This is an example of the "appeal to nature" logical fallacy. You may be able to make a case that Stevia is healthier than Aspartame, but it should be based on evidence to that effect rather than because you like the idea that it has ingredients derived from organic material.
And this is an example of "where is the evidence" logical fallacy. In complex systems, such as the human body, the only evidence of safety is time -- a very long time. The Stevia plant (though not the same as extract) has been used for centuries. Aspartame was (accidentally) created in the lab in 1965.
If you are going to mess with complex systems, such as feed yourself aspartame, vape, give pregnant women a synthetic sedative and medication for morning sickness etc., you do it for a high potential gain that offsets potentially huge downsides. Benefits of aspartame are close to nil; if anything it probably makes things worse because people think they can consume more ultra processed foods sweetened with it because such foods have "fewer calories".
> In complex systems, such as the human body, the only evidence of safety is time -- a very long time. The Stevia plant (though not the same as extract) has been used for centuries. Aspartame was (accidentally) created in the lab in 1965.
Time is not evidence of safety, that is an odd claim (see smoking tobacco), thankfully we have the scientific method to investigate hypotheses like "x is bad for you".
Only if a long time passes without evidence of harm, we consider that the "evidence" of safety -- there is no other. It is very difficult to claim that something new introduced in a complex system is safe, so you weigh what you get right away from it vs. what you might end up paying down the road if it ends up being unsafe. Aspartame does not, in my view, clear that bar.
The problem is that you assume consistency, but in reality, we keep modifying plants / fruits / etc by selecting them and planting them. IIRC fruits are now too sweet for zoo animals.
It is the statistical processes that determine how much something is "natural". Our bodies evolved alongside fruit that was on the smaller and less sweet side, and logically that's what we are the most compatible with. Over centuries and millennia we selected fruits to favor size and sweetness, and over 5 years we e.g. genetically modify a strawberry to have peach flavor. The last one is like a step function compared to the slow moving processes of the agricultural selection and so less "natural" and almost certainly less compatible with our bodies.
We might still get lucky and get beneficial side effects of aspartame or peach-flavored strawberries that makes us faster, stronger, smarter, but with these things the luck usually works in the other direction.
Seriously? I should trust some scientists getting paid to push a product to multi billion dollar companies, over something simple you can grow yourself?
These are indeed links but quite random ones. Mostly they are reporting that growing two things together in a field can give higher yields than growing a single thing. None seem to be related to GMOs, which could obviously also be grown with complimentary species to increase yield.
All crops are inclined to be grown in monocultures. That's because even if you'd get more yield pairing with other species — as in these studies — pragmatically the time and cost of sowing, harvesting and separating multiple species outweighs the theoretical yield gain per unit area of a monocrop.
There is no biodiversity in agriculture. Whether or not the seeds you purchased have been edited to add drought resistance or high vitamin A content or other fantastic benefits to humankind you are still growing a monoculture, just as you were with non-GMO crops.
On the local level, yes. But I pointed out that the issue is with "wide-scale" adoption. GMO manufacturers make it so that the same, e.g, rice or carrots or tomatoes are grown in different parts of the world.
To re-iterate: there is no biodiversity in agriculture. As an example, "non-GMO" bananas are cloned from a single species the world over. If you'd be concerned about a single disease destroying genetically-identical crops worldwide, that happened with the Gros Michel cultivar in the 20th century. Competing GMO banana products would introduce more diversity than exists today.
The shortest maturing TIPS is 5 years. While you can sell your TIPS early, it has to be through the secondary market. And that involves transferring your TIPS to a 3rd party broker (and fees). I can't imagine its worth the trouble unless you need to get out of a 10 or 30 year TIPS. TIPS doesn't compare at all to a personal savings account.
First, my whole point is to stay out of the markets. Your suggestion to buy VIPSX is the exact opposite.
Second, go compare the past year of VIPSX vs inflation you'll see that VIPSX is shit. Inflation has steadily increased by 5%, but VIPSX has been all over the place (it was actually down 2% last month) and is currently only up 1%. This is, again, not what normal people need.
1. There's no way to hedge against inflation (you didn't know TIPS existed)
2. Having learned about TIPS you assert they're illiquid and can't be traded easily (you didn't know about TIPS funds)
3. Having learnt about TIPS funds you don't the recent returns of a specific fund (you don't know that TIPS adjustments lag reported inflation numbers)
You conveniently ignored this part of my first sentence: "...all financial vehicles for savers have been gutted." The line about hedging inflation was just a supporting detail for my main idea.
And your assertion that TIPS funds lags inflation doesn't hold water. Again, go compare the past year of inflation vs VIPSX. They don't track. By simply being a market traded product, a TIPS fund has speculation built into the price. Which, I'm arguing, is against the best interest of the average person just trying to save for their future.
Proteins are written in standardised IUPAC amino acid codes that carry some semantic meaning, e.g. Alanine: A, Glycine: G etc. Also viral genomes often have overlapping transcription with shifted open reading frames. Biology is not as simple as you think.
