3 ms·
We must take in mind that National Geographic is basically a photo and travels journal depending on advertising, not a fully scientific journal. They have been
by pvaldes 5y ago
We must take in mind that National Geographic is basically a photo and travels journal depending on advertising, not a fully scientific journal. They have been caught before "enhancing" the history when convenient to support the images.
Thus, to discusse the original source would be a safer option.
The idea is too close to "lets enhance Coronaviruses to made it more contagious and see what happens" to feel comfortable. We don't ever know how many [1] ebola relatives we have in the west and how that could interact here.
Changing our behavior respect to food safety (i.e learning how to sterilize somehow vine sap palms or banning to market bats to use it as food) could be a safer, less unpredictable solution.
[1] We know about one species native from Spain at least
- technothrasher 5y ago> We must take in mind that National Geographic is basically a photo and travels journal depending on advertising, not a fully scientific journal. Since all I really see of National Geographic these days are the 'special issues' at the supermarket checkout going on about the life of Jesus or the latest alternative healing trends, I basically ignore them now. They've had a very sad fall from grace.
- jsnodlin 5y agoThat’s not true. I recently restarted my subscription to NG and NG History and they have detailed, in depth long form articles that aren’t just pop fluff.