[asimpletune]

To the all people who are dismissing the important of the issues being presented in this article, I'd like to invite you to reconsider. I'm reading two main critiques here:

First, that breeding is more important than CO2. That's easy to address as it was discussed in the article. Researchers compared a weed that has had no human cultivation and also compared the genetics of samples from the 1850s, only to find that their protein concentration has declined by 33% since the industrial revolution. Additionally, the main scientist in the article published a meta study that had enough data to account for noise and it isolated CO2 as having an impact on our nutritional density.

Second, another prominent critique I'm reading here is that the conclusions are not important because other factors have so much more importance. I think this criticism is misguided and it's treating the problem as if this were big O or something. Like, "sure, this may be happening but then people could just eat spinach instead of broccoli, problem solved." There's so much that's wrong with this I don't even know where to start, actually.