[removed]

It's so frustrating the sheer amount of things the bacteria in our gut can help with that we just don't know. I think - and this may be radical - but we should have open access to FMTs administered my professional medical personnel. It's been shown to have amazing results on auto-immune diseases, cancer, even things like alzheimers. The FDA is an important institution, yes but this thing seems like a no-brainer. The most important thing is screening of donors which can be done right now. It's infuriating that FMTs are used to only treat c-diff and even then it's hard to get. No drugs, no artificial biologics, nothing like that. Make them available!

I don't like putting it all at the feet of the masses.

I've talked with people across the political spectrum. Most people have a sense that this is serious, not just climate change denialism, but we're not the ones with the power to change things.

Shifting to sustainability does not have to entail massive quality of life sacrifice for everyone. In fact as we increase our green spaces, build smarter-greener cities and towns (looking at you, US suburbia) , collective quality of life can go up.

But shifting to sustainability does require changes to power structures and the divisions of wealth. It requires some industries to give up some of their massive profits, or even go out of existence. Most people are pretty OK with this of course but the few with the extreme power and wealth majorities are obviously not.

[removed]

This reminds me of that Airplane! scene.

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[removed]

Unless you use the premium platinum variant, which costs 4x as much.

The cheaper, more bitter robusto bean (really a fruit pit) is more tolerant of varied growing conditions than the mellower, more expensive Arabica. From what I understand there is significant research going on to develop a variety that marries the flavor profile of Arabica with the hardiness of robusto. I hope it works.

And half the flavor

And then, some agricorp creates and patents genetically modified coffee super plants with 20 times the yield and premium price.

A prediction has been made. Any wagers?

This is a good example of how causality is not always straightforward.

Serotonin reuptake inhibitors do work and work better the better in people with more severe depression symptoms.

However they generally can only be expected to work after around 2-4 weeks where as the serotonin increase is on day 1.

The mechanism isn't exactly "more serotonin = more happy" but that's a bit complex for most people.

I'm in the UK and would use the singular.

I don't imagine that there's any technical reason why you couldn't do that, but I'd imagine that building and maintaining enough greenhouses for one of the world's major commodity crops would not be cheap.

No doubt it could, but the scale of coffee production world wide could likely not be sustained through such measures. At least in the near term.

I’m sure this is probably obvious to most, but why couldn’t coffee be grown in a greenhouse that simulates the necessary conditions? I know coffee plants must mature for several years but still.

[removed]

I mean, SSP1 results in a slight decline in population at the end of the century, so it being similar to no-growth scenario isn't too surprising. However, the more important part is that SSP1 already assumes that the current dietary patterns (the focus of the paper) are not sustained, and pretty much all the interventions they recommend are implemented.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681

> In comparison, the SSP1 scenario features a sustainable land transformation with comparatively little pressure on land resources due to low population projections, healthy diets with limited food waste, and high agricultural productivity.

> Population growth and food demand is a strong driver of future CH4 emissions across the SSPs. It is thus not surprising that CH4 emissions are highest in the SSP3 baseline and lowest in SSP1.

So, it's unfortunate that some people appear to read this paper as if it discovers a completely new source of warming. It doesn't; it's more like a reanalysis of the existing projections narrowly focused on a specific hypothetical & set of interventions.

[removed]

Whatever makes you/them/xx happy.

[removed]

This might be a good time to mention that I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.

Climate change is not going to solve itself without action from the masses, things will continue to get worse.

[removed]

[removed]