Organs can now be grown!

[Rinnhart]

Hey, hey, hey, can't we all just chill out, get a frosty, and enjoy a 99¢ vat-grown chicken nugget meal?

That brings me back to the Asimov's Caves of Steel "Yeast for dinner again mom?" text. Also, there were rumours that KFC officially changed their name to specifically avoid having the word "Chicken" in their name because they engineered meat on a mass-production level that wasn't necessarily chicken. Unfortunately for that conspiracy, Chicken farms are far cheaper, and such technology didn't seem possible... until now.

So where's my instant hamburger in a beaker? Much better than fish at fora.

The "KFC isn't chicken" is a rumor that's been around for years and I wouldn't doubt is some form of viral advertising. It resurfaced with renewed vigor after their most recent attempt at rebranding with the slogan "Kitchen Fresh Chicken" (which is incredibly lame, I can't believe they actually spent money on those ads).

I'm definately looking forward to lab-grown food if they can get it to taste right. Of course, my concern becomes the lack of healthy filth to digest if they do it too perfectly.

[Guest]

Wrong again.

Paedo-morphogenesis is why dogs look the way they do. Its also the reason humans look as we do, but the reasons are different.

Paedo-morphogenesis is the evolutionary mechanism to incorperate child charateristics into an adult.

Generic dogs(standard mutt look found all around the world) look as they do because when bred for friendliness what actually happens is some puppy behavior charactirists are breed into adults. The modifying of behavior development also tended to modify physical development.

The was actually proven when a Russian scientist decided to breed friendly foxes for fur farms. He spend half his life on the project, in the end he had with foxes that looked like short mutt dogs and had dog like fur useless for coats.

In humans paedo-morphogenesis is considered to be the mechanism by which we got our larger craniums relative to our bodies than apes have. A secondary effect is that we dont have protruding jaws.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I disagree.
Also that is not the definition of survial. Survivial has a rather simple definition - not dying.
You dont really seem to understand the defintion of defintion.
[right][snapback]106402[/snapback][/right]

This time, I think, you're the one that doesn't understand. It is not survival of the individual that matters, it is survival of the species. There are many examples in nature of species that die in the course of reproducing. As long as the next generation at least replaces the population that died, that species survives. There are even many cases in which a species has a 'handicap' (usually in the male) that is selected for when the opposite sex is looking for a mate (examples are the peacock and the long tailed sparrow as well as many fish). The basis is that the individuals of that species having the greatest handicap and surviving to reproduce are the hardiest and thus the best mating partners.

The other thing that bugs me about this whole debate is that so many people have subscribed to the 'technology and modern life is not natural'. This is just the Luddite position put forward by ignorant people. The intelligence and tool using ability that gave us technology is the direct outcome of the evolutionary processes that selected for those characteristics hundreds or thousands of millenia ago. That we are still evolving, and evolving to better fit the environment we have created, has been indicated in some recent studies.

Yeah, most of us aren't fit to live in the woods and fight grizzlies for our meals. If that is your idea of natural, and you think that the attributes useful then are what we should have today, you are overlooking that that is no longer our niche. We are evolved to live in some form of civilization, and to use the tools we've developed to improve our life. Stephen Hawkins with his strong brain and weak body is better suited to our modern environment than is Schwarzenegger, in spite of his bulging muscles and loud ignorant mouth. The only drawback I see is that we've become too successful, intelligence coupled with tool use is too much of an advantage. We're driving out other species and ruining the overall environment. But we're not unique, the barrenness of the Middle East and much of North Africa is as much due to goats as to any other force. Locust devour all in their path making the local environment unsuited for themselves, which s part of the reason that they swarm only every so many years. Other examples abound.

--Pete

PS "I restate everything simple for your little brain." is precisely the kind of comment that makes me think you don't know crap. And that should get you shut down for a cooling off period -- or even permanently.

[Guest]

Read my other posts in this thread before making exspansive comments on my understanding.
Its clear that I understand that evolution opperates with in populations not individuals. Perhaps you are unaware that a population can die - its also called extinction. I was making it simple though because Drasca seems to have a bad time with definitions.

Also my insulting someone has no bearing on whether or not I am right. If you choose to think it does - I wont stop you. however.




And as to you implying I am a ludite - read closer before you rush to the side of down trodden here.
I made no values judgments on technology. I specifically mentioned the effects on biological evolution serveral places.

The one point I didnt disagree with Drasca on was that if you are willing to view "cyborgs" as evolution beyond simple biology then evolution is working fine. If however you feel the biological aspect of humanity is important then we may be in trouble.
This is also in lie with the only real substance in your post.





PS - try harder if you want to flame me.

[jahcs]

Also my insulting someone has no bearing on whether or not I am right. If you choose to think it does - I wont stop you. however.
[right][snapback]106461[/snapback][/right]

Then why bother? Seriously, the tone of many of these posts by many of our members is making my bile rise. If I wanted to be subjected to this much piss 'n vinegar I'd go to the DMV.

[Guest]

Then why bother?  Seriously, the tone of many of these posts by many of our members is making my bile rise.  If I wanted to be subjected to this much piss 'n vinegar I'd go to the DMV.
[right][snapback]106462[/snapback][/right]

I insulted because Drasca misrepresented what I had said, either that or he simply didnt understand and flamed anyway.

I dont insult people for disagreeing with me, but dishonesty gets my goat.

[Griselda]

I insulted because Drasca misrepresented what I had said, either that or he simply didnt understand and flamed anyway.

I dont insult people for disagreeing with me, but dishonesty gets my goat.
[right][snapback]106464[/snapback][/right]

Wouldn't it be great if we all got to choose when we felt it was OK to start insulting people? :o

I can't see that the "I decided it was OK to insult" standard would work for everyone, and I really don't see why we should make a special exception for you.

Also, if you think that Pete was calling you, specifically, a Luddite, perhaps you need to go back and read his post.

edit- spelling

[eppie]

You are mixing 2 isues and get a nonsense deduction.


Technoloogy is making the the human species biologically weaker and it is not increaeing mental capacity as a trade off.
[right][snapback]106386[/snapback][/right]

tututu a nonsense deduction.....

I agree with you on most things, I just wanted to put (an important) side note to the story.

Basicly, as humans we don't have anything to do anymore with evolution, and that is because we understand it.....and we understand a lot of other things.

The way we act however is still very much darwinesk. Every singel individual tries to survive.

About your discussion with Pete. I have the feeling you are just talking past eachother.
You are both right. Evolution, how we see it is a survival of a group thing....however, the individuals don't see it that way, they just want to survive themselves.


(on second notice; I have the idea that everybody here (including myself) are talking past eachother....it might not be a bad idea to let this thread go :D )

[Chaerophon]

I insulted because Drasca misrepresented what I had said, either that or he simply didnt understand and flamed anyway.

I dont insult people for disagreeing with me, but dishonesty gets my goat.
[right][snapback]106464[/snapback][/right]

Ghost, I've never seen you "lose" or "agree to disagree" in a discussion, argument, or debate where you didn't end up flaming. I'm not saying that you've "lost" this one, I'm not even sure if this qualifies as a coherent "discussion". However, as much as you like to flame away at those whom you feel are "dishonest", you don't seem to enter discussion with a willingness to help others learn or see your point. Enlightened discussion isn't about flailing away madly until someone else agrees with you - it's about leading people to see the merits of your argument. Sometimes it takes some extra effort - especially when there are occasional "communication" glitches on your part. If you were really interested in enlightened discussion, I think that you would choose more often to elaborate on your points rather than resorting to instant flames as soon as someone disagrees with you (even if they DO disagree as a result of being ill-informed or from what you like to call "dishonest" perspectives. How many of those that you claim are being dishonest do you think actually realize that their premises are flawed/merely semantic/etc.?)

Enlightened discussion is pleasant and helpful for all involved. It may be heated, but it is never disrespectful. If the discussion is so bad here, if your ideas are wasted on such a bunch of fools, then why do you stick around? Is this really your idea of a good time? You're a smart guy, and I can't understand your insistence on belligerence. I enjoy the company of the lounge, and I enjoy the chance to discuss things in a reasonably "enlightened" setting. Lots of people here know lots of things that I don't, and, in general, I'm willing to be courteous when I disagree with them so that if I'm wrong, they'll take the time to show me why.

[Guest]

I feel he did imply it. So I pointed it out, I did that politely though.


Notice the difference between Pete infering and me saying Pete infered as oppposed to Drasca who ascribed an absurd position to me.

[Drasca]

The other thing that bugs me about this whole debate is that so many people have subscribed to the 'technology and modern life is not natural'.  This is just the Luddite position put forward by ignorant people.  [right][snapback]106448[/snapback][/right]

I had hoped the backwards notion of Vitalism, the idea that 'alive' elements and 'not alive' elements are fundamentally different, specificially "the theory that the chemicals of living organisms are fundamentally different from inanimate matter", was disproved with the discovery of synthetic Urea. Looks like that knowledge hasn't taken root.

my concern becomes the lack of healthy filth to digest if they do it too perfectly.

There's always the unhealthy filth standby...

PS: Ghost, I won't play your games. Goodbye.

edit: added synthetic

[Guest]

Not so.

I doubt you will ever find me flaming someone for an opinion on a subject, unless its racist, facsist, or possibly violent or perverse(I mean general accepted perversions not being gay and the like.)

Almost all my flames are because of how someone argued rather than the subject they argued on.

Although I suppose the definition of flame could vary from mine.


Anyway Im done here the subject has become about me and Im not a good read.

[Rinnhart]

There's always the unhealthy filth standby...

[right][snapback]106479[/snapback][/right]

Which becomes REALLY unhealthy if no one's been eating the dirt and manure with their side-salad.

[Munkay]

Ghost, I've never seen you "lose" or "agree to disagree" in a discussion, argument, or debate where you didn't end up flaming.  I'm not saying that you've "lost" this one, I'm not even sure if this qualifies as a coherent "discussion".  However, as much as you like to flame away at those whom you feel are "dishonest", you don't seem to enter discussion with a willingness to help others learn or see your point.  Enlightened discussion isn't about flailing away madly until someone else agrees with you - it's about leading people to see the merits of your argument.  Sometimes it takes some extra effort - especially when there are occasional "communication" glitches on your part.  If you were really interested in enlightened discussion, I think that you would choose more often to elaborate on your points rather than resorting to instant flames as soon as someone disagrees with you (even if they DO disagree as a result of being ill-informed or from what you like to call "dishonest" perspectives.  How many of those that you claim are being dishonest do you think actually realize that their premises are flawed/merely semantic/etc.?) 

Enlightened discussion is pleasant and helpful for all involved.  It may be heated, but it is never disrespectful.  If the discussion is so bad here, if your ideas are wasted on such a bunch of fools, then why do you stick around?  Is this really your idea of a good time?  You're a smart guy, and I can't understand your insistence on belligerence.  I enjoy the company of the lounge, and I enjoy the chance to discuss things in a reasonably "enlightened" setting.  Lots of people here know lots of things that I don't, and, in general, I'm willing to be courteous when I disagree with them so that if I'm wrong, they'll take the time to show me why.
[right][snapback]106472[/snapback][/right]

Well stated. N/T :shuriken:

Cheers,

Munk

[Occhidiangela]

Not so.

I doubt you will ever find me flaming someone for an opinion on a subject, unless its racist, facsist, or possibly violent or perverse(I mean general accepted perversions not being gay and the like.)

Almost all my flames are because of how someone argued rather than the subject they argued on.

Although I suppose the definition of flame could vary from mine.
Anyway Im done here the subject has become about me and Im not a good read.
[right][snapback]106480[/snapback][/right]

Why did the image of an Oblivion Knight just leap into my brain?

*checks to see if any vodka was accidentally added to coffee this morning.*

Move along, nothing to see here.

Occhi

[Chesspiece_face]

Why did the image of an Oblivion Knight just leap into my brain? 

*checks to see if any vodka was accidentally added to coffee this morning.*

Move along, nothing to see here. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]106515[/snapback][/right]

Lisa needs braces.
DENTAL PLAN!
lisa needs braces.
DENTAL PLAN!
lisa needs braces.
DENTAL PLAN!

[Taem]

[right][snapback]106442[/snapback][/right]

I'm sure I'll get in trouble for my opinion, but here it goes:

It seems to me that the *race* issue has some merit genetically speaking. For example, it is my understanding that most African-Americans have the gene that can produce Sickle Cell Anemia (sp?) later in life. Also, there was an AIDS vaccine in development about three years ago that, when tested on a large group of people produced reults which were much better in certian ethnicities than others (something to the effect of 65% for African Americans, 45% for Chinese, 35% for Hispanics, and 5% for Caucasians). If I can find the article, I will link it because I'm almost positive the percents I listed are incorrect, however the discrepancy between races was huge and clear to see. It got me thinking that maybe we need to start examining the way we develop medicines for the masses by producing cures based on our individual needs because what works well for one person doesn’t always work best for *me* (or you). In regards to the discussion at hand, I don’t know if genetics would play such a huge factor in our evolution in this day and age, but still I think it should be considered.

[Concillian]

I predict there will be a special "organically grown" versions

This post is 100% organic groan.

[Occhidiangela]

I predict there will be a special "organically grown" versions

This post is 100% organic groan.
[right][snapback]106529[/snapback][/right]

*Gollum voice*

"Ow, ow! It hurts us, Precious, it hurts us! Take it off, take it off!"

*sips Gollum juice*

/Gollum voice

Occhi

[jahcs]

*sips Gollum juice*
[right][snapback]106534[/snapback][/right]

Is that like soylent green, or more like Snapple? :o