Orenchi ni Kita Onna Kishi to Inakagurashi Surukotoninatta Ken - Vol. 1 Ch. 4 - Obstinate merchant
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
- Messages
- 353
Did he just leave it in neutral? He likes to take risks
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2018
- Messages
- 9,527
Indeed. Balding is trouble.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,128
@neorasp
The taste would be different and likely superior. As for the Rosso Sicilian tomato variant, it's probably also the first time she's tasting that particular type and flavor of tomato. The main reason why there would a difference is we have hundreds upon hundreds of years of human-based selective plant breeding to purposely bring about certain traits in plants that are not found naturally occurring anywhere and likely would never be without someone there to cross-breed or selectively harvest and cultivate those properties over time. The genetic diversity of Earth plants would be multitudes higher than where she's from and, thus, so would the quality and taste. Before humanity even know about the possibly of DNA, we were genetically modifying foods by cross-breeding and selective breeding. One of the things that really benefited and spearheaded this was cultivation of grapevines; so the development of what would become biology and genetics was advanced in no small part thanks to people wanting to get wasted on better quality wine. Interesting to note: the Rosso Sicilian is from just after the discovery of the "new world" and started to be cultivated around the time of the renaissance.
The taste would be different and likely superior. As for the Rosso Sicilian tomato variant, it's probably also the first time she's tasting that particular type and flavor of tomato. The main reason why there would a difference is we have hundreds upon hundreds of years of human-based selective plant breeding to purposely bring about certain traits in plants that are not found naturally occurring anywhere and likely would never be without someone there to cross-breed or selectively harvest and cultivate those properties over time. The genetic diversity of Earth plants would be multitudes higher than where she's from and, thus, so would the quality and taste. Before humanity even know about the possibly of DNA, we were genetically modifying foods by cross-breeding and selective breeding. One of the things that really benefited and spearheaded this was cultivation of grapevines; so the development of what would become biology and genetics was advanced in no small part thanks to people wanting to get wasted on better quality wine. Interesting to note: the Rosso Sicilian is from just after the discovery of the "new world" and started to be cultivated around the time of the renaissance.
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 736
@definitionofinsanity
what humanity sought in agriculture is not taste but durability. and we did good in that, making vegetables sprout off season in aggrated speed and with bountiful harvest. thoe traits did not come without a price, and that price was often the taste, which is kinda the least important trait when the population % that goes to farming is shrinking and shrinking. for example, did you know cucumbers used to have a smell? maybe in your country they still do. maybe it went away in exchange for shelf longavity.
look, imnot saying that what we did to flora was bad - there is much less hunger in the world due to our meddling - but you can't honestly believe food is richer in taste now that it used to be.
what humanity sought in agriculture is not taste but durability. and we did good in that, making vegetables sprout off season in aggrated speed and with bountiful harvest. thoe traits did not come without a price, and that price was often the taste, which is kinda the least important trait when the population % that goes to farming is shrinking and shrinking. for example, did you know cucumbers used to have a smell? maybe in your country they still do. maybe it went away in exchange for shelf longavity.
look, imnot saying that what we did to flora was bad - there is much less hunger in the world due to our meddling - but you can't honestly believe food is richer in taste now that it used to be.
@AMetroid
@Dagger
Trivia doesn't add anything to plot progression or character development. I might as well be reading an encyclopedia, and a pretty shallow and bad one. It just serves as a filler in this case, author's too stupid to come up with an interesting plot so he crams in textbook facts.
I am glad we agree it's useless.
@Dagger
Trivia doesn't add anything to plot progression or character development. I might as well be reading an encyclopedia, and a pretty shallow and bad one. It just serves as a filler in this case, author's too stupid to come up with an interesting plot so he crams in textbook facts.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,128
@neorasp
...The smell of cucumbers (it's usually a melon/citrusy smell) is dictated by the variant of cucumber. Some do not have any smell that is detectable by human noses and any smell you could perceive would be an indication of something being wrong. Despite that, no, there is no price to taste. I've had watermelons that weigh over 40 pounds and tasted pumpkins that were so heavy that no one wanted to weigh them. Guess what? They tasted great and no worse than smaller specimens of the same type.
It is. Because we grew crops historically for that in mind. About 5,000 years ago, if you wanted a watermelon, you'd get something about the size of a strawberry that would taste bitter as hell. Watermelons today have about 4-6 times the sugar content as they did thousands of years ago. They taste better because we specifically grew and cultivated them to do just that. Oh, and guess what? During that time period... it also increased in size by multitudes WHILE improving flavor.
I don't know why you have such a negative view of selective breeding. My only guess is you're attributing GMO and other such genetically modified food complaints (of which many are also unfounded, by the way) to artificial breeding. Which... isn't the case. They are two entirely different methods for creating food. It's akin to looking at a stick of dynamite and a thermonuclear multi-megaton dial-a-yield nuclear warhead and saying that they're the same thing because they both explode. It... it doesn't work like that. We've been cultivating crops with selective breeding/artificial selection since around the time that the written word was a new invention for humans. The reason you enjoy things like heirloom tomatoes and think that they are superior... is because they were grown to be that delicious by human farmers over hundreds and hundreds of years. If you went back in time 3,000 years ago, the tomatoes you'd find in the wild would be pitiful and dreary things that even a genetically modified tomato grown by Monsanto would put to shame.
In fact, the reason why it's so difficult to do this reverse ancient agricultural historical reconstruction is because we've been growing and modifying these crops for hundreds or thousands of years and it's difficult to find out what the original completely untouched by human hands base crop species were like. Maize, for instance, also underwent a radical change from something the size of a peanut at best and was as difficult to open as a coconut to something that can be a food long and can be cooked right after pulling it off the stalks. How would anyone guess that human agriculture from thousands of years ago would change it that drastically without investigating the origins?
The most sought after thing in plant breeding, from the ancient world to today, has been the yield of a crop and the quality of that yield. Anything else is secondary. What good does it do to make an incredibly durable crop if it would take 4 times as much acreage to yield what an optimized yield breed would do? That's inefficient to the extreme and wasteful. So durability only comes after that. After that, yes, ability to grow in more strenuous climates and resistance to herbicides/pesticides and more natural resistance to things like blight/disease, viruses and fungi come about.
...The smell of cucumbers (it's usually a melon/citrusy smell) is dictated by the variant of cucumber. Some do not have any smell that is detectable by human noses and any smell you could perceive would be an indication of something being wrong. Despite that, no, there is no price to taste. I've had watermelons that weigh over 40 pounds and tasted pumpkins that were so heavy that no one wanted to weigh them. Guess what? They tasted great and no worse than smaller specimens of the same type.
It is. Because we grew crops historically for that in mind. About 5,000 years ago, if you wanted a watermelon, you'd get something about the size of a strawberry that would taste bitter as hell. Watermelons today have about 4-6 times the sugar content as they did thousands of years ago. They taste better because we specifically grew and cultivated them to do just that. Oh, and guess what? During that time period... it also increased in size by multitudes WHILE improving flavor.
I don't know why you have such a negative view of selective breeding. My only guess is you're attributing GMO and other such genetically modified food complaints (of which many are also unfounded, by the way) to artificial breeding. Which... isn't the case. They are two entirely different methods for creating food. It's akin to looking at a stick of dynamite and a thermonuclear multi-megaton dial-a-yield nuclear warhead and saying that they're the same thing because they both explode. It... it doesn't work like that. We've been cultivating crops with selective breeding/artificial selection since around the time that the written word was a new invention for humans. The reason you enjoy things like heirloom tomatoes and think that they are superior... is because they were grown to be that delicious by human farmers over hundreds and hundreds of years. If you went back in time 3,000 years ago, the tomatoes you'd find in the wild would be pitiful and dreary things that even a genetically modified tomato grown by Monsanto would put to shame.
In fact, the reason why it's so difficult to do this reverse ancient agricultural historical reconstruction is because we've been growing and modifying these crops for hundreds or thousands of years and it's difficult to find out what the original completely untouched by human hands base crop species were like. Maize, for instance, also underwent a radical change from something the size of a peanut at best and was as difficult to open as a coconut to something that can be a food long and can be cooked right after pulling it off the stalks. How would anyone guess that human agriculture from thousands of years ago would change it that drastically without investigating the origins?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 5,716
@definitionofinsanity
GMOs are what are currently keeping our population in such high numbers, we wouldnt be able to feed 3/4 of the current population without them. But from what I hear the only real problem is that we have fucked the phosphate cycle by using industrial fertilizers.
GMOs are what are currently keeping our population in such high numbers, we wouldnt be able to feed 3/4 of the current population without them. But from what I hear the only real problem is that we have fucked the phosphate cycle by using industrial fertilizers.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,128
@boag
Yeah, so much of what has been said of GMO foods is nearly in the conspiratorial realm. What it really puzzling is that even if anything of what the critics of GMO foods was true... Monsanto's practices as a business and how anti-consumer they have been are far more damning and concerning than GMO foods ever could be. It's like the equivalent of people believing that Verizon is using radiowaves to influence people via mind control, but them also not being upset about terrible reception, over-billing, poor service, ect.
Yeah, so much of what has been said of GMO foods is nearly in the conspiratorial realm. What it really puzzling is that even if anything of what the critics of GMO foods was true... Monsanto's practices as a business and how anti-consumer they have been are far more damning and concerning than GMO foods ever could be. It's like the equivalent of people believing that Verizon is using radiowaves to influence people via mind control, but them also not being upset about terrible reception, over-billing, poor service, ect.
@definitionofinsanity as much as I agree with you about taste of food (we breed plants for taste as you said). There is one main difference between mass produced food today compared with the same plants from about 50 to 100 years ago. Their nutrition value. Why the hell vegans need to supplement B-group vitamins (mainly B12 but you know...) when papers from 50s show that it was plenty in vegetables? Also, thanks for that info-graphic. Didn't know where watermelon comes from.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2018
- Messages
- 258
Similar threads
