March 28, 2024, 01:59:37 AM

1,531,609 Posts in 46,729 Topics by 1,523 Members
› View the most recent posts on the forum.


Synthetic life

Started by Selkie, December 22, 2010, 06:28:47 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Go Down

Socks

also you guys looking for those GREAT arguments and REASONS, how about you grow a spine and use some common sense and think for yourself. i know, radical, but it can happen.

Kalahari Inkantation

Quote from: Socks on April 23, 2012, 08:05:51 AM
i'm pretty sure 80% of the people who consume those things are overweight or obese and will at some point if they are not already suffer from debilitating lifestyle health issues and live a very terrible set of days. you act as if things are peachy. and, huh, i always thought death was the most efficient mechanism nature invented. you're sick? make way for those of us who are not. but hey, what do i know. i'm not the one profiting by the promise to 'make you better' by paying money to prolong your miserable sad life with pills and whatever else procedures you want to have. there are very little cures, which is the holy grail, because it's not really natural or profitable.


they'd be overweight and obese whether the corn was natural or not because there is absolutely no proven mechanism by which gmo corn could cause obesity any more easily than natural corn could

you might be talking about growth hormones lol

Socks

It has the same potential, I just think we should leave things alone.

Mobius135

Quote from: N o t S i d on April 20, 2012, 02:03:52 PM
I would argue against genetically modifying plants. I don't believe that the modified plants are really healthy. Sure we may have a lot of food, but we might as well be eating garbage.


And that I certainly agree with. My theory behind this would be:

Genetically modified foods are bad. They are being fed/bred with chemicals and growth hormones. These just sound terrible for you. It's because mankind is forcing the plant to grow far beyond it's natural means. If we were to synthesize plants at the very smallest level, essentially create our own plant, one not created from any other plants DNA, but written with our own. Then we could be the ones telling it how it is supposed to grow, instead of nature. Synth-Cabbages could have DNA based off the original strands of natural Cabbage, but not from natural ones. They could be "programmed" to grow to four times the size of a natural one, and grow to it without chemicals and hormones.

Or consider this; we clone genetically modified animals like cattle and swine, but they are bred in such a way that they have no consciousness. Complete shells. Would PETA be more likely to step backward, and not see it as inhumane considering these animals are not "alive" per se? Could that lead to cleaner and more consistent food production companies?
.gif[/img]

Socks

I think they tried producing meat in a lab that is supposed to be chemically identical to real life protein but it apparently tastes like shit. Maybe consciousness is really delicious, and adds flavor beyond what we can imagine.

??????

lol they can make meat from shit

ncba93ivyase

Quote from: Socks on April 24, 2012, 04:07:59 PM
I think they tried producing meat in a lab that is supposed to be chemically identical to real life protein but it apparently tastes like shit. Maybe consciousness is really delicious, and adds flavor beyond what we can imagine.
the issue is probably in what the animal eats vs what the grown meat can't possibly ever eat

it's like how alcohol all tastes the same and it's the small impurities that give it flavor. if you can identify the elements that give a good slaughtered steak its taste and put it in the grown meat, it'll be just fine

hell certain soy burgers have shit added that make them have just enough of a meat taste that people will eat them. it can't be that hard to do the same with real meat that lacks a body

Quote from: ncba93ivyase on June 18, 2014, 07:58:34 PMthis isa great post i will use it in my sig

Socks

Probably, but I believe what is done in a lifetime can't really be replicated in a lab. Maybe one day we will all be sucking pink slime through a straw and eating engineered carcass, ummmm, yummmy. There already is 'meat glue' and other such products which replicate stake and the like, but, even if you cannot consciously distinguish the taste, I am sure your body will not be fooled, and suffer as a result. You can't turn back hundred of thousands of years of conditioning overnight, no matter what the industry may want you to believe.

Mobius135

Quote from: Socks on May 02, 2012, 07:07:40 AM
You can't turn back hundred of thousands of years of conditioning overnight, no matter what the industry may want you to believe.

Guess it's time for a jump in evolution then
.gif[/img]

Socks

Quote from: Mobius135 on May 02, 2012, 09:09:36 AM
Guess it's time for a jump in evolution then


Or a mutation. I think that's what cancer is, maybe it's trying to tell us something. All those people with tumors are really just more evolved. We need to celebrate them.

Daddy

I'm glad there's a bot printing this ATM.

silvertone

when you picture corporatoins as Barons and Obama as charlemenge then im ok with monsanto GMOs'

Kalahari Inkantation

fact: as of may 2017 gmos are still absolutely safe for human consumption and you cannot argue otherwise

Go Up