neonicotinoids do disastrous, irreversible damage to bees' neurological development.</p>
Broken learning
<p>The study involved introducing neonicotinoids to the nectar consumed by members of 22 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombus_terrestris" target="_blank"><em>Bombus terrestris audax</em></a> (buff-tailed honeybee) colonies. The learning abilities of their offspring were then measured against a control group of young bees from colonies whose food supply had not been contaminated.</p><p>The test assessed the extent to which a bee could learn to associate a specific smell with a reward, which was a sucrose solution. The bees from the neonicotinoid colony consistently fared more poorly than the control population.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg2ODE5Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MTAyMzQzMn0.zxOo04Cq-7q4ClAydA0kLAwFMpj84Nr25DIVtR3EzAE/img.jpg?width=980" id="4967e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ba7b1c09f2daa90d686e7ee93ad0138a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="a bumblebee on a purple flower" />Image source: Mr. Meijer/Shutterstock
Tiny computed micrography (CT) scans
<p>In hopes of identifying a structural explanation, the researchers stained the brain cells of 100 bees from the exposed colonies and took non-invasive <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/171050/bee-brains-have-never-seen-them/" target="_blank">micro-CT</a> scans in a machine similar — albeit smaller — to those in which humans are medically imaged.</p><p>The researchers discovered a clear difference in brains of the young bees from pesticide-exposed colonies. A key brain area, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_bodies" target="_blank">mushroom body</a>, was found to be much smaller in these bees' brains than it was in those from control colonies. This makes sense, since this region is believed to be involved in olfactory learning and memory.</p><p>The tests and scans were performed three days after pupal hatching and again after 12 days. The substandard learning capabilities and mushroom body sizes had not been resolved by the second test, indicating to the researchers that the damage caused by the neonicotinoids was irreversible.</p><p>(A honeybee's <a href="https://sciencing.com/life-span-honey-bee-6573678.html" target="_blank">life expectancy</a> depends on its role. Drones live roughly 8 weeks, while sterile workers live for about 6 weeks in the summer or 5 months in the winter. A queen can live for a few years.)</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg2ODIwMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODYyNDExNn0.oejYHpeBD1HdgT3ttnSOLyjBIMFcQ1GDYOv1UIl5s_Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="ace39" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dfecbbebdef8988fd1c297e88ee1a7b5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Scans of the mushroom body area of the bees' brains" />Several views of the mushroom body
Image source: Gill, et al
Why this matters
<p>The study's conclusion does not say definitively that the mushroom area is the only brain region impacted by pesticides. However, a smaller mushroom area is significant, explaining, as it does, the mechanism by which a bee's learning abilities and behavior may be impaired over the course of its life.</p><p>Gill says in a <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195793/pesticides-impair-baby-brain-development/" target="_blank">press release</a>, "Worryingly in this case, when young bees are fed on pesticide-contaminated food, this caused parts of the brain to grow less, leading to older adult bees possessing smaller and functionally impaired brains; an effect that appeared to be permanent and irreversible."</p><p>In fact, after the young bees were returned to their colonies, researchers saw lower-than-expected colony growth two to three weeks after the subjects' reintroduction.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>"If future generations of workers are predisposed to be inefficient functioning cohorts, this could lead to a density-dependent build-up of colony-level impairment increasing the risk of colony collapse." — Gill, et al </em></p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg2ODIwNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTUxMDAyN30.jOBiSfYKhVGP0nYZf-oWGEFqeCqL7AFwirgMDGpnDzc/img.jpg?width=980" id="f916f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="93579968ab98750c4a8b349ef692a14f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Illustration of Bombus terrestris audax bee" />Illustration of *Bombus terrestris audax*
Image source: Duda Vasilii/Shutterstock
And then there’s the adult bees
<p>In addition to the problems caused by the behavior of bees hatched with pesticide damage, it's not as if pesticide exposure necessarily abates later on. As lead author of the study <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dylan_Smith8" target="_blank">Dylan Smith</a> explains, "There has been growing evidence that pesticides can build up inside bee colonies. Our study reveals the risks to individuals being reared in such an environment, and that a colony's future workforce can be affected weeks after they are first exposed."</p><p>The study concludes that simply looking at the damaging effect of pesticide on adult bee population misses a significant, and more far-reaching, part of the story:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>"Bees' direct exposure to pesticides through residues on flowers should not be the only consideration when determining potential harm to the colony. The amount of pesticide residue present inside colonies following exposure appears to be an important measure for assessing the impact on a colony's health in the future. " — Gill, et al</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Could new study on cow communication lead to more humane farming?
Audio recordings reveal cows have unique voices and share emotions with each other.
22 January, 2020
Image source: Bildagentur Zoonar GmbH/Shutterstock
- New audio recordings of cows reveal rich communication and unique individual voices.
- Cows do more than vocalize to their calves — they share emotions with each other.
- A better understanding of what cows are saying and feeling can help in the formulation of humane cattle-care standards.
<p>Previous <a href="https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=acwp_asie" target="_blank">research</a> has demonstrated that mother cows recognize and respond to the voices of their own offspring. Their calves, too, know their moms' voices. A new study from the University of Sydney, however, reveals bovine communication goes far beyond mother and child. Each cow has a unique voice and "talks" with — sorry — her "cowlleagues" all the time, expressing a range of emotions about a variety of farmyard experiences.</p>
The herd is heard
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5OTUxMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwMjE1MTE1M30.O3hB84ExyqI8n3AY064BkBNpB2MjC46DU_xRIIcACb0/img.jpg?width=980" id="4fed6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4c549ef4657f21c290e1caad0a98e0e5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: The Feed
<p>Alexandra Green, a PhD student, is lead author of the study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54968-4#Abs1" target="_blank"><em>Scientific Reports</em></a>. For her research, she <a href="https://sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/sydney-institute-of-agriculture/outreach-engagement/launch-and-research-showcase/Alexandra%20Green.pdf" target="_blank">recorded</a> 333 vocalizations of 13 Holstein-Friesian heifers. She tells <a href="https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2019/12/19/stand-out-from-herd-how-cows-communicate.html" target="_blank"><em>University of Sydney News</em></a>, "We hope that through gaining knowledge of these vocalizations, farmers will be able to tune into the emotional state of their cattle, improving animal welfare."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>"This study shows that cattle vocal individuality of high-frequency calls is stable across different emotionally loaded farming contexts. Individual distinctiveness is likely to attract social support from conspecifics, and knowledge of these individuality cues could assist farmers in detecting individual cattle for welfare or production purposes." — Green, et al</em></p><p>The study's recordings were captured across five months at an Australian farm. They were captured by Green during cows' estrus, during feed anticipation — a presumably happy moment — and during feed frustration as cattle were denied expected food. Vocalizations were also recorded when these social animals were individually isolated from their herd.</p>Analysis
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjU5OTUxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDA5MTM2MH0.IPQsSO51gOqtN_CJxJ_V5pFho0cbcYBZs_SZTs2CW-w/img.jpg?width=980" id="1a91a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b3e6e29964effbc2ec1fbb17c1241c67" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Audio analysis of a moo: Yellow arrow shows blue indicator of voices' fundamental pitch. Red arrow is where cow begins to close her mouth post-moo.
Image source: The Feed
<p>Green traveled to Saint-Etienne, France, where she worked with co-authors psychologist <a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/115148" target="_blank">David Reby</a> and bioacoustician and animal behaviorist <a href="https://unito.academia.edu/LivioFavaro" target="_blank">Livio Favaro</a>. Together, they analyzed her field recordings using <a href="http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/" target="_blank">Praat</a> phonetics software, which produced visual representations of the audio, including an indicator of each voice's fundamental pitch.</p><p>These analyses proved the uniqueness of each cow's voice. For cattle farmer Neville Catt, on whose grounds the research was conducted, there's no doubt who he's hearing when a cow begins vocalizing. "Not only do I talk to cattle, I think they talk to me," he says. One of the new insights Green's study contributes is that the sound of each heifer's voice is not limited to specific circumstances like parenting, but in fact remains constant for life. Says Green, "We found that cattle vocal individuality is relatively stable across different emotionally loaded farming contexts."</p><p>"Cows are gregarious, social animals," says Green. "In one sense it isn't surprising they assert their individual identity throughout their life and not just during mother-calf imprinting. But this is the first time we have been able to analyze voice to have conclusive evidence of this trait."</p>Getting to know Catt’s cows
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wDZEcCps6aw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p>In terms of the mechanics, says Green, cows produce calls in either of two ways. For up-close, quieter communication, their mouths remain closed, with the sound coming through their nasal passages as an "mmmmmmmm." To call out to other cows not nearby, however, they pump up the volume by opening their mouths as they vocalize. </p><p>In the end, "They've all got their very distinct personalities You've got your chatty cows, you've got your shy cows. I've got one girl who won't shut up," Green says.</p><p>Green plans to incorporate the research into her doctorate that proposes utilizing her findings in dairy-farm welfare assessments. On a personal level, she hopes one day to feel qualified as a genuine "cow whisperer" specializing in — her word here — "cowmoonication."<span></span></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Microplastics in the soil point to another potential ecosystem collapse
When these particles are eaten by earthworms, the results are not good.
17 October, 2019
Photo by: Andia/ Universal Images Group via Getty Images
- New research from Anglia Ruskin University states that microplastics in soil are causing earthworms to lose weight.
- Soil affected by microplastics produces less crop yield due to less productive earthworms and lower pH levels.
- If this trend continues, our entire agricultural system could be compromised.
<p>In the <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/plastic-tea-bags" target="_self">last installment</a> of "How Plastic is Destroying Us," we discussed the billions of microplastic particles being leeched from tea bags into your mug. It turns out such particles are turning up in the darndest places. A <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304" target="_blank">new study</a>, published in <em>Environmental Science & Technology</em>, reveals another unfortunate locale: the digestive tract of earthworms.</p><p>Outside of fishing and post-rainy day sidewalks, most of us pay little attention to endogeic worms, the class of worms that live in the top soil. That doesn't mean they lack importance for our survival. By feeding on soil, these wiggly critters—<em>Aporrectodea rosea</em>, rosy-tipped earthworms—mix minerals and air into the soil, which helps, among other things, plants to sprout. Worms are an essential component of our agricultural system. </p><p>A team at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge wanted to know if the introduction of microplastics into the soil would stunt plant growth. Short answer: yes. After placing different microplastic fibers—biodegradable polylactic acid (PLA), conventional high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and microplastic clothing fibers—into the soil, they planted perennial ryegrass (<em>Lolium perenne</em>). Fewer seeds germinated. </p><p>Microplastic contamination is a growing concern for soil health, yet, as the team writes, it has not been well-studied. Fertilizer made from sewage sludge, rain, and airborne fallout are all means for these particles to settle into the earth. The long-term impact could include stunted soil biodiversity. </p>
Microplastics are everywhere | Sarah Dudas | TEDxBinghamtonUniversity
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a0f0c0566b5d3f51fba4540d77bb3b5e"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jjsrmFUmyh4?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>We often mistake broad names for processes as "extra." For example, dark matter, which represents 85 percent of all matter in the universe, is believed to non-baryonic, yet physicists recognize that it could be comprised of subatomic particles we haven't yet discovered. The universe isn't know for creating filler; usually, our own ignorance is the culprit.</p><p>"Dirt" and "soil," to non-farmers at least, are often treated as an earth layer; referencing it is often in the negative, as when a parent scolds a child for "playing in the dirt." But soil is a process, living and organic, dependent on decaying and dead matter constantly being churned through (by earthworms, for example) and recycled. </p><p>Soil is one of the major reasons that America has become a global power. Our fields supply an incredible amount of food for the planet. By contrast, China, with its billion-plus population to feed, struggles to produce adequate amounts of nutrition due to less fertile soil. This is, in fact, one of the undiscussed underpinnings of the current "trade war."</p><p>Damaged soil destroys not only ecosystems, but societies as well. When famers try to increase crop yield by introducing plastic mulches and irrigation, they're unknowingly polluting the soil with tons of microplastic particles. These particles are then ingested by earthworms (among other animals), causing them to lose weight.<span></span></p><p>The research team chose the most important grass grown in temperate regions; in grassland ecosystems ryegrass is abundant. A variety of ecosystems were used, some with added microplastics, one control without. Earthworms were most affected by HDPE microplastics, though any of the added particles made life worse for the worms.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTk5NTU5Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzODIyMTQ4M30.QbgF4wc3rXpYC3sQTlRub3PT-CTnNV7wascz5Gs1rR4/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C31%2C0%2C75&height=700" id="b41f9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="78c2c472d8b7a9ad4bd57904f385fef8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Beach covered in microplastics" />
A view of the Schiavonea beach with microplastics, transported by the Ionian sea during the last sea storm.
Photo by Alfonso Di Vincenzo/KONTROLAB /LightRocket via Getty Images
<p>Soil is generally low in nutrient value, meaning that worms have to eat and pass a lot of it for their existence. The team compares the results to aquatic environments, in which the digestive tracts of fish, like worms, are obstructed and worn away. The consumption of microplastic particles stunts their growth while compromising the survival of the organism.<br></p><p>Beyond worms, the particles (especially HDPE) decrease soil pH. This directly affects the diversity of organisms living there. As with the human microbiome, in which a diverse population of bacteria is healthiest, soil pays a steep price when diversity drops. </p><p>These particles don't remain in the soil; they end up, in some cases, on your plate. The team writes, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"In agricultural settings, such effects may have implications for the production and quality of crop plants, by directly affecting plant development and altering the soil environment in which they are produced as well as having potential implications for human health through the accumulation of microplastics and harmful compounds in the tissues of plants."</p><p>All plastics are biodegradable. The problem is, some take weeks to mineralize while others hang around for millions of years. Until we implement broad solutions that implement a shelf life for plastics, these particles aren't going anywhere—except inside of our digestive tracts, eventually. As with worms, such news doesn't look good for the health of our species. </p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>.</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Serious problem found with gene-edited celebrity cows
The FDA calls out creators of genetically tweaked hornless bulls.
28 September, 2019
Image source: prochasson frederic/Shutterstock
- Hornless bull clones turn out to have questionable genomes.
- Scientists were so confident they didn't even look for transgenic DNA.
- No one's sure what to do with the offspring.
<p>Given how new direct editing of genes is — as opposed to cross-breeding — it's not surprising that unexpected complications will arise. What <em>is</em> surprising is the degree of confidence some scientists have in their gene-editing knowledge and skills, and thus the safety of their experimentation. No one's really sure yet, for example, if China's <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1" target="_blank">He Jiankui</a> really <em>did</em> illegally produce genetically modified twin girls in China last year.</p><p>We <em>do</em> know, however, that in 2015, a Minnesota company, <a href="https://recombinetics.com" target="_blank">Recombinetics</a> , announced that they'd successfully cloned five hornless bulls from gene-edited bovine embryo fibroblasts. Two of the bulls, Spotigy and Buri, became poster children for the wonders of gene editing. Now, according to a new investigation by the FDA, the simple, clean gene splice Recombinetics claimed to have performed was neither. The cattle — Buri has 17 offspring while Spotigy was euthanized for tissue study — possess two antibiotic-resistant genes as well as surprising bits of bacterial DNA.</p>
The arrival of Spotigen and Buri
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTE2MTE1Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwMzUzNDgxOX0.FncQraghoKRg6Kz4tj6XS2osmzY_GroWyWTpz4jHYds/img.jpg?width=980" id="e8da5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b19d6c0ae8f91f802036bfab1c873ac9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: ANGHI/Shutterstock/Big Think
<p>Recombinetics' bulls were heralded examples of gene modification's potential. Farmers regularly "poll" cows — that is, remove their horns— in a painful, difficult process aimed at preventing accidental injuries in herds and the humans that tend them.</p><p>The company used TALENs gene editing ("Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases) to swap out a section of about 200 genes from a Holstein dairy bull for genes from a hornless one.</p><p>DNA editing involves cutting DNA with enzymes called nucleases targeted at the desired location in a cell's genome. Nucleases are proteins, which are hard to work with, so many researchers — including Recombinetics' — instead introduce plasmids, circular mini-chromosomes that code for the required "scissor." This causes the target cell to produce the nucleases itself, sparing the scientists the complexities of dealing with unstable protein.</p><p>In the case of Recombinetics' bulls, the plasmids also contained the replacement hornless DNA for insertion at the cut. Coming along for the ride — unknown to Recombinetics — was transgenic DNA, including the antibiotic-resistant genes and a handful of other things from a range of diverse microbes. This wouldn't necessarily have been a problem if the plasmids hadn't unexpectedly inserted themselves into the target cell's genome instead of simply delivering their payload and being done, as planned. Thus, adjacent to its edit site were <a href="https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/gene-editing-unintentionally-adds-bovine-dna-goat-dna-and-bacterial-dna-mouse-researchers-find/" target="_blank">4,000 base pairs</a> of DNA that from the plasmid.</p>Over-confident
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTE2MTE2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNDM1MTE4MX0.dfyGyeHtjCpNogRkwv3-UZHBAQ3dpFnOKtXRd-STK50/img.jpg?width=980" id="0a22f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4af032e6384db1af6345d8d74d1b3331" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: wikimedia/U.S. Food and Drug Administration
<p>At the time the editing was first announced, Recombinetics was very confident that what they'd produced was "100% bovine." "We know exactly where the gene should go, and we put it in its exact location," claimed Recombinetics to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-12/this-genetics-company-is-editing-horns-off-milk-cows" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> in 2017. "We have all the scientific data that proves that there are no off-target effects." In response to the latest findings, however, Tad Sontesgard of the Recombinetics subsidiary that owns the animals, admitted, "It was not something expected, and we didn't look for it." He acknowledges a more thorough examination of their work "should have been done."</p><p>Since genetically edited animals may be consumed, the FDA's position is that they likely require thorough testing and approvals. Recombinetics has publicly complained about such hurdles standing in the way of making animal genetic editing a routine occurrence. (They've also developed piglets that never hit puberty.) The company attempted to <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610027/farmland-gene-editors-want-cows-without-horns-pigs-without-tails-and-business-without/" target="_blank">convince the Trump Administration</a> to take genetically altered animals away from under the FDA.</p>How the problem was found
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTE2MTE2NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDA3NzAyMX0.SBCvmAAsWaDYU7dkPQ7CgcrtQovHK-MWvOizZUCZqQg/img.jpg?width=980" id="43f50" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6f28fb809a618ce4383b7cb4942805fb" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: Moving Moment/Shutterstock
<p>Not surprisingly, Recombinetics never applied for approval with the FDA, but Alison Van Eenennaam, their collaborator from University of California, Davis, did inform the FDA of their existence to facilitate exchanges of research insights and data.</p><p>Since the surviving edited cattle were being put up at Davis, Eenennaam started thinking about what to do with them. Incinerating experimental animals — and each of these weighs about a ton — costs 60 cents per pound. On the other hand, turning them into hamburger and steaks could reverse that cash flow. Her attempt to win the cows a food exemption from the FDA led to the discovery of the plasmids, though Sontesgard <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614235/recombinetics-gene-edited-hornless-cattle-major-dna-screwup" target="_blank">asserts</a> they'd be safe to eat in either case.</p><p>And then there's milk. Brazil agreed to raise the first herd of genetically modified hornless dairy cows. Regulators there had even determined no exceptional oversight was going to be required.</p><p>Soon a bioinformatician from the FDA stumbled across the plasmid in a bull's genome. It's estimated that about half of Buri's 17 offspring also have it in theirs. The cows are now absolutely classified as genetically modified organisms, GMOs, not pure cow. Brazil has backed out.</p>Slowing their roll
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTE2MTE2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzcxMDgxMn0.VmwCM6ss3JJ0-imNVggLLjNviBpY5KhHIuz7CtxvaMs/img.jpg?width=980" id="22429" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ad6c70f0e27fe6d94516a01cb5fb35f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: Sergey Nivens/Shutterstock
<p> As science moves forward a few steps, it often has to back up a step or two. Glimpsing a solution, especially to such a complex problem as genome editing, isn't the same as having one fully in hand, no matter how attractive the reward of getting there first may be, or how much money is to be made. We're on the edge of a new frontier here, and there are a growing number of similar tales. Scientists do need courage to stretch the boundaries of the known, yes, but humility is also a good idea.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
