Things I didn't know about the potato

In a free to read article from The Economist's 1843 magazine:

Scientists reckon that potatoes originated in the Peruvian Andes. It was probably from here that the first ones were ferried back to Europe in the 16th century by Spanish conquistadores.

Europeans at first treated potatoes as a botanical curiosity, and mostly used them to feed livestock. Over time, however, they became a staple in many countries. But the Peruvian strains of potatoes were used to a consistent 12 hours of equatorial sunlight – they’re now known as “short-day potatoes” – and fared poorly in the longer but weaker summer sun of higher latitudes in Europe. Nevertheless, Europeans became so hooked on spuds that when an epidemic of potato blight hit crops in the mid-19th century, it caused the “great famine” in Ireland and beyond.

 After the famine, most farmers in Europe switched to the “long-day” species native to Chiloé. It is these Chilean varieties that, through decades of micro-evolution and selective breeding, developed into the common spuds we now see in our supermarkets. Most potatoes these days are grown in Europe and Asia: China, India and Russia are the three top producers. The citizens of Belarus, Ukraine and Latvia are the most voracious consumers, eating around 500g of potatoes a day each, or two large spuds. Yet more than 90% of modern potato varieties cultivated across the world today can be traced back to Chiloé.

It explains at the start of the article:

Off the coast of northern Patagonia, some 1,220km south of the capital of Chile, lies an island shaped like a peanut. The patchwork farms and wood-shingled churches of Chiloé lie below moody skies that often unleash horizontal raindrops amid howling winds. Get enough drizzle in your eyes to blur out the volcanoes in the distance, and you’d swear the radiant green hills belonged not in South America, but half a world away in Ireland. And just like Ireland, the staple crop on Chiloé is the potato.

Seems odd that I don't recall reading about this Very Important Island before.   

Here it is:

 

 

 

This is what "threat to democracy" looks like

From a Washington Post piece:

We know from the Bob Woodward and Robert Costa book “Peril” that the country came closer to a stolen presidential election than was previously reported. President Donald Trump’s lawyer John Eastman advised Vice President Mike Pence that he would be justified in single-handedly accepting some fake alternative slates of electors for states that Joe Biden won — on the grounds of supposed fraud in various states — and simply declare Trump the winner of the election. Pence would have done so on Jan. 6, when he sat in his ceremonial role as president of the Senate. Pence supposedly seriously considered the possibility, only to reject it upon getting sounder legal advice.

These machinations involving Pence came on top of at least 30 direct Trump contacts with election officials, elected officials and others to cajole Republican state legislatures to send in those alternative slates of electors. (None did, but Eastman’s plan pretended that they had.)

We dodged a bullet last time, and things are much worse now. Election officials have been leaving their jobs as they face threats of violence and harassment, and some of the people who will replace them have bought into the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen. Those are the people who will be in charge of counting the votes in some places next election. Simply put, we face a serious risk that election results will not reflect the will of the people in 2024 or some other future American presidential election.

The article goes on to argue for steps which should be taken to protect future elections from such risk, but you can go read that at the paper.

 

Same as it ever was...

But it's still depressingly bad political games.

We're dealing with idiots, Part 2

I think this is Gab, a long time resident at Catallaxy:

Am I being too mean?  Is this idiocy, or just culture war tortured logic that is flabergasting to witness?

I'm sticking with idiocy.   Oh ok:  "Why not both?"

 

Combining solar power and agriculture - actually happening?

Back in 2015 I noted that I had been wondering for some time why you couldn't combine massive solar farms and grazing and agriculture - just by setting up the panels on higher steel framework.   Some crops might even do better in the middle of summer with a bit of shade - who knows?  A lot of cows and sheep would appreciate it, too.

It would seem from this video (a few months old now) that the idea is still being researched:

 

Seems kind of obvious to me that it's a good idea in those parts of Australia which you want to retain good quality land for agricultural purposes.

Now I wonder when anyone will listen to my oft repeated suggestion that Wivenhoe Dam near Brisbane should be at least a third covered in floating solar panels?

Liberal Mormons on the rise?

An article at the Washington Post:  The Rise of the Liberal Latter-Day Saints seems interesting, but I haven't read it word for word yet.

I sometimes wonder why I have a generally sympathetic attitude towards this invented religion.   I think it's because I also find appeal in the Asiatic reverence for ancestors, and the idea that their care and interest in their living descendants extends indefinitely.   Mormonism is like a syncretic combination of that with Christianity, I guess.  

Sure, in mainstream Christianity, perhaps especially in Catholicism, you can also have the belief that the souls of parents or relatives are watching over you; but it's not as intense as it could be.

I trust our domestic terrorist experts in Canberra have placed New Catallaxy on watch

Last night, two or three of the blokey blokes who comment at Dover Beach's (appalling "conservative" Catholic) reincarnation of Catallaxy were talking about having big arguments with their wives because they (the wives) had decided to get COVID vaccinated after all.  How tragic for them [/sarc]. Of course, they don't recognise that what their spouses doing so is only likely to aid their own health future.  As I say, we're dealing with idiots.

Then this morning, local Queensland nutjob, truck driver and pub musician has come over all sympathetic to "whatever it takes", including assassination, presumably: 

He's been expecting the end of the West for years now, even before COVID, but it having come from China has given him all the push he needed into mulling and promoting political violence.

The comment got 4 likes, by the way.

China and crypto

A succinct explanation at Axios of China banning crypto and the likely future of the technology.

I agree with the sentiment at the end - there is no way China, or other nations, are going to let private currencies make too much of an inroad.   Nor should they.

We're dealing with idiots

Hope it's not faked though.

Some commentary on the Arizona "audit"

I've been looking around for articles debunking the "we haven't proved fraud but this might be fraud" style claims of the Arizona election audit:

Arizona ‘audit’: A multitude of unsubstantiated claims and no proof of fraud

 Five takeaways from Arizona's audit results

Trump pretends Arizona election audit findings didn't completely embarrass him 

And in this one:

The goal was to substantiate a new consensus Republican belief that Democrats cannot win elections legitimately, and that any victory they notch must be somehow tainted. It is not a coincidence that the places where audits have focused are those, like Maricopa County, or Harris County, Texas, or Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, with high levels of minority voters, who can be disparaged—mostly implicitly, but occasionally more directly—as illegitimate participants in the polity. Trump has been the foremost proponent of the theory, but he’s been joined by eager sycophants, demagogues, and conspiracists.

 

Meatballs noted

We had 500 g of very nice looking beef mince, and I wanted to do something different.  Not sure why, but I don't think I have ever made my own Italian style (or more accurately, American Italian, I think) meatballs and spaghetti before. 

I followed roughly this recipe, except I used milk to soak the bread, and then following an idea from another online recipe, added about 100g of frozen (de-thawed and squeezed dry) spinach to add something other than protein to them.   (Also lots of parsley.)  

And for the sauce - used a 700ml bottle of Coles branded passata with basil in it.  It was surprisingly nice all by itself (and at $1.95 a bottle, made me wonder why we don't just use it all the time for pasta sauce.)   Fried an onion and some garlic and then put the passata in, and half a cup of water.  And the browned meatballs.   And chilli flakes, as per the recipe.  But didn't worry about other herbs - it was flavourful enough.  All worked out well indeed.   

Given their soft texture (which is what you really want), it does mean that imitation meat meatballs should do a good job too.  I have had some vegan type meatballs at Ikea, actually, and they weren't bad.  I should look up some recipes for vegetarian meatballs.

He won't fit through a standard door soon if that hat gets any bigger

True, that...

I also recommend his review of a book about China's problems...

https://davidfrum.com/article/china-s-trapped-transition

The answer to a labelling problem - more labelling!

So my twitter feed yesterday had some tweets about BiVisibilityDay, which I gather is something relatively new and a reaction to bisexual people getting annoyed at people saying "no, you're just gay (or straight) in denial.  You can't be trusted".

It feels like the intensity of interest in labelling of sexualities (and now, genders) is never going to level out.   I think the reason people can legitimately find it irritating is because it seems to be (for want of a better way of putting it) a passive aggressive way to be narcissistic.  "Call me by the gender I know I am";  "I'm pansexual, and that's subtly different from bisexual" etc.  And in all cases "this is really important to me.  This is who I am." 

So the problem I have with the bisexual pride lobby is that (it seems to me) the disrespect issues arise from an excessive social interest in labelling this one aspect of life, but they try to solve it by creating another type of label.   Why not, instead, attack the way people think about the importance of labelling desire?   

As I have written before, it seems (if you can trust some modern historians) that older societies had a more pragmatic, and less narcissistic, attitude:  one in which sex (and to a degree, relationships) was/were something people did, rather than being thought of as the key to who they are. 

Religion and coping

From The Economist:

RELIGION IS THE sigh of the oppressed creature…it is the opium of the people.” So wrote Karl Marx in 1844. The idea—not unique to Marx—was that by promising rewards in the next life, religion helps the poor bear their lot in this one.

A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Jana Berkessel of the University of Mannheim, in Germany, and her colleagues takes a statistical look at the claim. Ms Berkessel's curiosity was piqued by a counter-intuitive finding in development economics. Researchers know that low socioeconomic status correlates with poor mental health. The assumption was once that, as places became richer, this effect would weaken. Being poor in a rich country was presumed better than being poor in a poor one.

But that has turned out not to be true. Abundant evidence suggests the relationship between status and mental health is stronger, not weaker, in rich countries than in poor ones. Ms Berkessel, who studies the psychological effects of religion, noticed that economic development is also inversely correlated with religiosity—the richer a country, the more godless it tends to be. Perhaps that was driving the change?

To check, she and her colleagues analysed three surveys covering 3.3m people in 156 countries. This set of data reproduced the finding that economic development amplifies the link between mental health and status. It also supported the idea that religiosity could attenuate that effect. Among rich countries, for instance, those with higher levels of self-reported religious belief had a weaker relationship between status and mental health.....

The upshot is that religion seems to protect people from at least some of the unpleasant effects of poverty. Exactly how is less clear. One hypothesis is that religious doctrine is directly protective. After all, many of the world’s biggest religions have a sceptical attitude to wealth. Alongside the well-known biblical verses about camels, needles and a rich person’s chance of entering the pearly gates, the researchers point out that the Bhagavad-Gita, a Hindu holy book, says “The demoniac person thinks: So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more.” Similar sentiments can be found in the Koran and in some Buddhist texts. If God teaches that the wealthy are spiritually corrupt, or will get their comeuppance on Judgment Day, then poverty may seem less of a burden.

But there are other possibilities. Ms Berkessel points out that organised religion offers a social-support network which might help attenuate the effects of low status, whether or not its members really believe everything their holy texts say about wealth. Her next research project, she says, will look at exactly this point.

 

 

The main thing I know is that no one knows enough

Gee, I have been saying this ever since the COVID pandemic started:  the global patterns of COVID infection, illness, death and recovery (and the waves of these we have seen) always indicated that an enormous number of unknown or unclear factors must be going on.   Add to that the speed with which research has had to be done to develop and assess vaccines and treatments - it's been a real scientific and policy makers nightmare.

To bolster my assessment, German Lopez talks about the Florida surge, and how, in many respects, it was hard to understand:

... Florida’s example complicates any story of recent Covid-19 surges that focuses solely on reopenings and vaccinations. Something else seems to be going on, and experts aren’t totally sure what. “There are things that, to be honest, we don’t fully understand,” Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, told me.

We don’t know everything about why Covid-19 cases rise, and we don’t know everything about why they fall, either. David Leonhardt and Ashley Wu at the New York Times recently demonstrated that the coronavirus appears to follow two-month cycles in its rises and falls.

Yet, experts told them, it isn’t clear why. “We still are really in the cave ages in terms of understanding how viruses emerge, how they spread, how they start and stop, why they do what they do,” Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, said.

Experts point to some possible factors that contribute to trends in Covid-19 — widely discussed ones like vaccination and precautions, but also less covered issues like the weather, geographic concentration, and luck. But they acknowledge that there could be something going on that we just don’t know of or understand yet.

Figuring out all of this is crucial: It could be the difference between enabling and preventing not just the continued spread of Covid-19 but perhaps the next pandemic, too.

What's a government meant to do with such uncertainties, which make it incredibly easy for any policy mix they come up to be attacked?   

I'm not saying that governments are above criticism for policies - and certainly Right wing governments who take nonsensical attitudes towards punishing people who want to self protect are being idiotic - but my attitude towards criticism of government policies that are too strict remains slanted towards being sympathetic for the terrible difficulty they have in trying to work out what is effective and appropriate.  

Racist Right watch

Tucker Carlson Blows Up Murdoch’s White Supremacy Denial on Air

Chait is correct.

People are fickle

Sure, the manner of the Afghanistan withdrawal was not a great look.   But the vaccine mandate provisions still hold majority support, I think.

Yet Gallup shows up a big drop in the approval rating of Joe Biden to a Trumpian level of 43%.  Interestingly, the biggest drop amongst Independents - but then again, given the state of politics at the moment, no one really expects any movement at all from Republicans, do they?   And don't Republicans who like to pretend they are free thinkers register Independent - I think I remember Bill O'Reilly used to say he was one.

Anyway, even Presidents who are seen retrospectively as popular and successful can have periods of low approval.

As far as I am concerned, nothing Biden has done warrants this.  

Reactionary Right watch

Currency Lad, as clueless about the laws of armed conflict (and, I might add, morality) as ever:

 He and fellow conservative Catholic dover beach also think this:

 

Uhuh.   

And the race nationalism basis of the Right is on display at another new Catallaxy:

Can't we start negotiating with the USA for allowing an immigration swap of Redneck Australians for illegal Mexicans, or something?  I know which I would prefer to be around...

How the Polynesians spread

A new genetic study helps confirm the way the Polynesians spread through the Pacific:

The analysis suggests canoes set sail from the shores of Samoa—more than 2000 kilometers north of New Zealand—around 800 CE. The explorers arrived first on Rarotonga, the largest island in a chain now called the Cook Islands. Successive explorers moved in all directions, island hopping over the course of centuries and eventually reaching all the way to Rapa Nui, 6500 kilometers from Samoa and 3700 kilometers off the coast of Chile, by 1210 C.E.

The seems to have narrowed down the timeline considerably:

Archaeologists already had hints of how this great exploration took place. Studying the styles of stone tools and carvings, as well as languages, of the people on the various islands had suggested the original ancestors traced back to Samoa and that the expansion ended halfway across the ocean in Rapa Nui, or Easter Island. But they disagreed on whether it happened in a few centuries, beginning around 900 C.E., or started much earlier and lasted 1 millennium or more.

What's this about Native American ancestry?:

And because the genetic evidence allowed the researchers to reconstruct the order in which the islands were settled, they could spot connections between islands that might not seem intuitive based on the geography. For example, they argue that three island cultures known for carving massive stone statues—Rapa Nui, Raivavae, and the North and South Marquesas—shared a common founder population in the Tuamotu Islands, even though they are thousands of kilometers apart and geographically closer to other parts of the Pacific.

Those three islands also hold the earliest genetic traces of Native American ancestry among Polynesians. That suggests ancient Polynesians first contacted the Americas around 1100 C.E., when the seafarers were beginning their last, and longest, expeditions. “That’s something no one could have predicted through archaeology or oral history,” Moreno Estrada says.

Oh, here's another article explaining that part:

Researchers, published in Nature, sampled genes of modern peoples living across the Pacific and along the South American coast and the results suggest that voyages between eastern Polynesia and the Americas happened around the year 1200, resulting in a mixture of those populations in the remote South Marquesas archipelago. It remains a mystery whether Polynesians, Native Americans, or both peoples undertook the long journeys that would have led them together. The findings could mean that South Americans, hailing from what’s now coastal Ecuador or Columbia, ventured to East Polynesia. Alternatively, Polynesians could have arrived in the Marquesas alone having already mixed with those South American people—but only if they’d first sailed to the American continent to meet them.

Alexander Ioannidis, who studies genomics and population genetics at Stanford University, co-authored the new study in Nature. “The genes show that the Native Americans who contributed came from the coastal regions of Ecuador and Columbia,” he says. “What they can’t show, and we don’t know, is where exactly it first took place—on a Polynesian island or the coast of the Americas.”

 So, some Native Americans might have made it to, say, Rapa Nui, kon tiki style.  I thought that had been discredited - but it was more the idea that all of Polynesia came from the East, rather than the West.