231–240 of 272 posts
In the short term, there's already a method of producing high quality protein and fats at around 90% efficiency: insects!
Now if only the Western world would get over the stigma attached to bugs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think in this case it does. Can you think of anything sci-fi that would NOT be transformative enough?
Three-dimensional chess. (Not really disagreeing. Just couldn't turn down the challenge.)
Best quote from Sergey: "If what you're doing is not seen by some people as science fiction, it's probably not transformative enough"
Once more nutritious than natural, the artificial meat will allow to overcome the current energy limitation on our brain.
Once artificial meat becomes mainstream and eating natural meat become obsolete, the human race will be able to overcome obsolete concepts wrt. human/animal intelligence, which will have profound effect on social ethic and intelligence (the share of human civilization resources going into issues of violence, enforcement (of bad rules onto good people and good rules onto bad people), wars, etc... is staggering - more than half), and, in particular, as a side effect, will open our mentality to outside contact as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a healthy level of meat intake and we far exceed it Why do you think that? I definitely eat a lot of meat, but I've never really seen any reason to think it was an inherently bad thing.
Overconsumption of red meat has been indicted, if inconsistently, for health conditions ranging from cardiovascular disease to diabetes to obesity. I haven't seen any such studies for poultry or seafood though.
I don't remember the source, but I remember reading how back in the 60s there were two divergent schools of thought on the increasing obesity epidemic from two prominent researcher, one researcher heavily backed the saturated fat theory and one heavily backed the sugar theory. For some inconsequential reason, the latter got discredited personally which led us down decades of ill-proven assumptions about how bad saturated fat was.
Do British newspapers not capitalize the word Internet? I know all American papers capitalize it because it's a proper noun. I'm wondering if that's just a recurring typo in this article or if British journalists follow a different convention.
The Guardian is pretty progressive in style terms. I think there's an increasing tendency to write it as internet and they're closer to the cutting edge than a more conservative (style-wise) newspaper like the NYT. Here are their capitalisation rules: http://www.theguardian.com/styleguide/c#id-3043710
I think that The Guardian is a very progressive paper in general, but I'm not sure that lowercasing "the Internet" is a progressive move.
The Internet is capitalized because it's a proper noun: not just any general network, but a specific global network of computers. [1] There is only one Internet. If an author is referring to a subset of the Internet, he or she should be specific and elaborate. E.g. Is the author talking about an intranet?
In other words, it seems that NOT treating the Internet as a proper noun perpetuates a misunderstanding about what it is and how it operates. It implicitly gives writers a license to be more vague in their description of computer networks.
But I'm curious to hear your take on this. What do you see as the advantages of lowercasing the word?
[1] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/capitaliz...
Do British newspapers not capitalize the word Internet? I know all American papers capitalize it because it's a proper noun. I'm wondering if that's just a recurring typo in this article or if British journalists follow a different convention.
Maybe back in the 90's.
Mostly carnivorous guy here; I have started playing around with the use of tofu and mushrooms in stead of meat and have come to the realization that it is actually a lot easier to substitute them for meat. Another, even bigger realization I have come to is that it seems that my addiction, yes, addiction, to meat and meat having to be a minimum requirement for having any interest in a dish, is that it is really a psyc…
>> Just think of how many meals have some form of meat in it. It's probably approaching 100% for most Americans that are not vegetarians. Really? Neither myself, nor 99% of the people I associate with are vegetarians, but I'd say I AT MOST 50% of my lunches and 25% of my dinners actually contain meat (and maybe 7% for breakfast). Granted, I do consider myself a heath conscious eater, and thus eat lots of veggies and…
We have a lot of entrepreneurs here. Why don't we start with an easier lab-grown animal product than something we ingest? How about lab-grown fur coats (EDIT from evilduck's comment: or lab-grown leather for clothing, furniture, shoes, etc)? Who wouldn't want to wear a "mink" coat created with no animal pain? Develop the technology on something we don't have to eat, along with the associated health risks and sensitiv…
Does it taste like despair? Seriously though, that's always my first thought when I read a story about something like this. It's like my brain can't help but cringe of the thought of eating something made this way, even if it's irrational.
Well, once they get the technology for proper fat inclusion in the meat, they can make it taste however they want. But your (and by extension, the public's) mental "cringe" is probably going to be a much bigger hurdle for them to jump over than the technology was.