i just finished 1491, an attempt by author charles mann to patch together what indian culture was like before the arrival of columbus. despite spending a quarter of it debating the illness hypothesis (that most of native america was wiped out due to foreign disease long before 1491), its retelling is an excellent example of a trend in indian historical analysis to humanize native cultures.

one thesis drove home repeatedly was: indians weren't much different than europeans. that is, they had large, structured, complex societies. for example, tenochtitlan was bigger than london or rome. these societies had astronomy and mathematics, philosophy and war, oppression and freedom. some had authoritarian socialism, yet others had limited representative government and equal rights for all people. his concluding argument is laid bare using the example of the haudenosaunee. he goes so far as to call them libertarian, despite their collective land use, and cites highly circumstantial evidence that they may have shifted colonial thought - and even the scottish enlightenment - towards individual liberty and equality.

of equal interest was his criticism of environmentalists - rather, preservationists. he notes that the "wilderness" seen by 1491 visitors was largely designed, but overrun and decomposing, and full of domesticated plants. indians manipulated their environment to suit their needs, e.g. converting "perhaps one quarter" of what we now consider the south american rain forest into farms and gardens, domesticating many trees and vegetables, and controlling game populations. he argues that what we see as "nature" is really the result of entropy, as sickness wiped out the majority of the indian population who were then incapable of maintaining their large farms and gardens. to his argument, there is no one "nature," rather sustainable and unsustainable environmental manipulations.

my main question while reading, though, was: well, why were they so "behind" europeans? they couldn't sail ships to colonize spain, after all. from the book, it seems to be a combination of factors, the principle one being the lack of beasts of burden, which in turn made the meso-american invention of the wheel useless, which prevented the flurry of development seen elsewhere. i'm sure that many other, perhaps more prominent, factors (such as lack of disease immunity) are involved. ideas?

Labels: misc. science

it is common trivia that the tomato is actually a fruit. but did you know that it is also technically a berry? yes, kids. though it may blow your mind, a berry is a fruit that has all its seeds in one ovary; our Lycopersicon esculentum fits the bill. it should be noted that other so-called "berries," such as the elitist raspberry, blackberry, or strawberry, are not berries at all but common imposers.

but back to the fruit vs. vegetable issue. as this post notes, in 1893 the US Supreme Court officially put these national fruit/vegetable concerns to rest. in a case on vegetable tariff duties, it declared that the tomato is really a vegetable. however, do not fear: the enthralling tomato wiki site assures us that:

the tomato remains a fruit when not dealing with US tariffs

the tomato is a fruit and legally a vegetable. confused yet? if not, check out what is, and what is not, actually a berry. you will be surprised, and possibly indignant.

Labels: misc. science, political

i subscribe to vegetarian times magazine. although it's annoying at times, (it would probably award a "stick" to the great org. nature conservancy), it has tasty recipes, great vegetarian advice, and interesting herbal remedies (that actually sometimes work!). all their recipes call for organic, pesticide-free foods, which i take great pleasure in substituting for cheap, genetically-modified foods.

this month they have an article on "smart breeding," which smells all too similar to a low-tech version of genetic engineering (which the magazine calls "scary"). "smart breeding" is a complicated and seemingly-slow process: by cross-breeding, genes are transferred from one plant to another, making it "taste better... more resistant to disease and harsh weather... more nutritious." it seems that this is one very, very small - or non-existent - step from GMO foods.

the technique is much less "scary." one scientist says "sometimes all I need to do is place two beets in a cage and smack the side with a stick."

although it sounds primitive, they do use some genetics. by examining the DNA strand, they find out "which plants to mate so they produce... whatever trait we want to encourage." so, this is anaolgous to genetic engineering. but, for heaven's sake, don't do it in a lab!

and if you aren't convinced that it's tampering with nature just as much as GMO, listen to this:

He actually figured out how to switch off one gene, making the beet gold. Switching genes on and off, he bred a striped beet with a bull's-eye appearance.

okay, now they're just showing off.

the article emphasizes how crucial this new technique could be for less developed countries (LDCs), as it can produce higher-yield plants. however, the article notes that "few smart-bred crops are available" now. so, let's let the folks starve a little longer until there's a less "scary" way to grow food (now most LDCs are pressured to refuse GMO crops, and cannot use many good pesticides and fertilizers).

*i was unsuccessful in locating the "beet generation" article by don baker on the vegetarian times website. it's in the nov/dec 04 issue.*

update: found the article while searching for something else!

Labels: ideology, misc. science