I'll have the new chickenless nuggets!

Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
2,725
Best answers
0
For either space travel, or large-scale production for our planetary market, scientists have been running experiments of isolating and dividing a single muscle cell into thousands. The result? Artificial meat.

Jason Matheny said:
"With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply. And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health. In the long term, this is a very feasible idea."
Of course many different cells must be combined to give the meat an appealing taste, and the cells must be stretched and texturized like they would be in the living animal.

If the previous frankenfood scares with the genetically modified corn and whatnot were bad, you just wait. <_>
No more veggie burgers for me, I'm having a pseudo-steak!

More information.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
An interesting idea, hope it is not overided for "cost effective values",and if one cell could supply the whole earth, there should be no reason to have people starving in one area.

I wonder if it is possbile for the radical vegetarians to ***** about...
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
Overall, this is a good idea, don't you think? While it may sound like a bad idea to 'mess with mother nature,' as some call it.. Would you really deny a starving family this food?
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
SailorAlea said:
Overall, this is a good idea, don't you think? While it may sound like a bad idea to 'mess with mother nature,' as some call it.. Would you really deny a starving family this food?
That's really the best way to put it. Overall, its an excellent idea.
 
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
814
Best answers
0
More Chicken McNuggets = I am a happy camper.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
SailorAlea said:
Overall, this is a good idea, don't you think? While it may sound like a bad idea to 'mess with mother nature,' as some call it.. Would you really deny a starving family this food?

the world is overpopulated already. as harsh as it sounds. itll probably put a bigger drain on nature in the end =/ while the theory behind this is sound. and the future prospects are very good.

theres balance for a reason >_> dont **** with it.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
The world is not 'overpopulated.' You can't just throw around terms like that. A specific area may be populated, like Calcutta. But the planet is not overpopulated--it is capable of supporting many times the current worldwide population.

You're able to arrogantly say "There's a balance," because you're not in a position where you and your family or starving, nor are you in a position where you have to regularly walk by masses of starving people, while you and your family always order more food than you eat and overindulge.

It's not a matter of "balance." If half the world didn't overindulge, the other half could be fed with little to no additional growing of food.

If you take a simple course in socioeconomics, or even geography--one of the first things they teach about are the myths of overpopulation, poverty and food supply.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
well, i didnt take those courses, and i doubt that i will. but due to my capitalist upbringing. im gonna go with this, and say that sure, your right, we could feed them all, but then again, when they get used to handouts, what then? they will never learn to grow their own food, because they wont need to.

its not our (western civilisation) fault that they are in the state they are in, its largely down to themselves. and yes, i would say the same thing in their position, although it would probably be more along the lines of "we need a new government".

just giving and giving and giving doesnt make things better. it makes things worse. it makes people dependant. and thats bad.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
Of course giving people free food forever is a bad idea. Teaching them to use the technology to replicate enough food for themselves is the goal, not making it in a first world country and shipping it to them.

For whatever reason, people live in areas incapable(or just very difficult) of supporting many people, so they have to import food. Poor, arid places or secluded islands suffer from it.

Giving people the ability an infinite food source may not be a good idea (or even possible) because it could lead to uncontrolled population growth. But the huge disparity that exists today between developed and undeveloped countries is a tragedy, and one that should be lessened if we're able to do so.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
1,043
Best answers
0
Hm, Gir, let me tell you a story.

So there are these three kids, right? They live in a dirty little hovel. Every day, they just eat this breaded mush. It's just basically water and bread crumbs. The bread crumbs come from these *extremely* moldy, stale old pieces of bread which are actually supposed to be used to feed donkeys and pigs. Their mother has to buy that every day and mash it up instead of real food because it's all she can afford for them, because her husband is dead because of a war in the country, and her relatives are all either dead from famine and disease and war or they're just way too busy with their own problems. She buys this bread using the money she gets from begging in the streets every day. She has to beg because she's a woman, and where she lives they don't educate women, and without that nobody's going to give her a job.

So what should these kids do? Start a revolution? Hard to do that when you're a kid, when you're hungry, and when you know nothing about the world because you're too busy trying to live. But then, it's not really our fault. So should we just stay away, and make their government fix it's own problems? The leadership doesn't care. They live in mansions. They don't have to look at the three kids in the shack, they have cable TV and nice cars and all of that.

Maybe giving and giving and giving is a bad idea. But helping is a good idea. Because not everyone deserves to live like they do; it's not always their own fault. Heck, oftentimes the people to blame are actually sitting pretty, heh.

You and me, we're lucky. We don't need to learn how to cultivate food to survive or how to overthrow a government. All we need to learn is to give the paper to the guy behind the counter, how to register for voting, how to do trig problems and all of that mundane crap. So what's wrong with lending a hand to people who need one? Balance? You sound like a druid, lol. But you know you wouldn't be saying that if you were them. Like you said yourself, you'd try and fix things, and hey, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't mind a hand with that either. Well, step one for that, like many things, is eat.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
1,331
Best answers
0
It's a truely scary thought of how advance stuff is getting. This would solve so many problems, and it'll even satisfy vegetarians. It's like the perfect solution and as bad as things might get if this goes wrong, it's worth the risk in my opinion.
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
4,628
Best answers
0
I just doubt the saftey of "growing" meat.... i mean its not going to be like the real thing at all, and it makes me wonder pumping your body of yet another artificial replacement is going to do. Organic foods are the way nature intended, and messing with that may do us more harm than we think as that has always been the case. But if there are no risks, this sounds like a good idea...
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,309
Best answers
0
My opinion in short: :no:

I think it's terrible idea. I mean there could be something horribly gone wrong. Also, when they start feeding the poor, some people that were poor and hungry and raised in a bad enviorment might start causing criminal rate.

I have alot of other reasons I might post but im busy ATM. But thats one of the many reasons. :no:
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
The fact that "something could go horribly wrong" hasn't stopped scientific progress.

Don't you think splitting the atom, or trying to engineer viruses in order to create vaccines was dangerous?

The replication technology has numerous applications--not just "feeding the poor." Also, it couldn't be magically implemented overnight. It would be a gradual thing. Also, people who are in situations where they can't make money or grow their own food are more likely to steal it, than starve to death--wouldn't you say?
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
Um... wouldnt the cost to produce the muscle tissue be greater than the cost to simply raise the animal? It seems that if people are starving because they cant afford to buy food, a new, more expensive source of food wont help.

Of course once we are running out of land to raise animals, then this could be quite useful, but it is like natural gas. It used to be too expensive to refine so they simply burned it off, but now that fuel prices are higher, it has become cost effective to refine it. If the world population continues to rise, this could become a viable alternative to raising animals, but not until the method is perfected.

As for poor people getting fed and going out stealing stuff... um, yeah. If you have everything you need, how likely are you to steal to get it? It will improve the third and fourth world situation, but only until overpopulation kicks in. Then its the same thing all over again.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
i just wanna clarify.

i dont think its bad to help people when they need it. but i dont think the starving nations such as africa, are ready for the kind of technology your so eager to give. it would probably be detrimental to them in the long run.

as far as artificial food goes, im with david. organic > artificial, it will inevitably have more energy and nutrients in it which are needed by our bodies.
 
G-Bear
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Nov 28, 2002
Messages
762
Best answers
0
Mad_AxMan said:
i just wanna clarify.

i dont think its bad to help people when they need it. but i dont think the starving nations such as africa, are ready for the kind of technology your so eager to give. it would probably be detrimental to them in the long run.

as far as artificial food goes, im with david. organic > artificial, it will inevitably have more energy and nutrients in it which are needed by our bodies.
Artificial food can be just as good or better then organic food.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
2,725
Best answers
0
Mad_AxMan said:
organic > artificial, it will inevitably have more energy and nutrients in it which are needed by our bodies.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. =/

The article said:
"There would be a lot of benefits from cultured meat," says Matheny, who studies agricultural economics and public health. "For one thing, you could control the nutrients. For example, most meats are high in the fatty acid Omega 6, which can cause high cholesterol and other health problems. With in vitro meat, you could replace that with Omega 3, which is a healthy fat.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top