|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jan 24, 2023 17:00:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jan 24, 2023 17:59:41 GMT -8
Ha ha!
Me? No. Not even close to being there yet.
Soylent Green anybody?
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 24, 2023 20:58:25 GMT -8
Ha ha! Me? No. Not even close to being there yet. Soylent Green anybody? Soylent Green was set in 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by fishwrapper on Jan 25, 2023 19:49:25 GMT -8
Soylent Green was a damn fine documentary - on par with "Idiocracy." I wish more such films films of the future could get sucked into that time portal for our enlightenment...
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jan 25, 2023 21:25:25 GMT -8
One step closer to being able to end hunger.
|
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Jan 26, 2023 12:27:38 GMT -8
One step closer to being able to end hunger. This is clearly the next step before we get the food replicators from Star Trek. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 26, 2023 14:52:39 GMT -8
Right now, you can have lab-grown meat, but it eats up a lot of energy to create it. Plus, the meat comes without phytonutrients (e.g., no Omega-3 fatty acids).
Wasting a bunch of energy to produce demonstrably inferior meat?
As a luddite, this is just awful in pretty much every conceivable way.
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jan 27, 2023 9:50:09 GMT -8
One step closer to being able to end hunger. This is clearly the next step before we get the food replicators from Star Trek. Can't say that wasn't far from my mind as I typed my comment. Next, 3-D printers will be able to print food. Then we'll be most of the way there. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jan 27, 2023 9:54:26 GMT -8
Right now, you can have lab-grown meat, but it eats up a lot of energy to create it. Plus, the meat comes without phytonutrients (e.g., no Omega-3 fatty acids). Wasting a bunch of energy to produce demonstrably inferior meat? As a luddite, this is just awful in pretty much every conceivable way. Two ways to look at this. One is to say that the only way is the old way. Real food for real men. I want my meat to bleed. The other is to say this is a step in a good direction. Sure, it isn't equivalent yet and maybe the taste is inferior, but this is just a step in that direction. And the potential is worth the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 27, 2023 12:53:50 GMT -8
Right now, you can have lab-grown meat, but it eats up a lot of energy to create it. Plus, the meat comes without phytonutrients (e.g., no Omega-3 fatty acids). Wasting a bunch of energy to produce demonstrably inferior meat? As a luddite, this is just awful in pretty much every conceivable way. Two ways to look at this. One is to say that the only way is the old way. Real food for real men. I want my meat to bleed. The other is to say this is a step in a good direction. Sure, it isn't equivalent yet and maybe the taste is inferior, but this is just a step in that direction. And the potential is worth the effort. I think there is a complete lack of appreciation for how complicated actual food production is. I grew up with chickens, cows, deer, and pigs. I have been to the butchers before to watch a cow be turned into meat. I have helped to butcher a deer. I want my meat to bleed, because I know that it will be better for me. This whole thing is like powdered milk replacing breastmilk in babies before they realized that that was a terrible idea, contributing to fat, picky, and sickly children. Biosphere 2. They created a perfect ecosystem. Only there was no wind, so trees grew up too weak, which caused there to be too much carbon dioxide and insufficient oxygen. Science has a knack for "progress," which is anything but. This is a complete waste of energy, intelligence, and money. A solution in search of a problem. Cows, for example, can produce a lot more food energy in several areas of the country that nothing else could utilize. One of the thing that really really troubles me is how do the cells expel waste, if there is no cardiovascular system and no organs to move, collect, and expel the waste? On what planet could this ever hope to be comparable? I could think of any number of things that would be more worthwhile. Cancer research and space exploration immediately come to mind. Yuck! |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jan 27, 2023 17:06:35 GMT -8
Two ways to look at this. One is to say that the only way is the old way. Real food for real men. I want my meat to bleed. The other is to say this is a step in a good direction. Sure, it isn't equivalent yet and maybe the taste is inferior, but this is just a step in that direction. And the potential is worth the effort. I think there is a complete lack of appreciation for how complicated actual food production is. I grew up with chickens, cows, deer, and pigs. I have been to the butchers before to watch a cow be turned into meat. I have helped to butcher a deer. I want my meat to bleed, because I know that it will be better for me. This whole thing is like powdered milk replacing breastmilk in babies before they realized that that was a terrible idea, contributing to fat, picky, and sickly children. Biosphere 2. They created a perfect ecosystem. Only there was no wind, so trees grew up too weak, which caused there to be too much carbon dioxide and insufficient oxygen. Science has a knack for "progress," which is anything but. This is a complete waste of energy, intelligence, and money. A solution in search of a problem. Cows, for example, can produce a lot more food energy in several areas of the country that nothing else could utilize. One of the thing that really really troubles me is how do the cells expel waste, if there is no cardiovascular system and no organs to move, collect, and expel the waste? On what planet could this ever hope to be comparable? I could think of any number of things that would be more worthwhile. Cancer research and space exploration immediately come to mind. Yuck! You have a fear of science. Interesting. The problem isn't science; the problem is capitalism, which makes a man do whatever he can to make some money and the more money, the better. So we already have chickens, cows, and pigs pumped full of hormones in order to make them fatter or develop faster so they can be worth more or be slaughtered sooner. And it's easy for us in our warm homes to question this venture, but there are people in the world who need this food. Similarly, as the population of the world continues to grow, we have to answer the question how to support and feed all these people. You can say that it's not your problem, which to a certain extent is true, but isn't it a worthy endeavor for someone to pursue? As far as saying which scientists are useful and which are not, one could certainly say the same thing about many professions, especially lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 27, 2023 22:26:23 GMT -8
I think there is a complete lack of appreciation for how complicated actual food production is. I grew up with chickens, cows, deer, and pigs. I have been to the butchers before to watch a cow be turned into meat. I have helped to butcher a deer. I want my meat to bleed, because I know that it will be better for me. This whole thing is like powdered milk replacing breastmilk in babies before they realized that that was a terrible idea, contributing to fat, picky, and sickly children. Biosphere 2. They created a perfect ecosystem. Only there was no wind, so trees grew up too weak, which caused there to be too much carbon dioxide and insufficient oxygen. Science has a knack for "progress," which is anything but. This is a complete waste of energy, intelligence, and money. A solution in search of a problem. Cows, for example, can produce a lot more food energy in several areas of the country that nothing else could utilize. One of the thing that really really troubles me is how do the cells expel waste, if there is no cardiovascular system and no organs to move, collect, and expel the waste? On what planet could this ever hope to be comparable? I could think of any number of things that would be more worthwhile. Cancer research and space exploration immediately come to mind. Yuck! You have a fear of science. Interesting. The problem isn't science; the problem is capitalism, which makes a man do whatever he can to make some money and the more money, the better. So we already have chickens, cows, and pigs pumped full of hormones in order to make them fatter or develop faster so they can be worth more or be slaughtered sooner. And it's easy for us in our warm homes to question this venture, but there are people in the world who need this food. Similarly, as the population of the world continues to grow, we have to answer the question how to support and feed all these people. You can say that it's not your problem, which to a certain extent is true, but isn't it a worthy endeavor for someone to pursue? As far as saying which scientists are useful and which are not, one could certainly say the same thing about many professions, especially lawyers. I do not fear science. I lament the misapplication of science. If you don't like hormones, you can eat crab, deer, or fish. Lots of options. There is absolutely no need to devote an entire coal plant to make a four-ounce filet. This isn't an example of capitalism being bad. Heaven knows that you can look at the socialist revolutions and subsequent prolonged starvation in the USSR, China, North Korea, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, etc. If you remove capitalism from the equation, food production and distribution inevitably gets worse and not better. There is a certain amount of hubris that goes into thinking that one knows better than food producers and food consumers. And socialism is nothing but a religion of hubris. But you have money. You can choose to eat what you like. Growing up, I ate beef that did not have the hormones that you describe, because I helped to raise cows. Don't like how cows are raised. Raise them better. Capitalism! Great stuff. Your last line is 100% on point. It reminds me of that old Twilight Zone episode: I am not the State. I do not get to choose. I am just a voice crying out in the Benny's House wilderness. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jan 28, 2023 8:46:39 GMT -8
You have a fear of science. Interesting. The problem isn't science; the problem is capitalism, which makes a man do whatever he can to make some money and the more money, the better. So we already have chickens, cows, and pigs pumped full of hormones in order to make them fatter or develop faster so they can be worth more or be slaughtered sooner. And it's easy for us in our warm homes to question this venture, but there are people in the world who need this food. Similarly, as the population of the world continues to grow, we have to answer the question how to support and feed all these people. You can say that it's not your problem, which to a certain extent is true, but isn't it a worthy endeavor for someone to pursue? As far as saying which scientists are useful and which are not, one could certainly say the same thing about many professions, especially lawyers. I do not fear science. I lament the misapplication of science. If you don't like hormones, you can eat crab, deer, or fish. Lots of options. There is absolutely no need to devote an entire coal plant to make a four-ounce filet. This isn't an example of capitalism being bad. Heaven knows that you can look at the socialist revolutions and subsequent prolonged starvation in the USSR, China, North Korea, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, etc. If you remove capitalism from the equation, food production and distribution inevitably gets worse and not better. There is a certain amount of hubris that goes into thinking that one knows better than food producers and food consumers. And socialism is nothing but a religion of hubris. But you have money. You can choose to eat what you like. Growing up, I ate beef that did not have the hormones that you describe, because I helped to raise cows. Don't like how cows are raised. Raise them better. Capitalism! Great stuff. Your last line is 100% on point. It reminds me of that old Twilight Zone episode: I am not the State. I do not get to choose. I am just a voice crying out in the Benny's House wilderness. So really, you're more concerned about the misapplication of energy resources than the actual science. If the project were using green energy, then maybe you wouldn't mind so much. As least it looks that way from what you wrote. I didn't know you were so environmentally-minded. Good for you! As for capitalism, you are right. Capitalism isn't the problem; it's human beings and their lust for money and power. We want to make more money and have more power in order to give a semblance of control in a chaotic world. We want security, but there is no security. So we want more and more and more. So it doesn't matter the -ism, humans will muck it up. Growing up, I too ate the beef without a ton of hormones and chicken breasts were not the size of strippers'. And Mom just bought most of the meat from the local grocery stores. Yeah, every now and again, she'd go to the butcher's shop. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 28, 2023 9:59:47 GMT -8
I do not fear science. I lament the misapplication of science. If you don't like hormones, you can eat crab, deer, or fish. Lots of options. There is absolutely no need to devote an entire coal plant to make a four-ounce filet. This isn't an example of capitalism being bad. Heaven knows that you can look at the socialist revolutions and subsequent prolonged starvation in the USSR, China, North Korea, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, etc. If you remove capitalism from the equation, food production and distribution inevitably gets worse and not better. There is a certain amount of hubris that goes into thinking that one knows better than food producers and food consumers. And socialism is nothing but a religion of hubris. But you have money. You can choose to eat what you like. Growing up, I ate beef that did not have the hormones that you describe, because I helped to raise cows. Don't like how cows are raised. Raise them better. Capitalism! Great stuff. Your last line is 100% on point. It reminds me of that old Twilight Zone episode: I am not the State. I do not get to choose. I am just a voice crying out in the Benny's House wilderness. So really, you're more concerned about the misapplication of energy resources than the actual science. If the project were using green energy, then maybe you wouldn't mind so much. As least it looks that way from what you wrote. I didn't know you were so environmentally-minded. Good for you! As for capitalism, you are right. Capitalism isn't the problem; it's human beings and their lust for money and power. We want to make more money and have more power in order to give a semblance of control in a chaotic world. We want security, but there is no security. So we want more and more and more. So it doesn't matter the -ism, humans will muck it up. Growing up, I too ate the beef without a ton of hormones and chicken breasts were not the size of strippers'. And Mom just bought most of the meat from the local grocery stores. Yeah, every now and again, she'd go to the butcher's shop. Why wouldn't I be environmentally-minded? I am a huge fan of green energy. We should be moving toward a more environmentally-minded grid. But we are not there yet. Until then, lab-generated meat is just pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. Good stuff otherwise. |
|
