|
|
Страници по тази тема: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | (покажи всички)
|
Тема
|
 Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:33 |
|
|
И понеже се опитваш да се правиш на интересен, ето ти един съвсем пресен метаанализ по темата. И то такъв, който използва любимото ти изследване като един от източниците:
RESULTS:
Total dairy products intake was not associated with all cancer mortality risk, with the pooled RR of 0.99 (95 % CI 0.92-1.07, p = 0.893). Subgroup analyses showed that the pooled RRs were 0.97 (95 % CI 0.92-1.03, p = 0.314) for milk, 0.88 (95 % CI 0.71-1.10, p = 0.271) for yogurt, 1.23 (95 % CI 0.94-1.61, p = 0.127) for cheese and 1.13 (95 % CI 0.89-1.44, p = 0.317) for butter in male and female, however the pooled RR was 1.50 (95 % CI 1.03-2.17, p = 0.032) for whole milk in male, which was limited to prostate cancer. Further dose-response analyses were performed and we found that increase of whole milk (serving/day) induced elevated prostate cancer mortality risk significantly, with the RR of 1.43 (95 % CI 1.13-1.81, p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS:
Total dairy products intake have no significant impact on increased all cancer mortality risk, while low total dairy intake even reduced relative risk based on the non-linear model. However, whole milk intake in men contributed to elevated prostate cancer mortality risk significantly. Furthermore, a linear dose-response relationship existed between increase of whole milk intake and increase of prostate cancer mortality risk.
Та, изобщо не е случайно, че си пуснал линк за рак на простатата. Просто само за този вид рак млякото има някакъв ефект.
Интересно дали ще признаеш, поне веднъж, че грешиш? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 06.04.17 03:34.
| |
|
Тема
|
 Electric DNA, Circular RNA, and Other Epigenetic..
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:45 |
|
|
Upon completion of the Human Genome Project, scientists were baffled at the unexpectedly low number of genes. How could so few protein-coding genes (about 20,000) build a human being? It turned out that genes are only one part of the action. The old Central Dogma that viewed DNA as the master molecule, RNA as the messenger boy, and protein as the end product is long gone. Now we are beginning to see that there are three “-omes” that interact in complex ways with other molecules, including lipids and sugars. Everywhere they turn, scientists are seeing molecular wizardry at work. Here are just a few recent examples.
Another -Ome with a Code of Its Own
The Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL) of Barcelona, Spain, assumes we know about the genome and the epigenome. Now, news from IDIBELL draws our attention to another “-ome” that is rising in significance: the transcriptome, referring to the “epigenetics of RNA”:
“It is well-known that sometimes DNA produces a RNA string but then this RNA does not originate the protein. Because in these cases the alteration is neither in the genome nor the proteome, we thought it should be in the transcriptome, that is, in the RNA molecule”, Dr. Esteller explains.”In recent years, we discovered that our RNA is highly regulated and if only two or three modifications at the DNA level can control it, there may be hundreds of small changes in RNA that control its stability, its intracellular localization or its maturation in living beings”. [Emphasis added.]
For example, some non-coding RNAs are now known to be ‘guardian RNAs’ according to the modifications on their bases or sugars with methyl groups that act as tags. The field of transcriptomics is only about five years old; “It will definitely be an exciting research stage for this and the next generation of scientists,” Dr. Esteller says. See our recent article “” for more about this epicentric karma running over the Central Dogma.
Electric DNA
Here’s another way that DNA carries information that is rather shocking: it conducts electricity. describes “DNA charge transport” as an unexpected signaling system between the code and its reading machines.
DNA charge transport provides an avenue for rapid, long-range signaling between redox-active moieties coupled into the DNA duplex. Several enzymes integral to eukaryotic DNA replication contain [4Fe4S] clusters, common redox cofactors. DNA primase, the enzyme responsible for initiating replication on single-stranded DNA, is a [4Fe4S] protein. Primase synthesizes short RNA primers of a precise length before handing off the primed DNA template to DNA polymerase α, another [4Fe4S] enzyme. The [4Fe4S] cluster in primase is required for primer synthesis, but its underlying chemistry has not been established. Moreover, what orchestrates primer handoff between primase and DNA polymerase α is not well understood.
In the paper, seven researchers from Caltech and Vanderbilt tell about experiments they ran to establish the existence of electrical charge transfers between the double helix and the molecular machines that read it and duplicate it. “We demonstrate that the oxidation state of the [4Fe4S] cluster in DNA primase acts as a reversible on/off switch for DNA binding,” they conclude. And it’s not alone. Because DNA can conduct charges over long distances, “Such redox signaling by [4Fe4S] clusters may play a wider role in polymerase enzymes to coordinate eukaryotic DNA replication.”
Circular RNA
Some RNAs fold into stable loops. We have them in our brains. What do they do? When discovered, they were considered non-coding. Now, however, scientists at Hebrew University have found that they can indeed code for proteins. The paper in Molecular Cell[/url], “Translation of CircRNAs,” opens up a new window of functional possibilities for these oddball transcripts.
Circular RNAs (circRNAs) are abundant and evolutionarily conserved RNAs of largely unknown function. Here, we show that a subset of circRNAs is translated in vivo. By performing ribosome footprinting from fly heads, we demonstrate that a group of circRNAs is associated with translating ribosomes. Many of these ribo-circRNAs use the start codon of the hosting mRNA, are bound by membrane-associated ribosomes, and have evolutionarily conserved termination codons…. Altogether, our study provides strong evidence for translation of circRNAs, revealing the existence of an unexplored layer of gene activity.
“Evolutionarily conserved,” of course, means not evolved. A layman’s account in .
This discovery reveals an unexplored layer of gene activity in a type of molecule not previously thought to produce proteins. It also reveals the existence of a new universe of proteins not yet characterized.
One possible function for circRNAs is stable storage of protein-coding data for regions far from the nucleus. The tips of axons, for instance, can be too far away for quick access to genes they need. “As circRNAs are extremely stable, they potentially could be stored for a long time in compartments more distant to the cell’s body like axons of neuron cells,” Science Daily says. “There, the RNA molecules could serve as a reservoir for proteins being produced at a given time.” One scientist not connected about the research expressed excitement about it. “This is a very important, promising and timely discovery that gives an important hint of the function of these abundant yet uncharacterized RNAs.”
Interdependent Modifications
As geneticists explore the universe of epigenetic modifications, they have been unable to replicate some of them in a lab dish (in vitro). Now, a reason for this is coming to light. A paper in begins with surprising statistics in the number of epigenetic modifications known. Then the authors tell how they discovered a case of “interdependent” modifications:
Nucleic acids undergo naturally occurring chemical modifications. Over 100 different modifications have been described and every position in the purine and pyrimidine bases can be modified; often the sugar is also modified. Despite recent progress, the mechanism for the biosynthesis of most modifications is not fully understood, owing, in part, to the difficulty associated with reconstituting enzyme activity in vitro. Whereas some modifications can be efficiently formed with purified components, others may require more intricate pathways. A model for modification interdependence, in which one modification is a prerequisite for another, potentially explains a major hindrance in reconstituting enzymatic activity in vitro. This model was prompted by the earlier discovery of tRNA cytosine-to-uridine editing in eukaryotes, a reaction that has not been recapitulated in vitro and the mechanism of which remains unknown.
Sure enough, they found a case in a microbe where one modification was a prerequisite to another modification. The mechanism appears to provide quality control by preventing catastrophic modifications to every matching spot on a whole genome.
Here’s a case we can relate to. The human antibody response system rapidly mutates sequences looking for matches to antigens. How does activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) deaminate the immunoglobulin receptors (IgG) without affecting the rest of the genome? The answer may involve interdependent modifications:
In mammalian cells, AID plays a critical role in antibody class diversification by specifically targeting the IgG receptor genes, while generally leaving the rest of the genome unblemished. While the mechanism of this enzyme has been elucidated, the basis for its programmed specificity towards only a fraction of the genome is still unclear. The work presented here provides a rationale for controlling mutagenic enzymes through their interaction with other partners, as has been suggested previously. This, of course, leads to the question of how such substrate specificities evolved. Our data suggest that the answer may relate to the ability of certain protein–protein interactions to provide secondary functions based on extreme mutual dependability, as illustrated here by the interplay between TRM140a and ADAT2/3.
ID advocates are certain to catch the phrases “programmed specificity” and “extreme mutual dependency” in support of their view, while chuckling at the Darwinists’ quandary about “how such substrate specificities evolved.” Their suggested solution only appears to dig a deeper hole. They never quite get around to telling readers how “extreme mutual dependability” came up with “secondary functions” by sheer dumb luck, such that the result only gives an appearance of “programmed specificity.” ID, on the other hand, provides a common-sense answer. Programming presupposes a programmer.
| |
|
Тема
|
 Human exposures to Bisphenol A alternatives and...
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:49 |
|
|
Recent years have witnessed an exponential interest in the use and research on bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is one of the chemicals ranked very high in the chemicals’ list with the highest production volume estimates worldwide. BPA is widely used in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins that are components in multifarious consumer and cosmetic products. We can find BPA in several personal care- and household-products used on a daily basis. For example, some examples of BPA containing products that we encounter frequently are food, water and beverage packaging containers, cooking utensils, children toys, teething rings and pacifiers, dental composites and sealants, electrical and electronic equipment, thermal print paper used for receipts, magazines, books etc. Moreover, transformation and degradation of certain consumer products under normal to abnormal storage conditions can release BPA into indoor air, dust and contact surfaces. These results in humans’ exposure to BPA from multiple sources and enter human body through oral consumption, dermal and subcutaneous contact, and inhalation. BPA is an endocrine disruptor with well-known hormonal dysfunction effects and linked with health risks of developing metabolic disorders such as obesity and type II diabetes mellitus. Given these alarming findings, regulatory bodies and policies started to focus and enforce restrictions on the manufacturing and use of BPA.
Fig. 1. Proposed exposure sources for BPA alternatives and derivatives, and possible exposure routes in humans.
This opened the doors for BPA alternatives to enter the industrial and consumer markets. BPA structural analogs such as bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol S (BPS) are similar in structure to BPA but not the same and hence commercially-labelled as BPA-free promoting the notion among consumers that these are safer to use compared to BPA. However, their long-term and chronic health impact to humans and sensitive subpopulation groups has not been fully assessed yet. On the other, BPA in consumer products can react with chlorine present as a disinfectant in tap water and/or household cleaning products and solutions resulting in the instantaneous formation of chlorinated derivatives of BPA (ClxBPA). ClxBPA are known for having higher estrogenic-activity compared to the parent BPA, and are linked with alteration and disruption of hormonal and metabolic pathways. Similar reactivity to disinfectant chlorine is anticipated for the structural BPA analogs, but this remains to be experimentally documented. An increasing number of scientific reports dealing with metabolism and toxicity of the above mentioned substances in animal studies can be found. However, very limited information is available on the sources and routes of exposure to these new forms of BPA in human populations (Fig. 1).
Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (New York, USA), Cyprus International Institute for Environmental and Public Health (Limassol, Cyprus), and University of Groningen (Groningen, Netherlands) reviewed and critically discussed human exposures to BPA alternatives and derivatives. The article reviews all studies that deal with monitoring of chlorinated derivatives and structural analogs of bisphenol A in various human and environmental matrices. The authors presented information on the exposure sources and routes to these chemicals, and metabolism and toxicity outcomes as observed in in-vitro and in-vivo studies. Further, information on the reported concentrations of these emerging BPA-based chemicals in human body tissues and fluids, and the possible associations with human health effects such as hormonal and metabolic disorders was presented. The article elaborates on current limitations; provide directions for future research and opportunities, and promote research needs for the inclusion of ClxBPA and BPA analogs into human exposure assessment protocols of current and relevant epidemiological studies. This study was supported by the European Structural Funds, and will form the basis for further research to contribute and progress towards the unified goal of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative that is ready for launch.
Syam S. Andra1 and Konstantinos C. Makris2
1 Division of Environmental Health, Department of Preventive Medicine,
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
2 Cyprus International Institute for Environmental and Public Health
in association with Harvard School of Public Health,
Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
Publication
.
Andra SS, Charisiadis P, Arora M, van Vliet-Ostaptchouk JV, Makris KC
Environ Int. 2015 Dec
| |
|
Тема
|
Проклятието Бисфенол-А! търсете знака!
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 04:02 |
|
|
Най-популярните продукти, в които ВРА присъства и които са масови и в България, са пластмасовите бутилки за вода (независимо от размера им), бебешките шишенца, найлоновите торбички, с които ние в България все още не искаме да се разделим, обичайните пластмасови играчки, с които децата ни си играят от най-ранна възраст, както и редица пластмасови съдове както за хранене, така и за съхранение на храна. Последните са особено опасни, когато се използват в микровълнова печка, защото тогава ВРА се развихря още повече и се отделя в храната.
Разбира се, ние бихме искали да ви поощрим да купувате за децата си пластмасови изделия само от екологична пластмаса PLA, която е направена от царевично нишесте и се разгражда напълно в околната среда, но в допълнение към това, бихме искали да ви насочим към няколко начина, по които можете да избегнете досега си с ВРА, доколкото това е възможно.
По-долу посочваме артикулите, които със сигурност в масовия си вариант, освен ако на тях изрично не е посочено, че са BPA-free, съдържат опасни пластмаси, докато ние ги използваме активно всеки ден.
Пластмасови продукти със знак №3
V (Винил) или PVC
Могат да бъдат открити в: бутилки за готварско олио, прозрачни опаковки за храна.
Професорът от Харвард д-р Лео Трасанд и Медицинският университет в Маунт Синай съветват потребителите да избягват пластмасите с №3 за съхранение на храни и напитки. (Ако не сте сигурни, търсете малкия символ, който би трябвало да е отпечатан на контейнера. Някои марки не поставят този символ, което е голям проблем.)
Защо? Пластмасите №3 отделят токсични химически съединения (включително фталати) в храните и напитките. Рискът е най-висок, когато контейнерите започнат да се износват, когато се обработват в съдомиялна или когато се нагряват (включително в микровълнова печка). Пластмасовите продукти могат да отделят високотоксични двуокиси в околната среда, включително в дома ви.
Пластмасови продукти със знак №6
PS (полистирен)
Могат да бъдат открити в: съдове за еднократна употреба, подложки за месо, картони за яйца, съдове за храна за вкъщи.
Пластмасите с №6 се обработват до получаването на меки стеропорени чаши, както и за изработката на твърда пяна или на твърди пластмасови продукти. Ето защо, помнете да търсите тези малки цифрички в триъгълничета от стрелки (не се притеснявате, ако ви трябва лупа – не трябва да ви вълнуват хора, които ви се присмиват, защото се грижите за здравето си). Избягвайте да използвате такива продукти колкото се може повече.
Защо? Пластмасите с №6 могат да отделят потенциално токсични химически съединения (включително стирен). Внимание – особено, когато се нагреят! Тази стеропорена чашка в която ви продават кафето всяка сутрин – тази, която „умно” ви държи кафето топло – май вече ни ви се струва толкова „умна”, нали?
Пластмасови продукти със знак № 7 – Други
Могат да бъдат открити в: бебешките шишенца, бутилките за вода от 6 и 10 литра, различни контейнери за храна.
Категория 7 събира широк спектър от пластмасови смоли, които не попадат в останалите шест категории пластмаси. Някои от тях са доста безопасни, но тези, за които трябва да се притеснявате, се намират в различните контейнери за напитки (включително твърдите брандирани чаши за кафе с капаци от известните кафе вериги, чашите за кафе и други топли напитки, които се използват в автомобили) и в твърдите бебешки пластмасови шишета. Много от тези смоли се съдържат и в твърдите пластмасови бебешки играчки.
Защо? Проучванията показват, че поликарбонатът може да изпуска в течностите Бисфенол-А, който е потенциален нарушител на хормоналните нива в организма. Според специалистите, никое количество Бисфенол-А не е напълно безопасно, като последните изследвания доказват, че тази смола предизвиква нервни и поведенчески проблеми у деца, които са непрекъснато излагани на ВРА.
Най-добре е да заложим на сигурното и да се опитваме да заместваме тези твърди пластмасови изделия с пластмаси с номера 1 и 5 и с екологични пластмаси, а защо не и с усилено против счупване стъкло?
Етикети: BPA-free, бебешки шишета, бисфенол, Бисфенол-А, екологична пластмаса, екологични играчки, здраве, опасни вещества, пластмаса, пластмасови играчки, смоли
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 09.04.17 20:58 |
|
|
Объркано ти е мисленето, понеже наричаш глупост една хипотеза (за която е статията), без да мислиш по нея, понеже явно има научни аргументи за нея, които цитирах. Нещо повече, използваш argumentum ad hominem, което може да обиди единствено твоята интелигентност.
В отговор на:
П.П. Интересно защо не избра да цитираш ТОВА от изследването:
In multivariable-adjusted analyses, overall dairy intake was unrelated to breast cancer-specific outcomes.
Това е само част от резултата на изследването, а аз съм цитирал извода му. И ако тръгнем да цитираме резултата до край (макар че, подчертавам пак - изводът е по-важен), то ще цитирам и нататък от резултата:
Low-fat dairy intake was unrelated to recurrence or survival. However, high-fat dairy intake was positively associated with outcomes.
Но още по-важно от различни изследвания е, че , екзогенните източници на (женски) хормони са риск за рака на гърдата, а млякото от бременни крави (каквото е обикновеното купешко мляко на Запад, както ), е пълно с естроген. Което подкрепя хипотезата от статията, която ти нарече глупост.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 09.04.17 21:02.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 10.04.17 04:25 |
|
|
Няма нужда да мисля по нещо, което е доказано невярно.
However, high-fat dairy intake was positively associated with outcomes.
Вижда се кой не мисли. Всеки с два неврона може да установи, че причината в такъв случай са мазнините, а не другите вещества съдържащи се в млякото.
Но още по-важно от различни изследвания е, че според СЗО, екзогенните източници на (женски) хормони са риск за рака на гърдата, а млякото от бременни крави (каквото е обикновеното купешко мляко на Запад, както един от линковете ти пояснява), е пълно с естроген. Което подкрепя хипотезата от статията, която ти нарече глупост.
Можеш да фантазираш каквито си искаш идиотщини, но ФАКТИТЕ от ИЗСЛЕДВАНИЯТА показват, че ефект няма. Да обясня като за завършил рабфак: първо се установяват факти, след това се търсят механизмите по които тези факти работят.
Все още чакам да признаеш, че сгреши като пусна тази идиотщина. Не че ще се случи де -- ти си от вЕрващите, не от хората които могат да бъдат убедени с факти. :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 10.04.17 21:16 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Вижда се кой не мисли. Всеки с два неврона може да установи, че причината в такъв случай са мазнините, а не другите вещества съдържащи се в млякото.
Определено не мислиш. Вече писах, че естрогените са мастноразтворими, и затова точно в мазнините се концентрират.
Вервай в млЕкото
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 10.04.17 21:40 |
|
|
T.e. няма абсолютно никакъв проблем ако се употребяват млечни продукти си нормална масленост. Нали? :)
П.П. Все още имам някакви надежди, че ще признаеш че грешиш. Какво да се прави, надеждата умира последна. ВЕрващите рядко променяте мнението си когато има факти които го оборват. :) Готови сте да вЕрвате във всяка идиотщина, стига да подкрепя вече създадената ви позиция. :)
Вервай в млЕкото
За разлика от теб няма нужда да вярвам в каквото и да е. Разчитам на научните изследвания.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 10.04.17 21:41.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.04.17 01:54 |
|
|
В отговор на:
T.e. няма абсолютно никакъв проблем ако се употребяват млечни продукти си нормална масленост. Нали? :)
Да, според мен това е по-добър вариант - ако говорим за купешко мляко. Ако говорим за мляко от крави които не се забременяват постоянно (както ги отглеждат в Монголия напр.), то тогава няма проблем с тези хормони в него.
Има я все пак и темата за miR в млякото, която ти удобно подминаваш. А и към млечните храни (от краве мляко, подчертавам) има често алергични реакции и дори автоимунни реакции. От други видове животни млякото е по-добро, напр. козе,и то да не е купешко.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 11.04.17 01:56.
| |
|
Тема
|
Reversing the Lies of the Sharing Economy
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.04.17 02:30 |
|
|
Author of The Heretic's Guide to Global Finance: Hacking the Future of Money. Exploring urban ecology, econo
There’s nothing resembling a “sharing economy” in an Uber interaction You pay a corporation to send a driver to you, and it pays that driver a variable weekly wage. Sharing can really only refer to one of three occurrences. It can mean giving something away as a gift, like: “Here, take some of my food.” It can describe allowing someone to temporarily use something you own, as in: “He shared his toy with his friend.” Or, it can refer to people having common access to something they collectively own or manage: “The farmers all had an ownership share in the reservoir and shared access to it.”
None of these involve monetary exchange. We do not use the term “sharing” to refer to an interaction like this: “I’ll give you some food if you pay me.” We call that buying. We don’t use it in this situation either: “I’ll let you temporarily use my toy if you pay me.” We call that renting. And in the third example, while the farmers may have come together initially to purchase a common resource, they don’t pay for subsequent access to it.
In light of this, we should call out Uber for what it is: a company in control of a platform that originally facilitated peer-to-peer renting, not sharing, and that eventually transformed into the de facto boss of an army of self-employed employees. And even as “self-employed employee” might sound like a contradiction, that’s the dark genius of the Uber enterprise. It took the traditional corporation, with its senior managers responsible for controlling workers and machines, and cut it in two — creating a management structure that need not deal with the political demands of workers.
So, how exactly did we get to the point where business executives at conferences can talk about Uber as a “sharing economy” platform with straight faces? How is it that they don’t feel a deep sense of inauthenticity? To understand this, we must return to the roots of the actual sharing economy. It is the only way we can wrest it back from those who have hijacked it.
Our everyday economic life is characterized by three things. First, you get a job at a company — or you start a company — and you produce something. Second, that company goes to market to exchange its product for money. Third, you use that money to get goods or services from others who are also producing. Zoom out, and a market economy is a large-scale network of interdependent production. We cannot survive without accessing the products of other people’s labor.
Monetary exchange takes the form of, “If you give me money, I will give you a service.” There’s always potential for rejection in market offers, which creates uncertainty, and some people fare better than others. Those who undertake the heaviest burden of production don’t necessarily get rewarded commensurately. Individual competition appears to be — at least at first glance — the defining mark of monetary exchange.
There are, however, three major but inconvenient truths that seem to get glossed over when we talk about the market economy. The first is that market systems feed off an extensive, underlying in which people transfer ideas, goods, services, and emotional support to each other without requesting money. Unpaid childcare is one example. If your mother watches your two children while you’re at a job, that’s the gift economy in action. In fact, without friends and family it’s unlikely that you could even maintain the desire to go to work. Even in professional settings we share common resources with business colleagues. Companies rely upon this internal collaboration to produce the very products they then competitively exchange in markets.
The second inconvenient truth about the market economy is that its products are not really desirable unless we can use them within non-market systems. What’s the point of all this stuff getting produced if we can’t share it, compare it, gloat about it, or enjoy it with others? Friends, family, and various community systems make having material goods meaningful.
And third, many commercial market exchanges are actually hybridized with non-commercial elements that add richness. Take, for example, flirting with a bartender as they serve you drinks, or having a discussion about politics with the stylist you’re paying to cut your hair. Not only do market systems rely on non-market influences in order to work, but their products feel pointless and empty without them. Recognition of this, however, is uneven.
In small community settings it’s often easy to see a balance between market and gift economies. The shop owner gives a spontaneous discount to a retiree, or allows friends to lounge in a coffee shop long after they’ve finished drinking. Commercial exchange is but one element in a broader set of relationships, and this means the exchange takes longer. Economists call this inefficient; we call it enjoying life.
Meanwhile, in megacities such as London or New York there’s a tendency to strip all non-commercial elements from market interactions. This is the hallmark of what we refer to as commercialization. The large-scale mall and corporation are designed to maximize exchange while offering only a shallow appearance of sociability. The McDonald’s employee is forced by contract to smile at you, but prohibited from taking time to have a true conversation.
This phenomenon is even more acute in faceless internet commerce, where clinical, transactional precision dominates. While hyper-efficient exchanges play into our short-term impulses — initially feeling exciting, convenient, and modern — they gradually begin to feel empty. Sure, it’s frictionless commerce, but it’s also textureless.
When detached from a community foundation, markets can bring out people’s most anxious, petty, arrogant, and narcissistic sides, encouraging them to fixate on their individual strands of the overall economic picture, as if it were the whole. The defining qualities of a market economy — like uncertainty and unequal monetary reward — get exalted, and in this frame, everyone else is either a stranger to do battle with or a temporary ally to assist in your personal gain. Socializing becomes “networking.” Non-commercial ties such as friendship, sex, love, and family are either rendered invisible, or presented as kitsch advertisements designed to promote more commercial exchange.
It was in this context that the original sharing economy platforms emerged. Amid the competitive, individualistic rhetoric of the corporate state, people looked to use technology to foreground sharing, gifting, and community activities that were otherwise overshadowed.
One aim was to extend activities between trusted friends to strangers. Friends have long crashed on each other’s couches, but the site wanted it to happen among strangers. allowed you to give gifts to people you didn’t know, while let you lend items to strangers in your neighborhood. These platforms encouraged sharing between people who might otherwise be isolated from each other.
All of this was built using the infrastructure of the internet. The ubiquity of interconnected computers and smartphones in the hands of ordinary people allowed them to cheaply advertise their locations and showcase offers. To catalyze a digital platform, all someone needed to do was set up a website as a central hub for aggregating and displaying offers for others to accept. It makes sense to centralize similar information, rather than having it scattered in fragmented locations. This, in turn, builds , meaning that the platform becomes more useful — and thus more valuable — as more people use it.
Attempting to introduce sharing principles into networks of strangers isn’t easy. Our lives are built around large-scale market economies, and many people have internalized the principles of monetary exchange. In the context of huge global supply chains, the rural idyll of community production is long gone, and attempts to reverse-engineer authentic sharing relationships between people we don’t know can feel stilted.
While we might be willing to let a friend borrow our car for the day, we generally don’t trust strangers enough to share our most crucial possessions with them. We may, however, be game to share things that we don’t often use, like a basement that’s only half full or the backseat of a car that could have someone in it while we’re driving to work anyway.
We’ll probably be even more willing to offer this idle capacity to a stranger if there is some third-party assurance that they are legitimate, or will experience some consequences if they behave badly. Likewise, we may be more open to accepting gifts from strangers if such assurances are in place. This is, in effect, why sharing economy platforms developed identity and reputation-scoring systems, adding layers of formality and quantification into non-monetary gifting.
Herein lies one source of corruption, as the very act of earning quantified reputation for gifting adds a feeling of market exchange. But it was building technology to identify and quantify spare capacity that really set the stage for undermining the sharing economy. “Why not get the stranger to pay for the gift as a service?” was a question that couldn’t be far off.
The move from sharing spare, underutilized assets to selling them can be subtle. In hitchhiker culture, a person offering lifts might reasonably expect a fuel money contribution from someone getting a ride — and if the hitchhiker leaves the car without offering it, the driver may be a little irritated. The money though, is never a condition, and until they explicitly say, “If you give me fuel money, I will drive you,” it’s not a commercial relationship. Note, though, how easily the phrase—once uttered—can become generalized into, “If you pay me, I will drive you.”
A new wave of “sharing economy” startups bet on just this concept, as their businesses came to be characterized not by sharing, but by showcasing spare capacity for rent, with the platform taking a cut as broker. So, too, began a hollowing out around the language of sharing. New entrepreneurs feebly hung onto the sharing story with the claim that market mechanisms could re-engineer the very community ties that the markets themselves had eroded. In reality, they were doing nothing more than marketizing things that previously hadn’t been on the market. If anything, this only undermined existing gift economies. A friend calls to ask if she can stay with you, but gets told, “Sorry, we have Airbnb guests this weekend!”
Ah, but there’s another twist. Far from merely facilitating the renting of spare capacity, these platforms grew to such a size that sellers of “normal” capacity started using them—as in, people running professional bed-and-breakfasts migrated to the Airbnb platform, and so on. The irresistible lock-in of network effects dragged the old market into the new, and voilà, the platform corporation emerged.
Let’s be unequivocal here: A platform corporation really only owns two things. It owns algorithms hosted on servers, and it owns network effects—or people’s dependence. While the old corporation had to get financing, invest in physical assets, hire workers to run those assets, and take on risk in the process, a corporation like Uber outsources its risk to independent workers who must self-finance the purchase of their cars, while also absorbing losses from their cars’ depreciation or the failure of their operations. This not only separates corporate managers from ground-level workers, it places the major burden of financing and risk on the workers.
This is a venture capitalist’s wet dream. Give a startup minimal capital to hire developers and run media campaigns, and then watch as the network effects ripple over the infrastructure of the internet. If it works, you’re suddenly in control of a corporation built with digital tools, but extracting value from real-world, physical assets like cars and buildings. The entity holds itself together not via employment contracts, but rather by self-employed workers’ dependence on it to access the market they rely on for their survival.
So, now here you are, staring at your Uber app with irritated sighs because the driver is two minutes late. This is a market transaction. To the driver, you’re just another customer. There is no sharing. You’re as isolated as you ever were.
We have a hard time seeing systems. We find it easier to see what’s tangible and in front of us. We see the app, and we see the driver’s car icon moving along the streets on their way to pick us up. What we can’t see is the deep web of power relations that underpins the system. Instead, we are encouraged to fixate on the flat and friendly interface, the shallow surface layer of immediate experience.
If you’re a driver, that interface doubles as your boss. It doesn’t shout at you like the jerk boss of old corporations. In fact, it shows no emotion at all. It’s the human-readable incarnation of a robotic algorithm that calculates the optimal profit-path for Uber, Inc. As a driver, you have no colleagues and no union. There’s no upward mobility. Uber wants you to leave as soon as you build any expectations of progress. You and thousands more eke out enough to survive, if you’re lucky. This all while the owners of the platform get richer and richer, no matter what.
Of course, if you want to put a positive spin on this kind of work, you can call it flexible, decentralized micro-entrepreneurship. But pan out, and it looks more like feudalism, with thousands of small subsistence farmers paying tribute to a baron that grants them access to land they don’t own.
So, what is to be done? For one, let’s first understand the problem. Innovation and change are pointless unless they’re coming from a real analysis of what’s gone wrong—especially when we’re being made to believe we’ve actually gained an asset. Only then can we rebalance the power.
If we are going to turn ourselves into a sprawling network of micro-entrepreneurs, micro-contracting via a feudalistic platform, let’s at least cooperatively own the platform. In doing this, we might even retain one definition of sharing — the common usage of a shared resource pool, like the farmers who collectively manage a reservoir.
This is the origin of the movement, one possible counterforce to the rise of platform capitalism. In principle, it’s not that complicated. Spread the ownership of the common infrastructure among the users of that infrastructure, give them a say in how it’s run and a cut of the profits that emerge from it.
The platform cooperativism movement is a new one, with many of its proposals still on paper and yet to be released into the wild. Many have seen the potential to use blockchain technology, whose original promise was to provide a means for strangers to collectively run a platform that keeps track of their situation relative to each other without relying upon a central party. Some, like the blockchain-based ride-sharing ’Zooz, have already released apps and are iterating away in the background. Others, like the blockchain-based proposal for an Uber-killer called , are still in their conceptual stages. , another attempt at an Uber alternative, has been --and a split in the team has led to the creation of .
Meanwhile, big corporates have increasingly encroached on blockchain technology with an eye toward using a pacified version of it within closed and controlled settings. There are, of course, plenty of talented and idealistic blockchain developers looking for opportunities beyond corporate life.
Either way, fancy technology isn’t a magical recipe. The equally important work involves building a community willing to back new platforms. A Dutch proposal for an Airbnb alternative called is making a start as a Meetup group, and food couriers are organizing gatherings to discuss how they can set up cooperative alternatives to .
In the face of massive commercial platforms, aggressively backed by venture capital money, these initial attempts might seem idealistic. But as digital serfdom only expands, we have little choice but to start small with underdog pilot projects that galvanize action.
It’s a new mentality that needs building. In a world where we’re told to be grateful receivers of products and the opportunity to work on them from heroic, demigod CEOs allegedly “democratizing” the workscape, we need to see straighter and expect more. The entrepreneur is still nothing without the underlying people who make their enterprise work; and in this case, their wealth comes directly from skimming money off vast collectives. Let’s fuse the two forces into one, and build collectives with actual sharing in mind.
| |
|
Страници по тази тема: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | (покажи всички)
| 
|
|
