Astrobiology Origin Of Life

Ryugu asteroid samples contain clues to origin of life, Japan scientists say

Spread the love

Dust from an asteroid collected by a Japanese space probe contains clues to the origin of life, suggesting it was formed in space, scientists reported Friday.

Minerals of the Ryugu sample, reported on June 10, 2022 by Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
Constituent minerals of the Ryugu sample. (JAXA Press Release)

Japan’s Hayabusa2 space mission dropped samples from the asteroid Ryugu to Earth in the Australian outback in December 2020. It was then moved to Japan to be studied for insights into the origins of the solar system and life on Earth.

Scientists most recently announced the finding included nearly two dozen types of amino acids in the sample, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA ) said.

Finding amino acids is a big deal, because they make proteins and are necessary to support life. This is also the first time they’ve been found on an asteroid, the Japan Times reported.

USA Today

In considering the significance of this report, it is important to realize that finding naturally occurring amino acids does not amount to showing how life could form naturally. As discussed in my book, Canceled Science, “Amino acids, such as can sometimes form naturally, do not remotely approach the molecular complexity of even the simplest living cell. Believing otherwise is like finding a few brick-shaped rocks up on a hillside and concluding from this that buildings and whole cities arose by nothing more than the same blind forces that formed those rocks.”

86 Replies to “Ryugu asteroid samples contain clues to origin of life, Japan scientists say

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    Some pop magazines call this discovery “a breakthrough in OOL research”.

    i already talked to Dr. Tour about this “breakthrough”.
    Dr. Tour hopes to comment on this soon via his YOUTUBE channel.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    I doubt that popsci magazine coverage of press releases is going to give the best understanding of what the actual researchers are saying.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    In a Flying Spaghetti Monster universe, that would be the Ragu asteroid.

  4. 4
    Fred Hickson says:

    Interesting! This is new and adds evidence to the idea that the transition to DNA/RNA/protein world from RNA world could have relied on protein scaffolding.

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15476286.2020.1801199

    Whilst considering RNA world and panspermia as alternative paths to life on Earth, I never considered it could be both! 🙂

    H/T Bob

  5. 5
    ET says:

    What RNA world, Fred? It’s interesting that you think some imaginary, fantasy world is somehow meaningful.

  6. 6
    EugeneS says:

    Another breakthrough. They have families to feed and mortgages to pay. Understandable )

  7. 7
    Fred Hickson says:

    This RNA World, ET. I think I may have mentioned it already. A hypothesis without direct historical evidence but plenty of circumstantial evidence, especially the emergent properties of RNA which are available to all to verify. No codes needed either.

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    FH at 7,

    I work with professional storytellers. We produce plausible fiction. If the idea of an RNA world crossed my desk, I’d toss it because it represents wishful thinking. It’s not good storytelling, it’s “I wish this were true.” And your evidence amounts to “and then it turned into DNA.” That’s not evidence. That’s wishful thinking.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Learn how to read, Fred: “The RNA world is a hypothetical stage…”. I know that I have mentioned that, already.

    And the circumstantial evidence is all imaginary, too. You look at the way things work in modern cells and try to extrapolate that into “nature did it”. That RNA was intelligently designed to be a catalyst and an information carrier, in no way supports your imaginary scenario.

    No codes needed. No evidence needed, either. And no way to even test the claim. Then there is Spiegelman’s Monster. And I know why you would want to avoid that.

    There isn’t any connection from your “no codes needed” fantasy world to several codes mandatory real-life scenario. All you have is blind faith.

  10. 10
    Fred Hickson says:

    Relatd and ET

    I would be more impressed if you knew more about the emergent properties of RNA and pair bonding between purines and pyrimidines due to the inherent spacial arrangement between electropositive hydrogen acceptors and electronegative donors. Also the pivotal role that RNA still plays in the metabolism of all living organisms we know of. This is not made up.

  11. 11
    Fred Hickson says:

    Mandatory codes? 😉

  12. 12
    Fred Hickson says:

    So why does ET suggest Spiegleman’s monster is an issue in RNA World?

  13. 13
    relatd says:

    FH at 10,

    So, given enough time, we get “electropositive hydrogen acceptors and electronegative donors”? Based on what? Aside from imagination. “inherent spacial arrangement”? Sounds like dead/inorganic chemicals ‘accidentally’ becoming alive.

  14. 14
    Fred Hickson says:

    Relatd

    The physical and chemical properties of RNA are fixed for the lifetime of this universe. They can be studied, observed, measured by anyone.

  15. 15
    Fred Hickson says:

    Relatd

    Did you think inherent properties of physical phenomena can vary? Then you truly believe in miracles. Which is fine so long as the water you try and walk on is not too deep.

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    FH at 14,

    The precursor followed by the precursor and then the precursor.

    DNA > RNA > strings of this and that > dead chemicals.

    Or we can’t have so-called “modern” humans without precursors like Neanderthals or Denosovians. But it turns out that so-called modern humans have DNA from both.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Mandatory codes- the genetic code is mandatory for all living organisms on Earth. There are more such codes listed on Code Biology.

    I know about the emergent properties of RNA, Fred. I understand the bonds between bases, Fred. None of that helps you get any RNA world. Joyce and Lincoln had to design the RNA’s in their “self-sustained replication of RNAs”. No one has ever observed such RNAs develop without intelligent agency volition.

    And Spiegelman’s Monster is a problem for any alleged RNA to anyone who understands it. It demonstrates that nature tends towards the more simple. However, the problem remains the same. Nature can’t even produce catalytic RNAs of 48, 54 or 218 bases.

    So, Fred, again, all you have is your fantasy world of imagination and avoiding the evidence and reality.

  18. 18
    EugeneS says:

    Fred

    ==So, given enough time,==

    No matter how many times to repeat it, it does not become true.

    Where have I heard this? Oh yes, monkeys and typewriters. Do you realize that the theorem with the funny name of ‘infinite monkeys’ is not your ally, it is your enemy, because this universe had a beginning and it is very young for this sort of thing. Even the most liberal estimates of its age are critically not enough for anything like you say to even remotely look like plausible.

    Even the text of your comment took intelligence to appear. And here you are suggesting that it all happened by itself, given enough time. It amazes me how this old trick can work time after time… There has not been enough time.

  19. 19
    relatd says:

    ES at 18,

    Don’t you know? It’s all chemicals. Given enough time – chemicals can upgrade from dead to living.

  20. 20
    Fred Hickson says:

    Don’t you know? It’s all chemicals. Given enough time – chemicals can upgrade from dead to living.

    You don’t know apparently. The properties of This universe are (or appear to be according to observation) fixed and predictable. The distinction between living and non-living is (definitely in this forum) a semantic one.

  21. 21
    relatd says:

    FH at 20,

    No Fred. Living means alive. If you think you’re just an ambulatory bag of chemicals then you are indeed missing the point. You were designed. Plants and animals were designed. Your computer could be broken down to a list of chemicals but it was also designed.

    Scientists have looked at the rules governing the observable universe. If some rules were off by some small fraction, certain things would be prohibited from occurring, including life. You appear to think that rules governing chemical reactions could somehow lead to living things, but at the cellular level, we’re talking about organic machinery that has built-in function and that can interact effectively with the world around it. Design, not blind, unguided chance.

  22. 22
    Fred Hickson says:

    You’re a dualist apparently, Relatd, so you interpret reality through that lens. Fine, if that makes sense to you. Meanwhile, RNA World remains logically and physically possible.

  23. 23
    relatd says:

    FH at 22,

    The story for evolution requires earlier forms that get more complex. The RNA World is hypothetical – it’s not real. But, according to scientific imagination, there must have been something before DNA so RNA is chosen and before that, strings of amino acids. So, it fits the storytelling template. Evolution, blind and unguided, can do anything. And it’s always upgrading – for no particular reason.

    I don’t think you speak for scientists when you make the claim that RNA World is physically possible. I think you would like it to be. You appear to be fixated on chemistry and chemical reactions but there’s no evidence that complexity generated itself.

  24. 24
    Fred Hickson says:

    Relatd

    …before that strings of amino acids…

    No. I really find it difficult to find any initial point of agreement here. Have you noticed water running uphill?

  25. 25
    relatd says:

    FH at 24,

    You seem to think that living things need just a little push for them to “go up that hill” leading to more complexity. The carved in stone rules regarding chemistry combined with wishful thinking cannot result in something you want to happen.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    No one has shown that any RNA world is possible. No one has shown it is feasible.

    The distinction between living and non-living is (definitely in this forum) a semantic one.

    It doesn’t get much dumber than that, folks. Biologists don’t know what they are supposed to be studying! But that is moot as Fred won’t even try to support that claim.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Ribozymes still face the sequence specificity obstacle. Not any RNA sequence produces a ribozyme. The longer the sequence the shorter the odds of nature producing it. It is very likely that any RNA world is physically impossible without intelligent agency intervention.

    The smallest ribozyme is 5 nucleotides but has a minimal skill set. Even if we grant that nature could produce it, that really isn’t saying anything because of that very limited ability.

    Just by looking at how much intelligent agency intervention is required for the meager results pertaining to RNA should give you a huge clue into the unbreachable obstacle for materialistic processes to pull off.

  28. 28
    Silver Asiatic says:

    We have to just accept a blind, natural origin of a self-replicating molecule in an RNA world. But even as a no-code organism, if possible, a gradualist orgin of DNA code runs into the same problems Upright Biped has detailed and analyzed already. Functional code like that cannot be reduced to blind mutations and selection.

  29. 29
    EugeneS says:

    A characterization of the RNA world hypothesis by a professional chemist:

    Around 36:00 in this video: https://youtu.be/CYiguQYCSio

    Also, see the cold shower summary slide in that lecture.

  30. 30
    EugeneS says:

    Fred

    ==Have you noticed water running uphill?==

    You can get it to run uphill if you apply pressure. Are you saying that configurations like your own comment in this thread when displayed on the monitor, a microchip or an integral scheme of a radio receiver are reducible to the laws of nature? Really? Have you heard about the initial/boundary conditions? Do you know what sort of boundary conditions are necessary for a self-reproducing semantially closed system with memory? Do you know what code is and why it is necessary for such systems to exist?

  31. 31
    Fred Hickson says:

    You can get it to run uphill if you apply pressure.

    Not really. Then you’d be pumping water uphill. The phrase is just shorthand for the second law of thermodynamics. Living organisms resist the tendency to equilibrium with their surroundings by exploiting an energy source; be that chemosynthetic, photosynthetic or further up the food chain.

  32. 32
    Fred Hickson says:

    . But even as a no-code organism, if possible, a gradualist orgin of DNA code runs into the same problems Upright Biped has detailed and analyzed already.

    I disagree. UBs argument about the arbitrary connection between DNA codons and aminoacide via aminoacyl tRNA synthetases is a fatal one IF there is no precursor. But RNA World is a feasible precursor. RNA sequences as both replicator and catalyst mean organisms with no need for code to link two separate systems. DNA can also replace RNA as replicator without any codes as direct templating works as well between DNA and RNA as between RNA with itself. Codes, perhaps starting with four codons: AXX, CXX, GXX, TXX and a more promiscuous and limited initial number of aminoacids (why not one?) can then be added to by evolutionary processes and the role of RNA similarly reducing.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    But RNA World is a feasible precursor.

    Only in your little-bitty mind.

    RNA sequences as both replicator and catalyst mean organisms with no need for code to link two separate systems.

    There isn’t any link between your fantasy and reality, Fred.

    . DNA can also replace RNA as replicator without any codes as direct templating works as well between DNA and RNA as between RNA with itself

    Pure stupidity! DNA is NOT a replicator! Without specialized, specific proteins to counter the instability of DNA, there isn’t any DNA-based life! And those proteins have to be coded for in the DNA!

    The whole problem is Fred obviously doesn’t like science and is ignorant of biology. He might understand biochemistry, but given that he thinks that DNA is a replicator, even that is doubtful.

    DNA is basically inert. It needs a suite of existing proteins and a specific coded information processing system or all it does is fall apart.

  34. 34
    relatd says:

    FH at 32,

    Get over it Fred, or write the book.

  35. 35
    relatd says:

    ET at 33,

    I don’t think Fred is stupid. He just has this imaginary idea about evolution. I think it goes like this:

    On the UN-intelligent conveyor belt of life, totally unintelligent evolution just kept adding parts. You start with some amino acids – “the building blocks of life” – and keep (very randomly) building until you get to the RNA World model and keep adding parts until you get to DNA. Simple? Right?

    Just because someone can imagine something doesn’t mean it actually happened. Evolution has no brain.

  36. 36
    JVL says:

    Fred Hickson: Then you’d be pumping water uphill. The phrase is just shorthand for the second law of thermodynamics.

    I remember positing a ‘perpetual motion machine’ comprising of banks and banks of small tubes capitalising on the ability of capillary action to draw water up a tube without pressure to one of my university physics profs. He pointed out that if the system was closed the capillary action actually uses heat inherent in the system so, eventually, the capillary action would stop. Oh well. Physics, it’s a heartbreak.

  37. 37
    relatd says:

    Some comments about communicating with people on the internet:

    Nobody actually knows anybody (aside from anyone you’ve met in real life).

    Imagine a meeting of educated people and total strangers can just walk in, unannounced, talk nonsense and leave. Or worse, continue to come back.

    Education levels can vary widely but how does anyone know that? Everyone is sitting in a black room and the only way to communicate with others around you is with a keyboard.

    Can this cause big problems communicating? Yes.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Relatd- The stupidity is saying that DNA can replace RNA as replicator. DNA isn’t a replicator. DNA gets replicated during the process of cellular reproduction. Fred may not be stupid, but he definitely doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  39. 39
    Fred Hickson says:

    On the UN-intelligent conveyor belt of life, totally unintelligent evolution just kept adding parts. You start with some amino acids – “the building blocks of life” – and keep (very randomly) building until you get to the RNA World model and keep adding parts until you get to DNA. Simple? Right?

    Very wrong. RNA first. Then DNA. Then aminoacids. Then proteins. Possibly – at least conceivably.

  40. 40
    relatd says:

    FH at 39,

    My point is: It all happened by accident, right?

  41. 41
    Fred Hickson says:

    Well, I don’t think so. The environment designs by selecting variation that then proliferates. Whether the environment is designed for that purpose is a philosophical question to which I have no answer.

  42. 42
    relatd says:

    FH at 41,

    I’d like to point out that you imagine what an environment designs. I don’t think you can prove that. And what if the environment changes too quickly for the organism to survive? Imagining a perfect environment is just imagination. And “selecting variation” implies intelligence which evolution does not have.

  43. 43
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:’

    RNA first.

    Still waiting for that part. It seems that you can’t even get started.

    The environment designs by selecting variation that then proliferates.

    The environment doesn’t design because it doesn’t select. And most environments contain several varying designs.

    The only way the environment can design is if evolution proceeds via built-in responses to environmental cues, i.e., telic processes.

  44. 44
    Fred Hickson says:

    And what if the environment changes too quickly for the organism to survive

    Species go extinct. It’s happened to the vast majority of species. Rapid climate change is threatening us now.

  45. 45
    jerry says:

    The environment designs by selecting variation that then proliferates

    This is why Darwinian processes are extremely limited and thus confined to genetics only.

    Darwinian change is self refuting. Too much change because a variation is superior leads to entities that will destroy the ecology and eventually the species. So by definition, Darwinian processes cannot lead to major change.

    The best example is humans which are especially weak. This weakness causes issues with food generation. Yet after thousands of generations, no stronger humans to help with food production.

    But yet we have the eternally hopeful still pushing this illogical idea. So what else is new?

    Rapid climate change is threatening us now

    As it has since the beginning of time. But because of fossil fuels, humans are less susceptible to climate events than at any time in history. Deaths have declined 98% in last 100 years to adverse climate events because of the technology fueled by fossil fuels.

    Everyone should read Alex Epstein’s new book, “Fossil Future” to see the folly of the climate change alarmists.

  46. 46
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Rapid climate change is threatening us now.

    Rapid environmental destruction is threatening us. The climate now isn’t much different than the climate 50 years ago. Greenhouse gasses affect the daily low temperatures because they only delay the onset of equilibrium. As of the end of May 2022, the “warming” was 0.17C above the arbitrary 0 line.

  47. 47
    asauber says:

    “Rapid climate change is threatening us now.”

    I’m shocked that FH is a party-line chicken little. There’s nothing in his comments that would lead me to believe he’s just another leftist troll.

    Andrew

  48. 48
    AnimatedDust says:

    FH: Well, I don’t think so. The environment designs by selecting variation that then proliferates.

    So, the mindless environment designs, but a designer couldn’t possibly be responsible for the design of the environment?

    You folks can’t keep track of your worldview preferences disguised as scientific assertions.

    Good grief.

  49. 49
    Fred Hickson says:

    Don’t worry guys, I am not going to bombard you with advice on what to do about climate change. It’s too late; we just have to live with the consequences.

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: The notion that a mindless entity, the environment “designs” is a poor use of language; it is best to understand design as intelligently directed configuration. First, AmHD:

    de·sign (d?-z?n?)
    v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs
    v.tr.
    1.
    a. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
    b. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
    2. To make a graphic or schematic representation of (something), especially as a plan for its structure: design a building on a computer; design a new car model.
    3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
    4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend: “Mrs. Bennet had designed to keep the two Netherfield gentlemen to supper; but … she had no opportunity of detaining them” (Jane Austen).
    v.intr.
    1. To make or execute plans.
    2. To create designs.
    n.
    1.
    a. A drawing or sketch.
    b. A graphic representation, especially a detailed plan for construction or manufacture.
    c. An ornamental pattern. See Synonyms at figure.
    2.
    a. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details: the aerodynamic design of an automobile; the design of an epic poem.
    b. A particular plan or method: the party’s design for increasing voter turnout. See Synonyms at plan.
    3. The art or practice of designing or making designs: studied design in college.
    4.
    a. A reasoned purpose; an intent: It was her design to set up practice on her own as soon as she was qualified.
    b. Deliberate intention: He became a photographer more by accident than by design.
    c. often designs A secretive or underhanded plot or scheme: He has designs on my job.
    [Middle English designen, from Latin d?sign?re, to designate; see designate.]
    de·sign?a·ble adj.
    American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

    At best, the environment filters and limits what is possible by way of survival for creatures occupying certain niches. It limits, it does not actually cause new genetic information or the like.

    The onward problem is, that blind, chance variation is also not a particularly good source of fresh functionally specific information, and as for complexity beyond 500 -1,000 bits, not al all likely, given that FSCO/I depends on multiple, mutually fitting, well arranged, well organised and properly coupled parts to achieve function.

    The cellular metabolic network is a classic example, and shows the challenge to bridge an ocean of non functional configurations to get to the first island of function, the first living cell. [Genome likely 100 – 1,000+ k bases.] Similarly, the dozens of major body plans will require even more complexity [~10 – 100+ mn bases], bridging further spans of non function, to get to the commonly supposed well behaved functional space, the island of function. The deeply isolared protein fold domains are a good first case in point.

    In this context, the hypothetical — guessed and now widely assumed — “RNA world” [a modern myth dressed in a lab coat as so many are, Sci Fi/just so stories on steroids] would have to bridge to a world of cells using D/RNA,n with metabolic networks, with encapsulation and with smart gating. None of this is backed by actual observational substance. It is all speculation controlled by the imposition of Lewontin’s cat out of the bag, a priori materialism.

    Ideology, backed by power institutions, especially those holding the cultural high ground for science, research, education and media dissemination. Mythology never stopped, it just put on a lab coat.

    So, in sum, design is not a capability of the environment and differential reproductive success, chance variation is highly limited and cannot account for information required to create body plans, and so ET has a point, there is no adequate actual theory of the [neo-] darwinist tree of life.

    Time to call in the myth busters.

    KF

  51. 51
  52. 52
    asauber says:

    “I am not going to bombard you with advice on what to do about climate change.”

    But you want to, right? Vote leftist? Buy solar panels? Eat bugs?

    Yeah. We heard it already.

    Andrew

  53. 53
    jerry says:

    Eat bugs?

    When I see upscale New York liberals eating bugs at posh West Side Restaurants, I’ll take notice.

  54. 54
    asauber says:

    “When I see upscale New York liberals eating bugs at posh West Side Restaurants, I’ll take notice.”

    Jerry,

    Maybe Freddie will share some of his bug recipes with us.

    Andrew

  55. 55
    asauber says:

    Maybe at some point we’ll be eating self-replicating lightning (with added protein) bug robots.

    Andrew

  56. 56
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 55,

    Gee, I hope not.

  57. 57
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 53,

    Eating bugs? Blehhh…

  58. 58
    relatd says:

    AD at 48,

    Well, in some cases, if you wish hard enough, things you imagine to be true can be true… for a few minutes at least. Or blind, unguided chance created human beings – by accident.

  59. 59
    relatd says:

    ET at 51,

    You just ruined everything! People have got to spend money. They’ve got to buy electric cars – which cost money. And then they have to spend more money… Sheesh.

  60. 60
    Fred Hickson says:

    Eaten bugs? I’ve tried them (well, mealy worms, mostly) prepared by some guy who had the idea of raising them as high-protein food. This was just before the Covid pandemic so I guess that didn’t help his business Idea. Not much to say except overcoming the cultural aversion to be able to try them was the hard part. Also avoid the hard parts of any bug before eating.

  61. 61
    asauber says:

    “Eaten bugs? I’ve tried them”

    Fred,

    And was the planet saved by your virtuous heroism?

    Andrew

  62. 62
    relatd says:

    FH at 60,

    “cultural aversion”? You mean culture was looking over your shoulder before you tried them? 🙂

  63. 63
    Fred Hickson says:

    And was the planet saved by your virtuous heroism?

    No heroism involved, just curiosity. My curiosity overcame my irrational distaste. Not sure if you ever experience curiosity, Andrew. I’d beware. It can lead you to places away from your comfort zone.

  64. 64
    relatd says:

    Bugs/insects can be contaminated or carry bacteria or harmful chemicals.

    https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/eating-insects-safely

  65. 65
    Fred Hickson says:

    “cultural aversion”? You mean culture was looking over your shoulder before you tried them? ?

    There are other cultures where insects are a staple food. Even western culture was not always so fastidious with bugs. I recall an older cousin telling me that as a kid he once watched his father enjoying a dish of fried mushrooms, pushing the white grubs that had emerged from them into the cooking liquor to one side. Then my uncle scraped them up on a knife and ate the tasty last morsel, having saved the best till last.

  66. 66
    Fred Hickson says:

    Bugs/insects can be contaminated or carry bacteria or harmful chemicals.

    These mealworms were certified food quality (allegedly).

  67. 67
    relatd says:

    As of 2021,

    “While there have been requests for the FDA to regulate insects as food, there are currently no regulations specifically regarding edible insects in the United States.”

  68. 68
    asauber says:

    “Not sure if you ever experience curiosity, Andrew.”

    Fred,

    I just had a hot flash of curiosity. I’m wondering why you haven’t forced yourself to eat more bugs in light of the fact climate change is destroying the planet at an exponentially alarming rate.

    Andrew

  69. 69
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 68,

    You mean I have to sell my beachfront property in Florida now?

  70. 70
    asauber says:

    “You mean I have to sell my beachfront property in Florida now?”

    Relatd,

    If you sell to Fred now, global sea levels will still rise but at a slightly decreased rate.

    Andrew

  71. 71
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 70,

    I don’t know if Fred would buy anything from me. But I do have this bucket of grubs… 🙂

  72. 72
    Fred Hickson says:

    I just had a hot flash of curiosity.

    Hmm!

    I’m wondering why you haven’t forced yourself to eat more bugs in light of the fact climate change is destroying the planet at an exponentially alarming rate.

    Told you already. It’s too late. Whatever we do.

  73. 73
  74. 74
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 73,

    I didn’t say that. But the propaganda machine is growing increasingly loud because people who are already wealthy need to make billions more. Here is the guiding principle: There is no such thing as too much money.

    So – SAVE the planet!! Eat bugs! Buy an electric car! Buy! Buy! Buy!

  75. 75
    relatd says:

    “Our consumption of animal protein is the source of greenhouses gas and climate change.”

    THE Source. Who wrote this? A five year old? No mention of cars or factories around the world putting tons of gases into the atmosphere? Reactive (meaning bad) gases?

  76. 76
    Fred Hickson says:

    Too late, Relatd. Whatever we do.

  77. 77
    asauber says:

    “I didn’t say that”

    Sorry, Relatd. I got caught up in the flaming passions associated with eating bugs and saving the planet.

    Andrew

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, eat shrimp? That;s not far from eating bugs. KF

  79. 79
    asauber says:

    “Folks, eat shrimp?”

    KF,

    Yes, and the climate change devastation continues unabated. 😉

    Andrew

  80. 80
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 77,

    No problem. Remember, the people working at Disaster Central need you to be worrying about the next planet destroying disaster as much as possible. Because they are planning on announcing more disasters. And convincing you to spend a lot of money to fix the climate problem, and more money for the next disaster after that.

    * Not paid for by the Global Cabal of Newspaper Publishers 🙂

  81. 81
  82. 82
    ET says:

    Relatd- Animal agriculture hits hard at environmental change. See part 4 pertaining to landscape changes in comment 51. Also, urban heat islands are real.

    And if the farmers don’t stop tilling and over-tilling the soil, there will be a severe shortage in food in about 60 years. The topsoil will be dead or gone. We didn’t learn much from the dust bowl.

  83. 83
    ET says:

    Jerry @ 81– The 2020 picture is at low tide. The 1920 picture is at high tide. 🙂 (just kidding- I don’t have any idea)

  84. 84
    relatd says:

    ET at 82,

    I think farmers are aware of ways to keep the soil fertile. In fact, the United States has paid farmers billions of dollars to grow nothing. These payments are called farm subsidies. They have existed since the Cold War. And should one part of the U.S. experience a drought, farmers in other parts of the country can make up for the shortfall. Some alarmists are pointing to the war in the Ukraine creating a food shortage. That’s nonsense. When Eastern Europe was part of the U.S.S.R., how much food did they send the U.S.? We even helped the Russians at least once when they had a bad harvest and needed grain, during the Cold War.

  85. 85
    jerry says:

    I don’t have any idea

    Neither do I.

  86. 86
    ET says:

    Relatd:

    I think farmers are aware of ways to keep the soil fertile.

    The big, industrial growers till the soil. They “make up” for the lost natural nutrients by over fertilizing. This also causes problems.

    The largest contribution of atmospheric CO2 comes during the tilling season. So, clearly most farms don’t know how to keep the soil fertile

Leave a Reply