![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Maybe too much fun, but what's the point otherwise?
Also, it's only in the past day or so I've realized that "captcha" is read capture.
Also, it's only in the past day or so I've realized that "captcha" is read capture.
Sep. 5th, 2010
So, here I am over at FRK, and there's an article up about seedless watermelons, which are "better" than the other variety because "seeds are a choking hazard".
This of course is right up there with "cut these [mini] marshmallows up before serving them to your child!" in terms of silliness, but that's neither here nor there right now.
No, no, what's at issue is the fact that at least two of the commenters there, rather than just laughing at the line, are convinced it's the seedless varieties that are dangerous... because they're "unnatural". And also because plants can't reproduce without seeds.
I don't even know where to start, so let's start with....
1. Seedless fruit isn't unnatural. Seedless fruit is either a natural mutation (like grapes), or the result of the natural process of hybridization (like watermelons).
1a. Hybridization is not some sort of scary sciencey term either. You eat hybrids all the time. All it is is combining two different varieties of a plant (via pollination, not chemicals, nuclear radiation, and goggles!) to get a specific set of traits. It's no more advanced than Mendel.
1b. When it comes to watermelon, you're crossing a variety with 44 chromosomes and one with 22 chromosomes to make one with 33 chromosomes. A mule, basically. And because it's sterile, it doesn't produce seeds.
1c. Sure, you might argue that this sort of selective breeding is "unnatural", but if you're going that route you should admit that everything you eat is "unnatural", unless you subsist entirely on what you forage or hunt. (Definitely possible, but I call that unlikely.) Why? Because everything you eat is the process of thousands of years of selective breeding! It's evolution, but it's not evolution as God decreed, it's the sort that humans, who like to play God at every opportunity, came up with.
1d. In fact, when we're talking about "natural" vs. "unnatural" types of fruit, I'll take my organic seedless watermelon any day over a seeded variety that was grown with all sorts of fertilizers and pesticides. Not only is one more "natural" than the other, but it's also less likely to be covered in poisons. (And this is why you should wash your melons before you cut them open, btw, because your knife can carry what's on the rind to the yummy flesh inside.)
2. There's a serious hypocrisy in fearing "unnatural" watermelon (without having any idea how it's made, mind you) and talking about it on a computer. Of course, when you come right down to it, if your criteria is "God made plants with seeds", and we're really going THAT far back in time, everything we do and have is unnatural. And unless you're arguing that the entire agricultural revolution is unnatural (a possible argument, though barring WWIII I don't think we'll ever go back to the days of small bands of hunter gatherers, so I don't really see the point in it) and scary and "wrong"....
3. Then there's the "Plants are supposed to have seeds to reproduce!" argument. Sensible, thought out - and wrong. I mean, right in that we do want a little diversity in our edibles in order to prevent another potato famine (look at what happened to bananas!), but wrong in that it assumes the only way to get fruits and vegetables is through seeds.
You see, unlike us, many plants have the ability to reproduce asexually, via cutting or grafting or budding. Even plants with seeds, such as apples and cherries, aren't necessarily usually grown from seed. (Why? Because apples in particular aren't predictable. The seeds from your granny smith will NOT make little granny smith apple trees, and the odds are that what you get will be hard and inedible and tiny.)
On the one hand, if taken to extremes, this is a terrible thing because they might all be susceptible to the same type of blight... but on the other hand, this is a good thing because you get consistent results every time. You stick the eye of a potato in the ground, and you know exactly what you'll be digging up later.
Seedless watermelons, as it happens, DO grow from seeds. Seedless grapes? Not so much. Non-seedless grapes also aren't grown from seeds, though I'm sure they could be. (And this doesn't just apply to domesticated plants. When I asked about growing wild raspberry from seeds, the response was "I... don't know if you can do that", because raspberries don't usually spread that way.)
4. And let's just remember that the crux of this argument is "new things are scary, and what I perceive to be natural is safer". This is not only antithetical to the whole "Don't be scared!" idea of FRK that I don't even know why I'm the only person to respond to those comments, but it doesn't make any sense to me. But that's another issue in and of itself.
This of course is right up there with "cut these [mini] marshmallows up before serving them to your child!" in terms of silliness, but that's neither here nor there right now.
No, no, what's at issue is the fact that at least two of the commenters there, rather than just laughing at the line, are convinced it's the seedless varieties that are dangerous... because they're "unnatural". And also because plants can't reproduce without seeds.
I don't even know where to start, so let's start with....
1. Seedless fruit isn't unnatural. Seedless fruit is either a natural mutation (like grapes), or the result of the natural process of hybridization (like watermelons).
1a. Hybridization is not some sort of scary sciencey term either. You eat hybrids all the time. All it is is combining two different varieties of a plant (via pollination, not chemicals, nuclear radiation, and goggles!) to get a specific set of traits. It's no more advanced than Mendel.
1b. When it comes to watermelon, you're crossing a variety with 44 chromosomes and one with 22 chromosomes to make one with 33 chromosomes. A mule, basically. And because it's sterile, it doesn't produce seeds.
1c. Sure, you might argue that this sort of selective breeding is "unnatural", but if you're going that route you should admit that everything you eat is "unnatural", unless you subsist entirely on what you forage or hunt. (Definitely possible, but I call that unlikely.) Why? Because everything you eat is the process of thousands of years of selective breeding! It's evolution, but it's not evolution as God decreed, it's the sort that humans, who like to play God at every opportunity, came up with.
1d. In fact, when we're talking about "natural" vs. "unnatural" types of fruit, I'll take my organic seedless watermelon any day over a seeded variety that was grown with all sorts of fertilizers and pesticides. Not only is one more "natural" than the other, but it's also less likely to be covered in poisons. (And this is why you should wash your melons before you cut them open, btw, because your knife can carry what's on the rind to the yummy flesh inside.)
2. There's a serious hypocrisy in fearing "unnatural" watermelon (without having any idea how it's made, mind you) and talking about it on a computer. Of course, when you come right down to it, if your criteria is "God made plants with seeds", and we're really going THAT far back in time, everything we do and have is unnatural. And unless you're arguing that the entire agricultural revolution is unnatural (a possible argument, though barring WWIII I don't think we'll ever go back to the days of small bands of hunter gatherers, so I don't really see the point in it) and scary and "wrong"....
3. Then there's the "Plants are supposed to have seeds to reproduce!" argument. Sensible, thought out - and wrong. I mean, right in that we do want a little diversity in our edibles in order to prevent another potato famine (look at what happened to bananas!), but wrong in that it assumes the only way to get fruits and vegetables is through seeds.
You see, unlike us, many plants have the ability to reproduce asexually, via cutting or grafting or budding. Even plants with seeds, such as apples and cherries, aren't necessarily usually grown from seed. (Why? Because apples in particular aren't predictable. The seeds from your granny smith will NOT make little granny smith apple trees, and the odds are that what you get will be hard and inedible and tiny.)
On the one hand, if taken to extremes, this is a terrible thing because they might all be susceptible to the same type of blight... but on the other hand, this is a good thing because you get consistent results every time. You stick the eye of a potato in the ground, and you know exactly what you'll be digging up later.
Seedless watermelons, as it happens, DO grow from seeds. Seedless grapes? Not so much. Non-seedless grapes also aren't grown from seeds, though I'm sure they could be. (And this doesn't just apply to domesticated plants. When I asked about growing wild raspberry from seeds, the response was "I... don't know if you can do that", because raspberries don't usually spread that way.)
4. And let's just remember that the crux of this argument is "new things are scary, and what I perceive to be natural is safer". This is not only antithetical to the whole "Don't be scared!" idea of FRK that I don't even know why I'm the only person to respond to those comments, but it doesn't make any sense to me. But that's another issue in and of itself.