Best agricultural science books according to redditors

We found 127 Reddit comments discussing the best agricultural science books. We ranked the 62 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Subcategories:

Books about soil science
Food science books
Forestry books
Horticulture books
Agronomy books
Animal husbandry books
Crop science books
Books about irrigation
Books about sustainable agriculture
Tropical agriculture books
Agriculture industry books
Agricultural science history books

Top Reddit comments about Agricultural Science:

u/wrensalert · 56 pointsr/pics

GMO is so good for struggling farmers, unfortunately some uninformed idiots think it's bad and dangerous but they don't know any of the facts. It's inevitable whether you try to stop it. it's coming, and it's a good thing. For further reading,

Here's Bill Gates, talking this year about GMO foods, breaking down why it's a good thing.

In the video he recommends a book called Tomorrow's Table

Also, Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think by Peter H. Diamandis

It's written by the guy that started the X prize, he's an MIT professor and Harvard MD.

He basically says GMO foods are gonna change the poor parts of the word for the BETTER and goes on to describe the harm that kooks are causing trying to stop them.

u/derpallardie · 55 pointsr/NatureIsFuckingLit

If you wanna read about soil, I'd recommend Dirt: The Ecstatic Skin of the Earth by William Bryant Logan. If you're looking for a soil science textbook, I'd go with Brady & Weil. If you're looking for just general reading recommendations, I've really been loving King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild.

u/morsecoderain · 35 pointsr/skeptic

I really like Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food by Pam Ronald and Raoul Adamchak. It's written by a husband and wife team—the husband is an organic farmer, and the wife is a rice geneticist. I found it to be a good primer on genetic engineering and the basics of organic farming. They take the position that genetic engineering and organic farming are both tools that should be employed in the future of agriculture.

u/crushendo · 20 pointsr/todayilearned

US Davis is huge in plant genetics. One of their professors, Pamela Ronald, is a world expert in plant genetics and GM technology. Fun fact: her husband is an organic farmer and they wrote a book together about biotechnology and organic farming.

u/Odd_nonposter · 14 pointsr/vegancirclejerk

A good book to read on that: The Sexual Politics of Meat. Long story short, it's all tied to the idea of masculine dominance. Same reasons why men are allowed to be more violent, men are (historically) allowed to get away with lewd comments and such, and bodily commodification.

I drew a lot of ties between meat, strip clubs, and sheep shows after I read this book.

u/PandaLover42 · 10 pointsr/IAmA

Very good summary. The article's author, Pamela Ronald, also wrote a book called Tomorrow's Table. It's perhaps the most fair discussion of the GMO issue out there. In short, she advocates an organic, sustainable agriculture industry, utilizing GMOs only when necessary to reduce pests/disease/chemical sprays. But don't take my word for it, the book's probably available at the library, and it's a quick read.

u/SCWcc · 9 pointsr/vegan

I never really used to understand how intersectionality would work when it came to veganism/animal rights issues, but I've been reading this book and it's really interesting, and has got me thinking about other areas as well. It's definitely worth a read for anyone interested in the topic.

u/djn24 · 8 pointsr/vegan

She's an author that has written a lot about the intersections of the feminist movement and the animal rights movement:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1501312839/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1350040207/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KYLGFWC/

u/Sargpeppers · 7 pointsr/vegan

There's a good book on the subject of sexual politics of meat

https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-Vegetarian-Revelations/dp/1501312839

u/pwoolf · 7 pointsr/Fitness

Actually avoiding GM soy is pretty easy if it bothers you. US organic food standards prohibit GM products. About 90% of the soy products I have access to at my grocery (soy milk, tofu, tempeh) are organic and as such not GM.

This said, I know of no clinical evidence that has shown any health difference of GM vs non-GM. There is speculation about allergy potential (say for Bt corn), but I've seen no convincing data to support this link.

If you are interested in a detailed discussion on the topic, you might check out the book tomorrow's table It was co-authored by an organic farmer and a plant geneticist. It provides a well thought out, more scientific description of the pros and cons.

The big upside that few people tend to recognize is that GM foods are a very promising way to allow us to grow way more food, food that is much better for us, and at the same time have less environmental impact. Not all GMs provide these benefits currently, but the technology has the potential to do this good.

As an example, imagine if we could grow corn in Ethiopia that would be rich in B6, contain tons of balanced protein, be resistant to drought, insects, and fungus. Many of these innovations are possible and are likely part of our future, but they won't happen without engineering the genomes of these crops.

u/BlackbeltJones · 6 pointsr/Denver

> They should not have a place at the table, building a free, open, and tolerant society

I think you may stumble on the interpretation of Popper's paradox, as it is often given as reason to infringe upon the first amendment rights of those with repugnant viewpoints.

Popper insists that intolerance must not be tolerated, but our evaluation of ideas that are intolerant, repugnant, or otherwise must continue. See Popper's Conjectures & Refutations. Without getting too philosophical, ideas don't die, and people can arrive upon incorrect, intolerant, and repugnant values independently of extremist fringe movements.

Back on topic, whether or not you feel they should, Neo-Nazis do have a seat at the table. They vote. They can run for office and be elected to lead. And as citizens of the United States, Neo-Nazis share in all the protections they want to deprive of others.

Popper's "rational" society does not tolerate intolerance but accounts for the irrational members within it.

The way to mitigate the effect of these irrational members is to permit the irrational to expose themselves, espouse their irrational conjectures, and rebuke them with society's refutation. Protesters and Antifa, the hotel canceling the event space, 4channers identifying the torch-bearers and notifying their employers, and their employers firing them, are each examples of society's refutations of the Nazi march in Charlottesville.

u/BOStoVAN · 5 pointsr/vegan

Being 100% serious here, try reading this book if intersectionality is actually of interest to you:

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B016N2QTU8/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3EDD7G28V04EC&coliid=I2EV7MNE2HLTWR

u/rodger_r · 4 pointsr/SpaceBuckets

Based on what I see here, I would advise you to focus on getting the correct equipment set up and learning the details on how to grow cannabis from the grow book and equipment guide. https://www.amazon.com/Grow-Equipment-Guide-MArijuana-2015-08-02/dp/B01K3MMIJ0
Then pick up a recognized cannabis specific nutrient system, a 2 part. Nothing more complicated than that. It's all the same shit.
Your seedling is under stress and it won't be long before you have rotted the roots.
The Grow Book will put you straight and will save you a lot of time and effort.
That said, if you live in the U.S.,
Cogo's is one of the finest 2 part nutrient products out there, its also good value.
Good luck, bro.


u/MennoniteDan · 4 pointsr/farming

Soil Fertility Manual, by the IPNI

The Nature and Properties of Soil, by Raymond Weil and Nyle Brady

Hands On Agronomy, by Neal Kinsey (take some of what he says with a grain of salt)

Soil Fertility and Fertilizers, by Samuel Tisdale (and others)

u/YahwehTheDevil · 3 pointsr/vegetarian

The Sexual Politics of Meat convinced me to stop eating meat, and Gary Yourofsky convinced me to go vegan a few months later. And, while I had already stopped consuming dairy, The Herd viscerally shows why dairy is atrocious.

u/combatwombat02 · 3 pointsr/German

I think I might have an idea for the comic - this German version of the xkcd book.

It's a (humorous) encyclopedia where complicated stuff is explained with the 1000 most-used English words, so I guess it could fit here for German as well. Also, it's a hoot.

Edit: link because somehow it didn't show up at first

u/throwaway12891289 · 3 pointsr/uoguelph

I applied from outside as well, so I recommend you start the application process now since you need your courses approved as an outside applicant and their turn around time is horrendous, it took me almost a year of back and forth e-mails since the person on the other end would take over a month to reply.
You have a chance, it worth a shot I got in with mid-80's, I know people who got in with low 80's, but we also had the MCAT at the time. We'll see in fall what the average was for the first class without the MCAT. The best way to improve your chances is to get your grades up(sorry it sucks). Get lots of varied experience, it doesn't even have to be vet related necessarily, do stuff that puts you in a leadership role. The interview was the best part for me, some people found it very stressful, so I recommend practicing(ask people to interview you or friends of friends you don't well works because it will make you uncomfortable, ask you career services at your university to help, they probably have a prep program geared toward Med-students, but it will help) , I recommend getting hold of this book the scenarios in here are good for understanding how to build you argument when taking the interview, you don't have to agree with what he says.

I'll keep an eye on this account for the next week if you have any questions.

u/Aetole · 3 pointsr/bestoflegaladvice

Paging Carol Adams (really good read, btw, on language, gender, and food politics)

u/KillerDog · 3 pointsr/Dogtraining

Talk to your vet, they might want to adjust the dosage or try a different medication. It might also just be a temporary thing, it almost always takes a while (4 to 6 weeks) for the positive effects from SSRIs to start showing up.

Some SSRI / Prozac info that might be interesting / helpful:

An article by the ASPCA, Behavioral Medications for Dogs says:

>>SSRIs are rarely effective the first day, and in fact can increase anxiety in some dogs before they begin to have therapeutic effects. Because SSRIs create changes in the brain, they must be taken for at least six weeks before they produce therapeutic results. Any decisions regarding the success of the treatment should be postponed until the dog has been on the medicine at least four months.

And Dr. Overall (a veterinary behaviorist) says in Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats:

>>Treat for as long as it takes to begin to assess effects: ... 3 to 5 weeks minimum for SSRIs and more specific TCAs

>>Plus 2. Treat until “well” with either no signs associated with diagnosis or some low, consistent level of
signs: minimum of another 1 to 2 months

>>Plus 3. Treat for the amount of time it took to attain the level in (2) so that reliability of assessment is
reasonably assured: minimum of another 1 to 2 months

>>Total: Treat for a minimum of 4 to 6 months

u/databeast · 3 pointsr/Fallout

I'm actually English, and so wasn't really introduced to Mormonism properly until I moved to Denver Colorado many years ago. Over the years, looking at modern America, it amazes me how much of American culture is influenced by Mormonism, despite their status as something of a marginalized group.

I love pointing out to 'prepper' types how most of their doctrine comes from Mormon self-sufficiency doctrine (a good example of this: one of my favorite books on post-apocalyptic food self-sufficiency: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394492285)

Tl;Dr when it comes to the post-apocalypse, the Mormons have always been front-and-center in terms of practicality.

u/InertiaofLanguage · 3 pointsr/askscience

For two of the most well know (albeit conflicting) looks at how science changes over time, you can check out Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge by Karl Popper and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Khun.

See also the Philosophy of Science, Science Studies, and the History of Science.


And there are also subreddits devoted to /r/PhilosophyofScience, this is a good introductory post

Also, this comic

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/skeptic

Here are mine..

Five works by Karl Popper, who IMHO is the greatest skeptical thinker who ever lived:

u/Michaelis_Menten · 3 pointsr/gardening

It may actually be related to this book called Dirt, though. The author is featured in the documentary.

u/YouSirAreAMouthful · 3 pointsr/Veterinary

From my understanding, the MMIs are kind of a weird format, and unfortunately you don't have the opportunity to talk about yourself / why you want to be a vet / what you bring to the table etc etc. Your resume and letter of intent should speak for themselves in that respect.

From my understanding, the MMIs are basically a series of scenarios (the format is based on med school interviews). Reading up on recent vet journals is a great place to start, and you'll probably want to read up on CVMA position statements as well - both are a great way to find out what the big issues are.

I'd also recommend spending some time learning about veterinary ethics. There's a whole format for making ethical decisions... you need to identify all the stakeholders, all the possible solutions, who would benefit/be harmed by each outcome, and how you would come to your decision. This book would be great to have a look through, if you can get your hands on it.

Good luck on your interview!

u/Pierce28 · 3 pointsr/NCSU

I was a freshman in 08 as an engineer (graduated now). I forget what our summer reading was, but I never heard of it prior to moving in, never read it, and still got my A in Eng101 and it was never mentioned. I may have gotten lucky. If your summer reading is mentioned in classes, I doubt it would be in E101, but instead your required general electives like Eng101.

However, sorry if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're awfully peeved about the cost of the book. Is this book it? If so, if you're upset about $13.63, just wait until your calculus book. Or physics clickers. Or every other cost associated with college.

My advice - pay the $13.63, read the book, and be ready to start your college career off on the right foot. Engineering isn't easy, so making sure you do well in your first classes is critical in cementing that GPA before later classes that are far more difficult.

u/Notasurgeon · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

While these are not all specifically about religion, here are a few things that I think everyone should read at some point in their lives.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (this is where the term 'paradigm shift' came from).

Karl Popper on politics

Karl Popper on science

Get some historical perspective on the philosophy of science

The Power of Myth

A History of God

u/JamesAGreen · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

GMO food crops that can be grown in an inherently "organic" way. Although current systems exclude GMO crops from being labelled as such because people are scared of the recombinant aspect of biotech crops, there is nothing inherently juxtaposed about the science of organic farming and genetically-modified crops. In the future we will have a greater focus on GMO tech that increases yield/nutrition/flavor without having to dump herbicides/pesticides on the field. An awesome book about this: http://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Table-Organic-Farming-Genetics/dp/0195393570

u/Kynophile · 2 pointsr/zoophilia

Yes, there are radicals that want total animal liberation, and they do have a particular hatred of sex with animals. A couple of them, Carol J. Adams and Piers Beirne, have written long, detailed arguments on their positions, including why they think sex with animals should always be considered sexual assault. Their reasons pretty much boil down to treating all cases the same as rapes resulting in physical injury and treating pet ownership as similar to slavery, invalidating any claim of consent due to inherent differences in societal power.

The first one depends on ignorance of the issue, while the second depends on a form of feminism that ties individual consent to societal power structures which are difficult to demonstrate at best. Their ideas are cookie cutter Marxism applied to animals, and like all Marxism, they dismiss the rights of individuals in favor of winning an idealized class struggle, resulting in even more suffering by almost everyone they claim to be helping.

In short, their view of the world is fundamentally warped by ideology, and as a result does not have the mass appeal needed to effect real change. They cannot succeed without becoming totalitarian rulers, and while things have been getting more chaotic politically in the Western world, they have not fallen apart to that extent, nor will they as long as people continue to call out their stupidity and cruelty.

u/Hexaploid · 2 pointsr/environment

>Here are a few articles about examples of GM crops promoting superbugs and superweeds:

There is no such thing as 'super' pests or weeds. That is a misnomer. There are weeds resistant to herbicides, yes, and pests resistant to the plant's GE defenses, yes, but they are neither super not new. The first herbicide resistant weeds were documented two decades before GE crops were on the market, and resistance breakdown (when a pest overcomes a plant's resistance) happens as a result of simple evolutionary biology and has no bearing on the origin of the resistance. It happens in non-GE crops as well, so if your argument against Ge crops is that the same laws of population genetics apply to them as apply to every other crop, you're against a lot more than just GE and should take up a stance against conventional breeding as well.

>Well-managed organic practices can reduce pest damage naturally without sacrificing yields.

Well, first off, citing the Rodale Institute on organic is like citing Monsanto on GE. Second, false dichotomy. Organic is a method of growing things. Genetic engineering is a way of improving a plant. The only wedge between them is ideological, not reality based (some say both should be used). That, really, is the biggest problem with organic. It's ideology, not science. There's nothing wrong with biological techniques, in fact, the world would be a lot better off it the could replace chemical based ones, however, that does not mean that the dogmatic organic approach is the right way to go, nor is an appeal to nature is valid, and furthermore, genetic engineering is a biological technique. Third, what happens when things are run not well but average? Here's the (study) referenced in your second link by the way.

edit: I should probably add that I'm not trying to dismiss the dangers of resistant weeds and pests, just that they are a poor argument against genetic engineering itself (also, they're dangerous because they threaten to take away the benefits GE has already provided, so to use them as an argument against GE is to start out admitting they have been very useful).

u/DracoOccisor · 2 pointsr/politics

There’s a book for you. I’d strongly recommend a read, it covers the exact topic that you’re discussing, but with sources and peer-reviewed material.

u/not_whiney · 2 pointsr/Soil

This was an awesome book. it lays out a lot on overall soil health, not just for a crop, but the concepts of soil health and overall balance between different factors.

u/send_me_a_naked_pic · 2 pointsr/italy

Ti consiglio la lettura di Pane e Bugie di Dario Bressanini, in particolare tutta la parte intitolata «Il mito del mangiar sano e "giusto"». Nel mio caso, mi ha fatto cambiare radicalmente opinione sul biologico. Ora, se posso scegliere, prediligo assolutamente i prodotti non biologici.

u/CoffinBone · 2 pointsr/AskVet

If you are preparing for an interview to get into veterinary school, might I suggest Introduction to Veterinary Ethics by Rollin? Its a nice approach, and at the very least will help you organize your answers in a logical way. I particularly like how he breaks it down every ethical question into five key areas: what are my duties/responsibilities as a veterinarian to myself, my profession, the patient, the client, and society? By examining each ethical question in from these five perspectives you can be assured that you have probably explored the issue from every angle. My final recommendation would be to chose a final path. By all means explore the options, discuss pros and cons, but at the end say what you would do. They don't want to to be wishy-washy and then avoid coming to any final solution.

If you have additional questions regarding interviews they might be better answered on the sub r/veterinaryschool - although it can be rather quiet there.

u/manuelmagic · 2 pointsr/tortoise

Ciao, sono tartarughe Hermanni. D’inverno si interrano da sole o prepari tu un rifugio?
Ti consiglio questo libro se non hai esperienza con le tartarughe: Tartarughe terresti.

Se hai bisogno posso darti qualche consiglio sull’alimentazione e il letargo, che sono gli aspetti più importanti.

u/dumpnotpump · 2 pointsr/Veterinary

This! Like have people actually been presented with the choice? Because honestly most times it's the lesser of the two evils. It's very easy to sit and judge when you've never been the one to say yes I'll do it for this cat to live or no I wont go find someone else or lets euthanize. If people are interested in developing a more rounded view of ethics I'd recommend the Rollin book

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Veterinary-Medical-Ethics-Theory/dp/0813803993

u/drunkentune · 1 pointr/philosophy

Book: Conjectures and Refutations, by Karl Popper (my first cognitive 'Copernican revolution')

Event: everything after undergrad.

u/justinjest · 1 pointr/science

Who in the world modded you down?

Great book on your supposition:
http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Within-Discovering-Intelligence-Living/dp/0151005516

u/theexex · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

The Genius Within http://www.amazon.com/The-Genius-Within-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0151005516

A book I read this summer that I really enjoyed. You will learn to understand a new perspective on the concept of "smart." I also enjoyed his writing style and found it easy to read.

u/Glayden · 1 pointr/philosophy

>when asking "well how do we resolve these issues?" we don't look to philosophy, we look to science.

And what does science look to? Essentially philosophy. Whether the theories to be tested are developed by looking for symmetries, or using Occam's razor, or appealing to some implicit principle from epistemology or philosophy of logic, it all boils down to philosophy. Science isn't independent of philosophy. It is far better described as a subset of philosophy which deals with the management of observed data.

It's easy for those in physics who are dealing primarily with equations to lose track of how many philosophical assumptions are being made in their theories. In many cases they would really benefit from paying attention to what philosophers have to contribute. Physicists today are quite rigorous with the numbers but they are not at all rigorous in the most crucial element of science -- their interpretations. (Huw Price's book on time asymmetry is an example of something that physicist's should be paying attention to as it very clearly points out logical contradictions and double standards being employed in the discussion of time by top physicists.)

I think right now the problem is that there are too many people in philosophy chiming in on things in physics with completely wrong statements when they don't have the background knowledge in the field to realize how poorly they've understand what is going on. We're seeing a similar thing happening in the other direction with well known physicists (like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss) who know next to nothing about metaphysics making utterly inane philosophical claims.

u/tea-drinker · 1 pointr/xkcd
u/brainwad · 1 pointr/German

Maybe Der Ding-Erklärer (the German translation of Randall Munro's Thing Explainer)? https://www.amazon.de/dp/3813507157/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_qhodBb143TQ9Y

u/outcast302 · 1 pointr/Reformed

You should study epistemology! There's a funny thing about Truth: it is impossible to find it unless you know what it looks like. If you did happen to stumble upon some absolute, undefiled Truth, how would you know that's what it really was? You'd have to recognize that it matches what you already know is True.

That's why it's impossible to logic anyone to faith. God is Truth, and He reveals Himself to whom He will. If He hasn't revealed Himself to someone, the Truth is not in them, and when they do get hit upside the head with a little bit of truth by an apologist, they can't recognize it as Truth--it's logically impossible.

But there's a very sobering flip side: if you do not know (with absolute certainty) what is True, you cannot say for certain that anything is true or false. How could you? That means that if you do not know God, it is impossible to know anything.

That's about three years worth of part-time study condensed into 10 sentences so it probably doesn't read that well, but I guarantee you that the more you study it the more glorious it will become.

u/realvmouse · 1 pointr/woof_irl

Ah, yes. "The experts don't know what they're talking about, so trust me instead" argument.

All of your supposed takedowns of the veterinary community are easily refuted, but I'm not having this argument to convince you-- I'm having it for others who might be following this thread.

I'm fairly certain at this point everyone can see where you're coming from, so I feel pretty satisfied with where we are.

> I explained to you why your interpretation of L mech wolf study is wrong.

No, you didn't? And it's not relevant anyway, as this isn't very important in terms of the body of research that we currently rely on in veterinary behavior science.

For those not familiar, by the way, "balanced trainers" is this redneck idea that if you don't hit your dog sometimes, you're spoiling them. They would, of course, disagree with this exact phrasing, but it pretty well captures the mindset.

And for those following, as I mentioned earlier, it's pretty easy to find where expert consensus lies, as well as to see a broad range of citations supporting modern expert opinion. The citations are listed in 2 columns in small print, alphabetically; from "Olney" to "Song" covers 5 full pages. The person above me latched onto something he read somewhere and I have no idea why he's blown it out of proportion as if it matters. We don't study wolves to understand dogs, and why he insists some wolf study done in the 60's is the key to this argument is baffling to me. You can go to the google preview if you'd like to see it for free.

https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Clinical-Behavioral-Medicine-Dogs/dp/0323008909

But at this point you basically have two options: listen to the person who believes if the modern church would only listen to Jordan Peterson then less people would be leaving Christianity (that's an actual comment from his recent history) who has bought into every myth about animal health he can find, or look at the overwhelming amount of research and consensus informing expert opinion.

By the way, again to those following: no veterinarian is an expert in all of the things my opponent claims we try to be experts in. It would in fact be illegal for a veterinarian to claim they are. That's why we have veterinary specialists in dentistry, behavior, nutrition, surgery, internal medicine, and other fields. Your family vet is a general practitioner. I'm not asking you to trust me because I'm a veterinarian, I'm asking you to trust the community of veterinary behavior specialists because they're veterinary behavior specislists.

u/mindfulmu · 1 pointr/bugout

Fire, you won't need it.
Having to leave your home for a gas leak or perhaps a train derailment with hazardous chemicals. You won't need it.

Earthquake, maybe.
Flood, maybe if it's epic.
Buy a book instead, buy this one and learn to cook with a solar oven, maybe sign up for a defensive shooting class. But take survival slow, do lots of reading and you'll be far better prepared. Most of all allocate resources as you would with insurance premium. A little every month, remember you may never needs this.
Another tip, avoid miltary backpacks. Most are designed for your average dude. Invest in a good hiking backpack, try rei if you have one near you. Gender in backpacks and sleeping bags are specific.

u/_goodnewsevery1 · 1 pointr/GMO

http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

It is a series of articles about GMOs written by Nathanael Johnson. It is really well researched and written.


Also, this book: Tomorrows Table, by Pamela Ronald and R. W. Adamchak. It is written by a GMO researcher and an organic farmer who are married. Written with a lot of good citations, and very accessible to a lay person. Link: http://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Table-Organic-Farming-Genetics/dp/0195393570/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408658213&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=tomorrow%27s+tabe


Well done taking the first steps to educate yourself!

u/ex-libtard · 1 pointr/unpopularopinion

Let me just give some broad strokes.

​

A feminist programming language: https://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages

​

Attempting to start a feminist framework for climate change: https://reason.com/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-study-on-femin/

​

Calling light speed sexist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray#Criticism

​

Selling bad science to push agendas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair (original sokal affair is better at touching on this core problem)

​

Jargon: https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-Vegetarian-Revelations/dp/1501312839

​

Chomsky on Feminism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNJX64cBOE

​

Wage gap myth, peddled as recently as the 2016 Presidential election by all Democratic candidates. Weird!

u/rule_of_experts · 1 pointr/videos

It seems you have a balanced view of patents.. their potential benefit and their pitfalls. However, your history is lacking. In the US, hybrid seed development and distribution was created by farmers and land grant universities based off of public funds. Since food was thought of as a public good, the incentive to develop the experimental technologies for hybridization was fortified with taxes and public support. University extension agents would distribute these varieties for public use and feedback without expectation of massive profits. This was social contract. Then, in the search of profits private breeders worked IP protection on plant varieties, destroying this system entirely and limiting the options of production for farmers. Power shifted away from growers and public universities and into private breeding companies who now represent a handful of firms with total control over the majority of domestic seed production. You can read about it here in a book called First the Seed


There are so many things and conveniences I enjoy that did not require patent intervention. Patents are a young, human creation. Some more imagination and historical lens show how many other incentive systems can be employed to support these conveniences rather than consolidation of power for monied interests

u/lysergicfuneral · 1 pointr/PeopleFuckingDying

I'm talking about feminism (as a dude) that is about respecting females and not taking advantage of them using any means. I wouldn't want to kill or rape a human and I wouldn't want that for animals either. It's the same argument about killing taken to it's logical conclusion - that is violence at any level (physical, emotional, sexual) is not good.

A less loaded word than feminism would be sexism.

There is a well-reviewed book on the topic too.

I'm not an expert on the nuances, but there are many discussions on this over at r/vegan if you search for feminism/feminist. Here's one.

u/scoith · 1 pointr/golang

Before rolling out personal definitions, consider reading a book.

> So what is your definition of science

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."

> And don't tell me data mining is not seeking to explain the material universe better, that is the entire point.

Please tell me you were joking.

And no, what you describe there is not science. The theory part is just applied mathematics, rest is engineering. The heuristics used are educated guesses about the model at best.

A few kids trying to infer what kind of video I'd like to watch next, they're not doing science either.

u/CyborgHighlander · 1 pointr/BeardedDragons

I don't know what treatment you would use for the URI, but when/if you need to deal with the coccidiosis what you want is a drug called ponazuril. If his immune system is compromised it may cause the parasites to flare up, and the sulfa drug antibiotics that are commonly used do very little to kill parasites. Get a postage scale and weigh him daily until he recovers. Panacur(fenbendazole) does NOTHING for coccidia in reptiles. (It should kill the rods though.) I lost two baby beardies to ignorant vets and the wrong medication before I did my own research - The Ponazuril brought appetite back in three days. Down side is it needs a prescription, so you have to talk a vet into writing it. I found the dosage in http://www.amazon.com/Exotic-Animal-Formulary-3rd-Edition/dp/0721601804 which I unfortunately no longer have a copy of.

Also, another trick I learned is using the pointy q tips you get in the beauty supply section to open their mouth. You poke the tips in at the very front of their beak/nose where there aren't any teeth, and pry open gently. He'll open his mouth, and you just let him gnaw on the qtip while you squirt medicine onto his tongue. He'll spit the qtip out on his own.

I've sadly had many experiences with vets that don't know how to treat reptiles before. The worst are vets that think they know what they're doing but are really just guessing to save face. Sometimes you have to take things into your own hands and learn how to take care of your babies yourself. I hope your little guy feels better.

u/CharlieDarwin2 · 1 pointr/atheism

If you have debunked the fact and theory of Evolution it would be a huge event, no? When will you be getting your Nobel Prize in Biology?

Perhaps you should read Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415278449

u/empleadoEstatalBot · 1 pointr/vzla

> For the next two years, I delved into the literature on Venezuela with renewed interest. Javier Corrales and Michael Penfold’s book, A Dragon in the Tropics, it turned out, was particularly well-researched and compelling. Since I could no longer get my writing published in any of the outlets for which I’d previously written, I redirected my energies into making a new film entitled In the Shadow of the Revolution with the help of a Venezuelan filmmaker and friend, Arturo Albarrán, and I wrote my political memoir for an adventurous anarchist publisher. But what preoccupied me more and more were the larger questions of socialism versus capitalism, and the meaning of liberalism.
>
> I’d visited Cuba twice—in 1994 and again in 2010—and now, with my experience of Venezuela, I felt I’d seen the best socialism could offer. Not only was that offering pathetically meagre, but it had been disastrously destructive. It became increasingly clear to me that nothing that went under that rubric functioned nearly as well on any level as the system under which I had been fortunate enough to live in the US. Why then, did so many decent people, whose ethics and intelligence and good intentions I greatly respected, continue to insist that the capitalist system needed to be eliminated and replaced with what had historically proven to be the inferior system of socialism?
>
> The strongest argument against state control of the means of production and distribution is that it simply didn’t—and doesn’t—work. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding—and in this case, there was no pudding at all. In my own lifetime, I’ve seen socialism fail in China, fail in the Soviet Union, fail in Eastern Europe, fail on the island of Cuba, and fail in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. And now the world is watching it fail in Venezuela, where it burned through billions of petro-dollars of financing, only to leave the nation worse off than it was before. And still people like me had insisted on this supposed alternative to capitalism, stubbornly refusing to recognize that it is based on a faulty premise and a false epistemology.
>
> As long ago as the early 1940s, F.A. Hayek had identified the impossibility of centralized social planning and its catastrophic consequences in his classic The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s writings convinced the Hungarian economist, János Kornai, to dedicate an entire volume entitled The Socialist System to demonstrating the validity of his claims. The “synoptic delusion”—the belief that any small group of people could hold and manage all the information spread out over millions of actors in a market economy—Kornai argued, leads the nomenklatura to make disastrous decisions that disrupt production and distribution. Attempts to “correct” these errors only exacerbate the problems for the same reasons, leading to a whole series of disasters that result, at last, in a completely dysfunctional economy, and then gulags, torture chambers, and mass executions as the nomenklatura hunt for “saboteurs” and scapegoats.
>
> The synoptic delusion—compounded by immense waste, runaway corruption, and populist authoritarianism—is what led to the mayhem engulfing Venezuela today, just as it explains why socialism is no longer a viable ideology to anyone but the kind of true believer I used to be. For such people, utopian ideologies might bring happiness into their own lives, and even into the lives of those around them who also delight in their dreams and fantasies. But when they gain control over nations and peoples, their harmless dreams become the nightmares of multitudes.
>
> Capitalism, meanwhile, has dramatically raised the standard of living wherever it has been allowed to arise over the past two centuries. It is not, however, anything like a perfect or flawless system. Globalization has left many behind, even if their lives are far better than those of their ancestors just two hundred years ago, and vast wealth creation has produced vast inequalities which have, in turn, bred resentment. Here in California, the city of Los Angeles, “with a population of four million, has 53,000 homeless.” Foreign policy misadventures and the economic crash of 2008 opened the door to demagogues of the Left and the Right eager to exploit people’s hopes and fears so that they could offer themselves as the solution their troubled nations sought to the dystopian woe into which liberal societies had fallen. In his fascinating recent jeremiad Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen itemizes liberal democracy’s many shortcomings and, whether or not one accepts his stark prognosis, his criticisms merit careful thought and attention.
>
> Nevertheless, markets do work for the majority, and so does liberal democracy, as dysfunctional as it often is. That is because capitalism provides the space for ingenuity and innovation, while liberal democracy provides room for free inquiry and self-correction. Progress and reform can seem maddeningly sluggish under such circumstances, particularly when attempting to redress grave injustice or to meet slow-moving existential threats like climate change. But I have learned to be wary of those who insist that the perfect must be the enemy of the good, and who appeal to our impatience with extravagant promises of utopia. If, as Deneen contends, liberalism has become a victim of its own success, it should be noted that socialism has no successes to which it can fall victim. Liberalism’s foundations may be capable of being shored up, but socialism is built on sand, and from sand. Failures, most sensible people realize, should be abandoned.
>
> That is probably why Karl Popper advocated cautious, piecemeal reform of markets and societies because, like any other experiment, one can only accurately isolate problems and make corrections by changing one variable at a time. As Popper observed in his essay “Utopia and Violence”:
>
> > The appeal of Utopianism arises from the failure to realize that we cannot make heaven on earth. What I believe we can do instead is to make life a little less terrible and a little less unjust in each generation. A good deal can be achieved in this way. Much has been achieved in the last hundred years. More could be achieved by our own generation. There are many pressing problems which we might solve, at least partially, such as helping the weak and the sick, and those who suffer under oppression and injustice; stamping out unemployment; equalizing opportunities; and preventing international crime, such as blackmail and war instigated by men like gods, by omnipotent and omniscient leaders. All this we might achieve if only we could give up dreaming about distant ideals and fighting over our Utopian blueprints for a new world and a new man.
>
> Losing faith in a belief system that once gave my life meaning was extremely painful. But the experience also reawakened my dormant intellectual curiosity and allowed me to think about the world anew, unencumbered by the circumscriptions of doctrine. I have met new people, read new writers and thinkers, and explored new ideas I had previously taken care to avoid. After reading an interview I had given to one of my publishers a year ago, I was forwarded an email by the poet David Chorlton. What I’d said in that interview, he wrote, “goes beyond our current disease of taking sides and inflexible non-thinking. I’m reading Havel speeches again, all in the light of the collective failure to live up to the post-communist opportunities. We’re suffering from a lack of objectivity—is that because everyone wants an identity more than a solution to problems?”
>
> Clifton Ross writes occasionally for Caracas Chronicles, sporadically blogs at his website, [www.cliftonross.com](http://www.cliftonross.com/) and sometimes even tweets @Clifross
>
> Note:
>
> 1 Considerable confusion surrounds the definitions of “socialism” and “capitalism.” Here, I am using “socialism” to mean a system in which the state destroys the market and takes control of all capital, as well as the production and distribution of goods and services. I am using “capitalism” here to refer to a market economy in which the state, as a disinterested party, or a “referee,” sets guidelines for markets but allows private actors to own and use capital to produce and distribute goods and services.




          • -


            > (continues in next comment)
u/caprette · 1 pointr/SkincareAddiction

I see GMOs as part of a trend that began with the privatization of hybrid seeds in the US and the Green Revolution globally. They didn't start the project of taking the means of production away from farmers, but they absolutely are a part of it. (For a really thoughtful take on how biotechnology has been used to increase corporate control over agriculture, I recommend Jack Kloppenburg's First The Seed.)

As for the point about uneven food distribution--what good will increasing food production do if the people who need it can't get it? If worldwide food production increases by 50%, but all of that additional food either goes to waste or is used inefficiently because poor people can't afford it, then what is the point? We need to make sure that everyone gets a more-or-less equal slice of the pie before we need to worry about having a bigger pie.

I'd also quibble with your assertion that organic farms take up more land than conventional farms. That may be true (I don't really have the time to comb through the methodology of the paper you linked to), but that assumes that organic farms and conventional farms have comparable ecological impacts. This seems to be comparing apples to oranges.

u/zombiegirl0426 · 1 pointr/StudentNurse

Anatomy & Physiology: The Unity of Form and Function https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MSDUQP1/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_O5oqDbXWE34KM
This bad boy

u/hallaa1 · 1 pointr/GRE

Ok, so before I get into everything I have to preface this with some details about me.

I debated for 4 years in college and have been a debate judge ever since, this means I have 7 years of continued debate experience and most of my friends are debaters. The type of debate I did was called British Parliamentary which is perfectly tuned to train you to do well on the writing portion of the GRE. It was all about encountering impromptu topics and being able to make well structured and well sourced arguments while having no physical evidence at your disposal. This taught me to think of very complex and detailed arguments very quickly, I think this is the key to getting a six on the exam.

So, look up BP debate online or on youtube and watch some of the debates and you'll get an understanding on how people like me think about arguments. If you expose yourself to these ideas/habits you'll be fine. I did about 45 minutes of preparation for the test in total not including the 3-4 practice essays I wrote in the practice tests I took leading up to the test.

You can also go to intelligencesquaredus.org and they have a bunch of great debates with experts that also think in the same fashion.

Now to the pointers. First, if you want to learn how to use the Toulmin model to structure your arguments, cut down on fluff and bring your salient points to the table feel free to PM me since it's an entirely different post all by it self.

Before you even get to the test, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with some science philosophy because questions about scientific institutions or fields of inquiry or business come up all of the time and the lessons taught in these books teach you content you can use in the argumentative section, and things to look out for in the assumption/logic section. I based the bulk of my argument section on "The Structure of Scientific revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. I would also highly suggest checking out [The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl Popper] (https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474048437&sr=1-3&keywords=karl+popper). Both of these texts not only give you a great picture of how science functions, they also give you substantial insight into the reasoning behind science and other ventures. This is crucial to pull from in the logic/assumption section.

Before we go on, I'll give you the essay topic that I recently encountered, I'll refer back to it throughout the post: "In regards to fields of inquiry, younger professionals are more likely to make massive contributions to their fields than older professionals".

Before I start actually writing the essay, I take scratch paper and outline my argument. I give myself about 7-8 minutes for this (we used to get 15 minutes to make a 7 minute argument in BP, which includes getting to your room, you can practice this ability by looking up BP topics. If you can't find some, PM me and I'll send you some). I don't put together all of my arguments in full form, I just write "tag lines" pertaining to the gist of my argument. For example, in my essay I would write:

I: Kuhn, structure of sci revs: Paradigm. How young=better

A. What is paradigm

  1. same data seen differently=different qualitative result/sci impact

    B. Young scientists unique to push paradigm

  2. Based on livelihood of seeing things different

    a. Older scientists base livelihood on old assumption/paradigm

    This is more words than you need. You're not going to refer back to this word for word, instead it's a mental exercise to keep you organized. You came up with the ideas, so you're not going to forget why you put something in the linear order if it is linearized. I wouldn't forget what I was going to talk about in regards to assumptions/paradigms if I put down old scis base livelihood on old stuff.

    This model helps organize your thoughts so you don't have to waste time thinking of what's coming next, you can just throw a narrative down on the page. I think I wrote about 1000 words per essay this way. Most guides say you need to write above 600 words to get above a 5.

    When I'm thinking of arguments, I put myself in the shoes of the people I'm being asked to discuss. I think about the obstacles that an old or young professor or business owner confronts when trying to make a massive contribution. I think about what their crisis is, along with what their strengths are. I balance the strengths and weaknesses of the competing parties. I also think about the people in their environments, how are they going to treat the people in question. Will their peers respect them, not respect them, will they engage with them or let the researchers show that they should be paid attention to first. There's a lot to think about with this, but if you put yourself in their shoes, all of these characteristics play themselves out in front of you very quickly. This is why practicing those debate topics are so important, it trains your mind to think quickly about these alternatives.

    At the top, I used a phrase to begin that was relevant to the topic at hand. I probably started off saying something along the lines of "the life of a researcher is chaotic, the notion of publish or perish lies in wait, hovering over everything you do". This is preferable to simply restating the prompt. Remember that graders only spend a couple minutes on each essay, and if you seem boiler-plate from the get go, you're going to get a boiler-plate grade.

    Like many debaters, I like to do an overview at the top of my essay. Once I get my introduction finished with a hint of where I'm going to go with my arguments, I then make just the claims of my arguments and perhaps the impacts/solvency (check out Toulmin) in the second paragraph. This provides the reader with a clear line of what he/she expects to see in my essay and it makes the arguments seem more clear to them because they know what to expect.

    This was something along the lines of: "The arguments present in this paper will consist of analysis of the notion of the paradigm and how it contributes to advancement of the entire pursuit of science. Following this, the ramifications of tenure on a scientists career will be expressed and critiqued. Finally, the idea on how infrastructure access could hamstring younger scientists and thus, allowing for older researchers to take command will be discussed." This takes very little time to write, but it's very helpful for the grader because now they know where to look for, for development of arguments and the power of your reasoning. If you don't do this, it's possible that the grader will overlook some of your points and you may get a worse grade by human error.

    The rest of the paper writes itself if you have a solid outline. You just need to make sure that all of your points have a "why" to them. Why is your claim (assumption at the beginning of your argument) correct, you should use reason and substance to make these seem true. Don't leave anything as an assumption.

    Furthermore, I think the single most important characteristic in making a great argument is establishing what we call uniqueness. This is establishing why the thing you say is happening is actually CAUSING the thing to happen. You make it clear through your arguments that there are no other justifications for what your saying is true is actually true. I have a couple arguments on this one. First that older scientists have built their livelihood and careers on the assumptions and paradigms that they helped create/maintain, so they have developed a unique myopia to other alternatives that younger scientists haven't yet developed. Furthermore, young scientists are in a unique position to need to see things differently so they can make the contributions that lead to tenure. My entire second argument is about how tenure forces younger scientists to make big contributions and how it makes older scientists lazy because I ground the discussion in terms of publish or perish, up until you get tenure. The emphasis here is on mutual exclusivity, if "this" happens "that" can't happen. If a person doesn't have tenure, they're not safe and they have to publish exciting new things. If a person has developed or instilled a paradigm, they (I would argue) can't find another paradigm because it threatens everything they've worked for so they develop a selective myopia. Now this may not be the objective truth, but it comes across as a solid argument.
u/Tinfoil-Umbrella · -18 pointsr/TumblrInAction

I'm not a sjw so that wouldn't really work out. "All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though" This is obviously a loaded observation that is meant only to offend and make 13yr ratheists blow a load in their trench-coat. The Nobel Prize is a western institution that has been around barely over a hundred years and the recipients chosen based as much on politics as on contributions... so as a measure of anything it is wholly useless. I'm not going to tediously deconstruct why, if you interested http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1376206740&sr=8-2&keywords=karl+popper is a good place to start.