[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

One thing I do not need is more recommendations of what to read, my list is bottomless. Do you find it encourages you to read more or read differently? Has it given you any insights about your habits?

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

what benefits do people see from tracking their reading? why do you do it? I couldn't see the appeal years ago & had some hangups about it (like an overjustification effect psychologically from the social aspect of it messing up my motivation to read) but I've since gone through periods of tracking my spending & my food & seen benefits from those.

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Jesus, why the downvotes? Someone give this man a dragonfruit. So much for friendly, casual discussion

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I realise now what I was getting at in the OP is how people massage themselves into a state of inspiration where they can maximise their engagement and what they get out of the book and the beauty of it and open their hearts to it or whatever, and how they interact with the text when they're in that state. I realised this because I had the unusual honour of experiencing a state of inspiration the other night. Life feels pretty much dull and my heart feels pretty much shut to suggestion most of the time. What actually got me there was a completely unrelated life event (whose enchantment has already long since dried out). Seems like a work of art is the seed but the soil is life itself--how you read might be, at best, the water, so my question maybe isn't of much use if we live in a world of concrete. I hope there's more we can do that's under our own control but it doesn't seem that way now to me. (edited to rephrase a few times)

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I dunno, I just mean like, in a qualitative way. A painter just puts the paint on the canvas, mechanically speaking, but there's some idiosyncratic internal imagery going on as they make the decisions as to what goes where, right? Some people do things faster than others. I imagine some people read more by theme, maybe including reading several pieces on the same thing in sequence. Others read more by character. Some people see literature as being morally instructive, others as escapism. Some people are very sentimental and loving towards some aspect of a work and not an other. Some people re-read a lot. I actually re-read about half of a novel because I initially came into it with a lot of suspicion but as I became sympathetic to the protagonist and author midway through the book I wanted to go back and suck in what I'd already read with more generosity and love. We all do things a little differently, it's fun to hear about how folks do it.

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

In terms of fiction I'm 2/3rds of the way through Free Food for Millionaires. It's all right. I found the writing in the beginning so compelling, but now I'm not sure if it's going anywhere. We'll see. I'm an inattentive reader in fiction.

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Not too good. I had a half hour long conversation with a friend on the phone recently & I realised it's the first time I've had a phone conversation with somebody I actually wanted to talk to in months, except for that time I called another friend freaked out bc I was scared of my neighbour harrassing me. Not exactly the same giddy energy. This phone friend and I tried to meet up and got foiled multiple times. Shit's exhausting.

My first edit to this post was "maybe I should take up gardening or sth but where to start" bc I want to be able to interact with and get feedback from just about anything besides my coworkers once in a while.

54
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by tributarium@lemmy.world to c/biodiversity@mander.xyz

Their mothers were Russian sturgeons—large carnivores with creamy bellies, short, rounded snouts, and green, dragon-like scales. Their fathers were American paddlefish—smooth-skinned filter feeders with sensitive, elongated snouts. “Sturddlefish,” as these hybrids were nicknamed after researchers in Hungary announced their creation last month, go shockingly far beyond classic crossbreeds like mules and ligers, whose parent species sit closely together on the tree of life. Sturddlefish result from the merger of different taxonomic families.

“I’m still confused. My jaw is still on the floor,” said Prosanta Chakrabarty, an ichthyologist at Louisiana State University and the curator of fishes at its Museum of Natural Science. “It’s like if they had a cow and a giraffe make a baby.” Then he quickly corrected himself, because the lineages of those two ruminants split only a few dozen million years ago. The evolutionary paths of paddlefish and sturgeons diverged 184 million years ago. For those fish to breed is more like “if a human came out of a platypus egg,” he said.

Hybrids are often shrugged off as freaky living violations of the rules that keep species distinct. But scientific interest in them has grown with mounting evidence that, in nature, hybrids can be important both in the emergence of new species and in the conservation of species on the brink of extinction.

Yet the new sturddlefish are so radical that they’re shaking up scientists’ understanding of what kinds of hybrids may be possible and which species might interbreed successfully. Studies of the new fish could also provide deep insights into how genomes work more generally.

The successful hybridization of these sturgeons and paddlefish was unintentional, but it wasn’t precisely an accident. In fact, the researchers were counting on the cross to fail so that they could learn something about how sex is determined in Russian sturgeons.

In mammals and birds, male and female sex is usually determined by sex-specific genes on sex-specific chromosomes. But with fish, anything goes: Some fish have sex chromosomes, while others take sexual-development cues from their environments or transition from one sex to the other. No one is quite sure how sturgeons do it, but some people are keen to know because sturgeon eggs are highly prized as caviar (some high-end caviar sells for more than $180 an ounce). If researchers can figure out how to farm Russian sturgeon stocks that are mostly female, it could alleviate the problematic overfishing of wild populations.

One way to determine what sets the sex of Russian sturgeons is gynogenesis—a form of asexual reproduction in which an egg and a sperm fuse but only the mother’s genes are transmitted to the resulting embryo. “You want to activate the egg, but you don’t want any DNA contribution from the male,” explained Ken Semmens, an aquaculture biologist at Kentucky State University. Gynogenesis sometimes occurs naturally among fish, but marine biologists and the aquaculture industry also use it as a tool for studying sex determination. With gynogenesis, all the offspring are essentially half-clones of their mother. So if all of them are females, then you know that females are determined by having a pair of identical sex chromosomes (as in mammals). If the offspring are all males, then females are the sex with two different chromosomes (which is the case in birds). If only some are males … well, then an environmental factor is also in play.

Last year at the Research Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture in Hungary, the aquaculture engineer Jenő Káldy and the fish ecologist Attila Mozsár were experimenting with gynogenesis on Russian sturgeons under the direction of the aquacultural geneticist Miklós Bercsényi of the University of Pannonia. To that end, the Hungarian researchers needed sperm that couldn’t possibly fertilize the sturgeon eggs.

Paddlefish sperm looked like a safe bet. American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) are diploid—with two full sets of each chromosome—and have 60 pairs of chromosomes. Russian sturgeons (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) are tetraploid—with four sets of each chromosome—and have about 250 chromosomes (the chromosomes are so numerous, and some are so small, that it’s hard to count them reliably). Nearly 200 million years of independent evolution should have seeded the two species’ DNA with countless genetic mismatches and incompatibilities—from missing or added genes to rearranged or relocated genes, mutational tweaks, or variations in gene expression. It seemed certain that the paddlefish-sturgeon hybrid cells would struggle to figure out how to line up their chromosomes during cell division, or to know what genes to turn on or off.

Moreover, aquaculturists had previously used sperm from paddlefish to trigger gynogenesis in other sturgeon species and vice versa, and none of those experiments had ever produced crossbreeds. The Hungarian team had every reason to be confident that their fish could not hybridize.

But when Káldy and Mozsár exposed the Russian sturgeon eggs to healthy paddlefish sperm as a control for their experiment, they were stunned to see that the vast majority of the eggs hatched into live hybrid offspring. “They called me and told me that something’s wrong, because all of the control is living,” Bercsényi recalled. “I said, ‘Jenő, you made a big mistake. Please repeat the experiment.’” And so Káldy did—but the result was the same.

“We never wanted to play around with hybridization,” said Mozsár. “It was just a negative control, which found, somehow, a way to live.”

At first, Káldy didn’t believe the fry were hybrids: Because they looked just like regular sturgeons as youngsters, they might have come from spontaneous gynogenesis or some other “more reasonable explanation,” he said. But a genomic analysis by Gyöngyvér Fazekas, a colleague at the Research Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Balázs Kovács, an aquacultural geneticist at Hungary’s Szent István University, confirmed that the team indeed had more than a hundred hybrids growing in their tanks.

As Bercsényi’s team described it in their recent paper in Genes, some of the hybrids have three copies of each chromosome, a half-genome from each parent. But other hybrids have five copies of each chromosome: They somehow received the equivalent of their sturgeon mom’s full genome plus a half-genome from their paddlefish dad. The bodies of the sturddlefish combine characteristics from both parents, but the ones with more sturgeon DNA look more like their mother—they have more of the distinctive sturgeon scales called scutes, for instance.

How can these seemingly impossible hybrids exist?

Chakrabarty’s hunch is that the answer lies in the relatively slow rate of evolution that occurs in this group of fish. The Polyodontidae (paddlefishes) and Acipenseridae (sturgeons) are the last living families in the order Acipenseriformes, and studies suggest that both have very slow mutation rates. Despite the eons of independent evolution separating them, maybe their genomes just haven’t diverged enough to prohibit hybridization. But that raises the question of why previous hybridization attempts between sturgeons and paddlefish failed.

Semmens leans toward a different hypothesis: that the successful hybridization has to do with the Russian sturgeon’s extra-large genome. Genomicists think that the ancestors of sturgeons were diploid until all their chromosomes doubled and the fish became tetraploid. But only some species—including Russian sturgeons—retained their extra chromosomes. As a result, it’s possible that the Russian sturgeon’s genome carries enough redundancies and variations on genes to help the hybrids survive mismatches in their parents’ DNA.

Back in the 1980s, Semmens attempted to make a sturddlefish by combining sperm from shovelnose sturgeons with eggs from paddlefish; the eggs started to develop but then quit. Because both of those fish species are considered diploids, neither had “extra” DNA to offer as a tetraploid might. “Perhaps that’s the reason why their hybrid worked and our hybrid didn’t,” Semmens mused.

Getting to the bottom of this mystery will inevitably reveal a lot about how reproductive barriers work at the genetic level—not just in primitive fishes but in other animals. “Studying this type of hybrid can help a lot for understanding evolutionary processes,” Bercsényi said, “and they offer good tools also for studying the function of the genes.” For instance, sturgeons and paddlefish both have lots of super-small microchromosomes that are poorly understood. Chakrabarty is eager to see if sturddlefish can help researchers understand how microchromosomes function.

Bercsényi’s team doesn’t plan on making any more sturddlefish right away, but they’ll collaborate with researchers in Japan and elsewhere to study them. If the hybrids prove hardier in captivity than their parent fish—or if they produce more eggs—it’s more than likely that someone will want more of them.

Yet right now, Bercsényi cautioned, it’s not clear whether the hybrids will produce eggs or whether those eggs will be viable. Ichthyologists can’t even tell the males and females apart before the fish are two years old. Given the slow maturation of both parent species, Bercsényi says, it will take a “minimum of three years” of raising the fish in warm water before it’s known if they are fertile.

11

I'm here seeking advice from those further along in their fitness journey than I am about the mental aspect of fitness as well as about some concrete knowledge. I'm a beginner and in the past I've had a lot of success in staying pretty consistent. 90% of anything is showing up. A golden rule for beginners is find an exercise you love doing and then you'll show up for it.

That's great advice. But there's limits, right? If you want to get strong you'll just...have to do some stuff you don't like. I can't jut play soccer all day, not least because the weather or outside forces don't permit it.

So there's another complementary approach: habit formation, and this is mostly what I rely on. In fact, I see a lot of people talk about how they hate their exercise (running and rowing especially) but they do it anyway--this abilty is inscrutable to me except in light of environmental conditions & habit. The point is that my life and environment are engineered where it's almost the path of least resistance to do my workout plan. I don't love, own, or identify with the workout program I do except by identifying with (1) the successes when I pull it off and (2) the fact that it's incidentally a part of my daily life--I identify with it the same way I identify with any other incidental habit in my life, like my commute, which I don't love or have sentimentality about otherwise. I think there is a subtle emotional cost to ragdolling yourself like this but it's more than worth it because of all of the practical benefits of exercise as well as the feeling of accomplishment.

But, the key word earlier being...almost the path of least resistance. And I think when inevitably Life Happens (TM) and the habit is broken the emotional cost of ragdolling has to be paid. Once the habit is broken and the path of least resistance is simply to not, the identification-by-habit is gone by definition bc the habit no longer exists, and the identification-by-success is gone because there's been a failure. There are a few ways I can respond to this situation, I think:

  • Be forced to keep going. Extremely hard, virtually impossible, to force oneself against both the inherent difficulty of an exercise you don't love and the emotional baggage of having failed. To get back on track with the next day of the program is...very hard. Possible with a PT or gym buddy or other support but assume one doesn't have this.
  • Summon up self-compassion out of thin air to void the aforementioned emotional baggage. This is basically as inscrutable to me as saying "cast a magic spell to solve the problem." What? How? Everything only works by the logic of effort and reward. God can give grace, I don't think I have that power wthin me.
  • Go back a few steps in the program and ease oneself back in. Gentleness and momentum. Very sensible and I think extremely doable when there is an impetus to do anything, anything at all.
  • Put a break on the current program and find other ways to move and develop a loving, joyful relationship with one's body and exercise. I think this, too, is a great idea. But because I'm a beginner, the advice I've been given is just "pick a tried-and-tested program and follow it." I don't really want to pick another effective but similarly impersonal program, that doesn't solve the ragdolling problem. But I don't just wanna flail around and do things that have no benefit to me whatsoever and risk backsliding entirely on the gainszsz I do have.

So, two questions: any responses to how I look at working out/programming, does this reflect your own perspectives earlier in your journey or now? And: how do I assess what to pick for joyful, loving, reparative, but still-effective movement? When it comes to food, there are lots of micronutrients and flavours that can guide my decision-making. When it comes to movement, is it the set of muscles I move? Is it the type of movement (squat, row, etc)? Is it the quality of the movement (power, etc)? Where do people learn this stuff?

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Good response, thank you! I found the article I posted interesting but I have no horse in the race about whether AA is effective or not. Seems pretty convincing that it isn't.

I find theorising addiction both unfortunately directly relevant and applicable and abstractly extremely interesting. I recently read an article which was satirical (but seemingly not entirely so) arguing that alcohol (and, consequently, addiction) is a disease of civilisation, Gilgamesh-style. But Amazonian foragers and horticulturalists (to my knowledge) get loaded on manioc beer (and seemingly did so before Old World contact), not to mention dolphins and elephants getting high on all kinds of shit. Fair enough that in a natural setting there are systemic limits on these things so addiction doesn't often arise. So, how, why? And what roles do different kinds of intoxication (or other non-intoxicating addictive states) play? A million questions for a million different answers, all important in their own way. Gets at the fundamental questions of pain and pleasure and why and how we do anything at all in life.

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

When it comes to the internal logic of the paper, I have a few questions:

  • destructive schismogenesis is said to be possible either in symmetric or complementary modes. so if AA does promote an "almost entirely complementary" epistemology, (1) are there negative consequences? (2) is this realistic (even if more realistic than the cartesian reification of the self?) the author himself seems to beckon at a similar question at the end now that I look at it again

  • also obviously I'm just getting into this discourse now & it's been going on a while so I wonder to what extent this binary has been elaborated upon in cybernetic theory

5

In which Bateson argues that the efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous is (in a Western, Cartesian context) comes at least in part from providing a more correct epistemology/ontology that subsumes a reified "self" into a larger system/circuit. The alcoholic is, by "hitting bottom," forced to shift from a destructive symmetrical to a complementary pattern of relation with the system.

44
submitted 4 months ago by tributarium@lemmy.world to c/antiwork@lemmy.ml

I feel like any young person I speak to who is plugged into the English-speaking world will at least have encountered anti-work discourse. I've heard of people lying flat in China and nearby countries. Is there comparable discussion going on in your language? What does it look like?

10

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/12700881 because I don't think lemmy is alive enough yet to have a separate questions community. if mods object to my posting a question instead of content here, pls feel free to remove.

All right so I'm not super well-read in this area but I did a scattershot self-guided reading trying to understand early ancient Mesopotamia in my undergrad. Of the dozens (and dozens and dozens...) of sources I consulted the most interesting was a short article by a woman (I think in the handbook of ancient near eastern history or something like that, I'm not sure) basically very cantankerously pointing out tha the footprint of pastoralism is seriously faint in the archaeological record and we probably seriously underestimate the extent to which civilisations like ancient Mesopotamia were also underscored by and based on pastoralism. I'm aware of famous ethnographies of pastoralist communities (the Nuer etc) but what are/are there important works theorising pastoralism per se and what it can tell us about human history and human ecology?

1

All right so I'm not super well-read in this area but I did a scattershot self-guided reading trying to understand early ancient Mesopotamia in my undergrad. Of the dozens (and dozens and dozens...) of sources I consulted the most interesting was a short article by a woman (I think in the handbook of ancient near eastern history or something like that, I'm not sure) basically very cantankerously pointing out tha the footprint of pastoralism is seriously faint in the archaeological record and we probably seriously underestimate the extent to which civilisations like ancient Mesopotamia were also underscored by and based on pastoralism. I'm aware of famous ethnographies of pastoralist communities (the Nuer etc) but what are/are there important works theorising pastoralism per se and what it can tell us about human history and human ecology?

18

Vietnamese lore tells us that over two thousand years ago the Red River Valley of northern Vietnam was home to powerful indigenous kingdoms, fortified capitals, and exquisite bronze craftsmanship. In contrast, the neighboring Chinese Han Empire claimed the region was inhabited by unsophisticated “barbarians” in need of “civilizing”, prompting imperial annexation of the region. This lecture explores the region’s archaeological record and what it means for scholarly debates, as well as for Vietnam’s national imagination, cultural heritage, and descendant identities.

66

For better or for worse, while growing up my social life was mostly online: gaia online, livejournal, deviantart, tumblr, and many others. I've heard of social media interaction be described as social junk food & even as I want to defend the many genuine, meaningful online relationships I had, I'm sympathetic: of course it's better to laugh together, to touch each other, to see each other's facial expressions, to do projects together, to tangibly help each other, to be part of each others' physical lives. Of course tech companies prey on our increasing loneliness and need for interaction the way that Coca Cola preys on thirst: claiming to cure it but exacerbating it and making us ill at the same time (and killing workers as they do it). But lots of people are in situations that keep them isolated that they can't easily change: disability, living rurally, working two jobs, living in places where they can't speak the language well, and the internet can provide a solution.

My life circumstances enable me to live the life I've always wanted to live, but it comes at a few sacrifices, the biggest being a social life, particularly a social life with people who share my values and who I feel comfortable speaking intimately with. There are lots of ways I can think of to make friends online, but mostly they involve having conversations on spyware platforms. Now that I'm privacypilled I can't unring that bell. It's as comfortable for me to make a friendship on a facebook group as it would be meeting a stranger for lunch in an extremely crowded public venue and have to scream our entire conversation perpetually. At least if they were willing to switch to Signal or something at some point we could metaphorically go to a quiet cafe and speak freely, but even the dude I talked to who talked about the book he read on techno-feudalism ditched it after trying it for a grand total of five minutes with me.

I fucking hate most tech companies and basically can't tolerate mainstream social media. My IRL prospects are what they are, I could change them only at great cost to myself. But, embracing my milkless cloth monkey mom, I have to admit sociality, love, and understanding are needs: their absence won't kill me as quickly as starvation, but it's probably up there with sedentism. Anybody else in the same pinch? How do you cope?

3

An art collective that creates immersive multimedia pieces about non-human subjectivity. I'm posting the TED talk bc when I looked, noting they had online seemed to be designed for online consumption, it's all exhibits. I hope one day they make work intended to be consumed at home and not just in a few galleries a world away. Their ideas/approaches seem very powerful.

2
submitted 4 months ago by tributarium@lemmy.world to c/music@lemmy.world
1
[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Nothing says critical thinking like stumbling into a thread, insulting everyone, repeatedly announcing intuitions and entitlements without engaging any argument because duh, of course the mainstream view (that non-human animals do not deserve full respect/autonomy/consideration as individuals, that my self-serving intuitive projection of an animal's feelings is accurate) is self-evidently correct without any need to justify it, and then blocking the sub.

[-] tributarium@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

If you aren't a troll you're behaving like one. "Shut up, be normal, go outside" aren't arguments.

Nobody is going to be able to convince you unless they come to understand where you stand on the morality of human beings being able to dominate and restrict one another's freedoms or on the richness of the interiority and moral value of non-human animals and tediously go through a deconstruction of the status quo worldview. Because, again, we've already gone through these questions and generally come to similar conclusions.

As a general heuristic in life if I directly benefit from something, and especially if someone else affected by my profiteering can't talk back to me, I see that as a flashing red light saying I need to question things and can't take my motivated intuitions as fair conclusions.

3
submitted 4 months ago by tributarium@lemmy.world to c/vegan@lemmy.world

I'm in a pretty vegan-friendly country with a long tradition of plant-based eating. Most people eat meat, but they are basically sympathetic to every meat-free argument: ethical, environmental, health. They sometimes do an awkward little shuffle & apologise for eating meat in front of me or say they're part-time vegetarians and so on. I think this is all quite nice.

What bothers me is when these same people talk about their pets. Eating meat, especially in contemporary urban settings where the origin is factory farms, indisputably objectively does more harm than keeping a pet, but people basically acknowledge meat-eating is a matter of habit/skill/knowledge. Whomst among us lives totally plastic-free, fuel-free, in the woods, etc? But people fucking rhasphodise about their pets. People will buy an animal from a breeder and keep it locked in the house or a cage completely bereft of any stimulation, they'll make it do stupid tricks to earn its food, they'll hound it or punis it for behaviours the owner finds inconvenient, use it for emotional comfort while having no real curiousity about the non-human animal's internal life or perception or needs beyond food and water and maybe some exercise, and then they'll talk about how it's their best friend. Guess what--I wouldn't "own" my friends! At least eating meat, in principle (though obviously not in practice in the modern world) is part of the natural circle of life and can be part of a respectful predator-prey relationship & sustainable ecology. At least people don't generally defend their meat-eating. But suddenly they're saints and best friends in their own eyes for taking a captive. To me, even though the objective harm is lesser, this is actually much more sadistic on an individual level.

Obviously there's a spectrum, bla bla. Dogs are an especially complicated case as a primeval co-domestication relationship with humans. One can absolutely make the case that because of the danger of our anthropocentric/anthropogenic built environments, it's the humane thing to do to keep a cat in the house instead of destroying wildlife or geting run over by a car or drinking antifreeze somewhere. The attuned, curious, considerate shelter-adopter is not the same as the owner who gives her dogs narcotics so they stop whining and disturbing the neighbours while she's gone 8 hours a day. But while interspecies companionship is not wrong, ownership imo aways is. I think people should at least be very self-critical and ambivalent about it. On the contrary, most people see it as unproblematic and a hobby.

To me, destroying non-human habitats and taking them into our own homes and completely flattening their internal lives & turning them into "good boys" and restricting their freedom (while calling them "friends"--friendship is a fucking voluntary dyadic association with no collars involved!) is a much blunter manifestation & affirmation of speciesist ideology imo. Every time I encounter it I find it very hard to deal with. I just stayed with someone who kept dogs leashed up 24/7 except for two daily walks who talked about how much he loved them and how ethical he was with them (there is no animal protection agency here, all of that is legal). A friend of mine just whined to me about how sad he is that he can't stroke his rodent because it died because another rodent pet of his bit it--well, don't fucking keep animals captive together in unnatural circumstances where they can hardly avoid conflict that was absolutely forseeably fatal?

Again, to me, it is just sadism. This is such a deeply-held position for me and it's so unpopular and impossible to talk about. I can't actually connect with anyone who is a proud or uncritical pet owner. I just smile and nod and think about how much muchness is in every consciousness and how close we are to most animals we keep captive evolutionarily and how much suffering that is both extremely easy to imagine and sympathise with if you bothered to consider it (no mammal or bird likes to be caged up/understimulated/told what to do/eating ultra processed garbage, fucking duh, Vox has a pretty good article critiquing pet ownership that lays it out convincingly & plainly) & difficult to understand bc every being has its own unique perceptions & desires & needs & skills many of which are opaque to humans...is created by pet ownership! And it makes me very very sad. I've distanced myself from relationships bc of it. Death to speciesism, death to anthropocentrism, death to the myth of human superiority.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

tributarium

joined 4 months ago