Most rye bread you get would be a mix of rye flour with wheat flour, and it's mostly wheat flour.
The rye breads I make regularly contain 2/3 rye flour and 1/3 wheat flour. This is a "mixed" bread, a real rye bread would contain even less wheat flour.
A pure rye bread would be more difficult to bake as it binds water differently but I think its doable. It might not be as tasty but you wouldn't starve in front of it.
I don't see what the problem is if the for-profit companies goals align with theirs.
It's more a reflection on the fact that our governments have successively cut CSIRO's funding again and again despite their demonstrated return on investment and notable achievements.
As a scientist in training this is hugely demoralizing. The CSIRO is an amazing institution — with an excellent sense of humour on social media. We should be proud as punch about CSIRO's achievements, and ensure that they are enabled to continue their laudable work.
Larger insects, small birds and amphibians eat mosquitoes. Shortage of food in a lower ring of the chain can escalate to the top as early as within a year and cause a severe depression in another part of the world for humans. As seen in all past instances, no matter how confident humans are, something goes awry when we try to cut something out of an ecosystem.
You misread the article. They are not destroying all mosquitoes, only a specific species within that Genus. There are plenty of other mosquitoes to take the place of Ae. aegypti in the food chain.
Larger insects, small birds and amphibians eat mosquitoes. Shortage of food in a lower ring of the chain can escalate to the top as early as within a year and cause a severe depression in another part of the world for humans. As seen in all past instances, no matter how confident humans are, something goes awry when we try to cut something out of an ecosystem.
You misread the article. They are not destroying all mosquitoes, only a specific species within that Genus. There are plenty of other mosquitoes to take the place of Ae. aegypti in the food chain.
It's only a problem if their goals include efficiently getting the most research value out of taxpayer investment, while retaining highly-skilled public employees in a long-lived, scientifically-oriented organization. Historically, a high percentage of major advances in basic science arose in publically-funded org's. The vision tends to be more long-term, the results less utilitarian.
I've been known to draw public funds, so I'm not disputing your angle, but it's worth noting that historical period is quite brief in the whole history of science. I could make a strong case that the majority of major advances in basic science were made during the "gentleman academic" era. Publicly-funded research institutions start to become prominent around the Great War, and their relevance is increasingly challen…
Do you imply that, whatever the means to fund basic research, the availbaility of the results is the same (my mental model, albeit simple, is that if research paid by tax payers' money, then results are freely available to tax payers)
If you're going to weigh the social factors in wiping out the 20-something species of mosquitoes which feed on humans (out of > 3000), I think you need to factor in the possibility that malaria (and thus mosquitos) may be responsible for HALF of human deaths in our history. Half. That's an outrageous number, but Nature suggests it might be true: https://www.nature.com/news/2002/021003/full/news021001-6.ht... At what…
Imagine if half of all the humans who have died didn't. How screwed would we all be right now. Of course it doesn't work quite like that, but still. We might save enough humans to destroy the planet faster than we can fix it ... now solve that one without doing something "evil"!
Birth control / contraceptives are pretty effective against overpopulation.
Most parents prefer having one, two or three healthy kids rather than ten and losing half of them to malaria.
It gets worse. As I posted elsewhere in the comments, an article in Nature[1] suggests that up to half of humans ever to live have died as a result of mosquito-borne disease. In light of those numbers I feel we are ethically clear to take drastic action. We don't have to kill all mosquitoes as fewer than 1% of mosquito species feed on humans. We have several tools which will target the specific species which impact u…
What are the negative outcomes? Presumably we leave a niche for other mosquito or insect species to prosper in, which species will they be. Which species predate the mosquitoes we're eliminating, or how do those particular species adapt the environment and so impact the local eco-system? If we've not found any negatives then I imagine we've not tried very hard. Australia is kinda synonymous with species-wide populati…
This question comes up every time something like this makes the news, and in general the people qualified to have opinions are generally either ambivalent or believe the pros outweigh the cons.
I don't see what the problem is if the for-profit companies goals align with theirs.
The public has no control over the incentives of private corporations, so their goals could change at any time.
This argument implies the public controls gov. organizations/departments which is in most cases not true (unless there's some scandal to attract attention).
Half of human deaths isn't very significant considering that despite that the human population is still exploding at an unsustainable rate that will cause incredible environmental destruction if left unchecked. Far from being threatened with extinction, our present course will cause the extinction of countless other forms of life. And in response to that, you propose that we deliberately drive even more species to ex…
Its easy to want lower human mortality when you’ve already benefited from greatly increased human mortality due to scientific progress.
I think you meant the opposite of what you wrote, i.e. 'want bigger human mortality ... benefited from greatly reduced human mortality'