However, it may be important if it can be viable in terms of both consumer adoption and production amount. After all, population is ever growing here on Earth. Plus, with all the talk about colonies on Mars, such as Mars One's one way trip for astronauts, this might prove useful in extraplanetary endeavors.
one thing to note - there is zero fat. so it doesn't hold together after being ground, and has not much flavor.
Quote:
Scientists agreed that improving the flavor won't be hard.
"Taste is the least (important) problem since this could be controlled by letting some of the stem cells develop into fat cells," said Stig Omholt, director of biotechnology at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Adding fat to the burgers this way would probably be healthier than getting it from naturally chunky cows, said Omholt, who was not involved in the project. He called Monday's tasting a publicity stunt — but not in a bad way. He said it was a smart way to draw public attention, and possibly investor funds, to efforts to develop lab-grown meat.
Look, we're already having issues with genetically altered wheat, now they're messing with beef?
No. ( And I'm not a big beef consumer, it's really not good for you anyway.I'll have a steak occasionally as a treat, but maybe 6 or 7 a year and that's it.)
If I'm going to eat beef (or any meat, really) I want to know that it had a mom, damn it. The "flavour" that's missing isn't from fat, it's from the hopes and dreams of the cow.
This is why veal is so tender: innocence and youthful hope permeate the meat. So delicious!
As I'm fond of singing in the grocery store when Ms. Plato says we can have veal: "Little baby moo-moo went running through the pasture. Along came the farmer and shot him in the head." *toss veal into cart. (It's important to singing the lines to the tune of Itsy-Bitsy Spider)
If I'm going to eat beef (or any meat, really) I want to know that it had a mom, damn it. The "flavour" that's missing isn't from fat, it's from the hopes and dreams of the cow.
This is why veal is so tender: innocence and youthful hope permeate the meat. So delicious!
As I'm fond of singing in the grocery store when Ms. Plato says we can have veal: "Little baby moo-moo went running through the pasture. Along came the farmer and shot him in the head." *toss veal into cart. (It's important to singing the lines to the tune of Itsy-Bitsy Spider)
LOL
Oldschool 2o4f wrote:
Look, we're already having issues with genetically altered wheat, now they're messing with beef?
No. ( And I'm not a big beef consumer, it's really not good for you anyway.I'll have a steak occasionally as a treat, but maybe 6 or 7 a year and that's it.)
We aren't having issues with GMO wheat, since GMO wheat isn't even allowed to be sold. There was a case where some was found in the wild recently, but that's hardly a mass public health issue.
If I'm going to eat beef (or any meat, really) I want to know that it had a mom, damn it. The "flavour" that's missing isn't from fat, it's from the hopes and dreams of the cow.
This is why veal is so tender: innocence and youthful hope permeate the meat. So delicious!
As I'm fond of singing in the grocery store when Ms. Plato says we can have veal: "Little baby moo-moo went running through the pasture. Along came the farmer and shot him in the head." *toss veal into cart. (It's important to singing the lines to the tune of Itsy-Bitsy Spider)
LOL
Oldschool 2o4f wrote:
Look, we're already having issues with genetically altered wheat, now they're messing with beef?
No. ( And I'm not a big beef consumer, it's really not good for you anyway.I'll have a steak occasionally as a treat, but maybe 6 or 7 a year and that's it.)
We aren't having issues with GMO wheat, since GMO wheat isn't even allowed to be sold. There was a case where some was found in the wild recently, but that's hardly a mass public health issue.
Wrong. Never said GMO, and technically the word "genetic" may be improper, lets say hybridized? It's semantics...
Modern wheat has been hybridized (crossing different strains to generate new characteristics; 5% of proteins generated in the offspring, for instance, are not present in either parent), backcrossed (repeated crossing to winnow out a specific trait, e.g., short stature), and hybridized with non-wheat plants (to introduce entirely unique genes). There are also chemical-, gamma-, and x-ray mutagenesis, i.e., the use of obnoxious stimuli to induce mutations that can then be propagated in offpspring. This is how BASF’s Clearfield wheat was created, for example, by exposing the seeds and embryos to the industrial chemical, sodium azide, that is highly toxic to humans.
Now, if that DOESN'T end up genetically altered as an end result, I don't know what is. But no, it wasn't gene spliced in a lab.
If I'm going to eat beef (or any meat, really) I want to know that it had a mom, damn it. The "flavour" that's missing isn't from fat, it's from the hopes and dreams of the cow.
This is why veal is so tender: innocence and youthful hope permeate the meat. So delicious!
As I'm fond of singing in the grocery store when Ms. Plato says we can have veal: "Little baby moo-moo went running through the pasture. Along came the farmer and shot him in the head." *toss veal into cart. (It's important to singing the lines to the tune of Itsy-Bitsy Spider)
I read it to the tune of Little Bunny Foo Foo. Now I can’t seem to do it to Itsy Bitsy. Regardless, this makes me happy.
most crops have been altered from their original state in order to be more useful for humans. Look at corn in the original natural state hundreds of years ago.
most crops have been altered from their original state in order to be more useful for humans. Look at corn in the original natural state hundreds of years ago.
Read what I write, and respond to that - not what you think I wrote ( sound familar?). I said wheat. Don't misdirect to corn, which is crap nutritionally anyway.
No, most crops have been altered to make them easier to grow, last longer after harvest and more profitable to the seller...
nutritional value and the consumer's are way down the list...if you read the one link, this crap goes back to the late 60's early 70's.
Uh why did you rewrite what I wrote as if it was wrong but yours was right? Are those not useful traits for humans?
Wow, I think we just speak different languages you and me. Probably best just to ignore each others' posts because we obviously don't understand each other.
Uh why did you rewrite what I wrote as if it was wrong but yours was right? Are those not useful traits for humans?
Wow, I think we just speak different languages you and me. Probably best just to ignore each others' posts because we obviously don't understand each other.
The nutritonal value of wheat is compromised because its been made in such a way to increase profit and durability at the expense of the, again, nutrional value and health of those that eat it. It benefits the seller, NOT the consumer. If that's what you meant, then we agree, but I doubt it.
Technically, any grown crop has been "genetically modified" since the first group of farmers started planting instead of harvesting. The only difference between using modern genetic engineering techniques and ancient crop selection methods is time. Between cross-breeding (hybridization) different species and selectively breed (or pollenating, as I'm solely discussing crops, not animals) for specific traits, ancient farmers could achieve similar results to any genetically modified crop. It's just that to get the same result they'd have to have access to different strains of crops that had the traits that were desired and then cultivate, likely thousands or more, of individual specimen before getting the "super" crop they wanted.
Using genetic engineering, you "just" take the genes from one strain that has qualities you want, combine with other traits from other strains in the same way, put those into a vehicle to effect pollination (or whatever method you're going to use to germinate a seed) and grow. They may have to cultivate hundreds instead of thousands or more to get the result they want. Exact same outcome though.
Now, adding hormones to livestock as opposed to growing for certain traits? Yeah, that I'm not ok with. Genetically modify your cow to produce more milk? Sure, go for it. It's just not done because of the complexity of mammals versus plants. It's cheaper to take a normal cow, pump it (or it's feed) full of chemicals to encourage milk production than it is to make Betsy, Super Udder Cow of Much Lactaction.
Even GMO crops that are breed with insectides in them are completely natually occuring; it's a gene sequence taken from something in nature to produce a desired effect. Now, maybe you wouldn't eat the source plant because it tastes like insectide-riden ass, as opposed to yummy, glucose-filled corn, but they don't inject poisonous insectide into the seed and it grows that way. They simply take a gene from a plant that naturally produces the poisonous insectide into the corn genome so that the corn can produce it as well. Completely natural! (disclaimer: you may not want to eat the poisonous insectide even if it is natural. You know what else is natural? Hemlock. Don't eat that.)
Technically, any grown crop has been "genetically modified" since the first group of farmers started planting instead of harvesting. The only difference between using modern genetic engineering techniques and ancient crop selection methods is time. Between cross-breeding (hybridization) different species and selectively breed (or pollenating, as I'm solely discussing crops, not animals) for specific traits, ancient farmers could achieve similar results to any genetically modified crop. It's just that to get the same result they'd have to have access to different strains of crops that had the traits that were desired and then cultivate, likely thousands or more, of individual specimen before getting the "super" crop they wanted.
Using genetic engineering, you "just" take the genes from one strain that has qualities you want, combine with other traits from other strains in the same way, put those into a vehicle to effect pollination (or whatever method you're going to use to germinate a seed) and grow. They may have to cultivate hundreds instead of thousands or more to get the result they want. Exact same outcome though.
Now, adding hormones to livestock as opposed to growing for certain traits? Yeah, that I'm not ok with. Genetically modify your cow to produce more milk? Sure, go for it. It's just not done because of the complexity of mammals versus plants. It's cheaper to take a normal cow, pump it (or it's feed) full of chemicals to encourage milk production than it is to make Betsy, Super Udder Cow of Much Lactaction.
Even GMO crops that are breed with insectides in them are completely natually occuring; it's a gene sequence taken from something in nature to produce a desired effect. Now, maybe you wouldn't eat the source plant because it tastes like insectide-riden ass, as opposed to yummy, glucose-filled corn, but they don't inject poisonous insectide into the seed and it grows that way. They simply take a gene from a plant that naturally produces the poisonous insectide into the corn genome so that the corn can produce it as well. Completely natural! (disclaimer: you may not want to eat the poisonous insectide even if it is natural. You know what else is natural? Hemlock. Don't eat that.)
Actually gentically modifying and organism and selective breeding are two totaly different processes in the way they are practiced. Selective breeding takes place over many generations of the organism, historicly this has happened over hundreds and even thousands of years in the case of some staple foods. We have been able to co-evolve along with our food so that we adapt to each other for maximized benifit. Genitic modification (bio chemical gene splicing) rapidly accelerates this. Such accelaration greatly eliminates the naturall culling of new starins that are not as benifical to us. It also is not limited to the genes from the altered plant, GM has in some cases been used to introduce gene sequences from other animals like jellyfish, catiplliars, and other plants that humas cannot eat. I think this is where most of the probems with GMO's lie. Your last statements about the Hemlock is a great analogy. If the corn now naturally produces a toxin that kills bugs that would "eat the corn", what if that same toxin causes problems with humans. The cost and speed at which GMO's are produced don't lend through evalution of such issues. I am not 100% against GMO products from a principal standpoint, but the application of this very powerful tool has been for the purpose of making more money, not necessialry more nutrutious food.
Technically, any grown crop has been "genetically modified" since the first group of farmers started planting instead of harvesting. The only difference between using modern genetic engineering techniques and ancient crop selection methods is time. Between cross-breeding (hybridization) different species and selectively breed (or pollenating, as I'm solely discussing crops, not animals) for specific traits, ancient farmers could achieve similar results to any genetically modified crop. It's just that to get the same result they'd have to have access to different strains of crops that had the traits that were desired and then cultivate, likely thousands or more, of individual specimen before getting the "super" crop they wanted.
Using genetic engineering, you "just" take the genes from one strain that has qualities you want, combine with other traits from other strains in the same way, put those into a vehicle to effect pollination (or whatever method you're going to use to germinate a seed) and grow. They may have to cultivate hundreds instead of thousands or more to get the result they want. Exact same outcome though.
Now, adding hormones to livestock as opposed to growing for certain traits? Yeah, that I'm not ok with. Genetically modify your cow to produce more milk? Sure, go for it. It's just not done because of the complexity of mammals versus plants. It's cheaper to take a normal cow, pump it (or it's feed) full of chemicals to encourage milk production than it is to make Betsy, Super Udder Cow of Much Lactaction.
Even GMO crops that are breed with insectides in them are completely natually occuring; it's a gene sequence taken from something in nature to produce a desired effect. Now, maybe you wouldn't eat the source plant because it tastes like insectide-riden ass, as opposed to yummy, glucose-filled corn, but they don't inject poisonous insectide into the seed and it grows that way. They simply take a gene from a plant that naturally produces the poisonous insectide into the corn genome so that the corn can produce it as well. Completely natural! (disclaimer: you may not want to eat the poisonous insectide even if it is natural. You know what else is natural? Hemlock. Don't eat that.)
Actually gentically modifying and organism and selective breeding are two totaly different processes in the way they are practiced. Selective breeding takes place over many generations of the organism, historicly this has happened over hundreds and even thousands of years in the case of some staple foods. We have been able to co-evolve along with our food so that we adapt to each other for maximized benifit. Genitic modification (bio chemical gene splicing) rapidly accelerates this. Such accelaration greatly eliminates the naturall culling of new starins that are not as benifical to us. It also is not limited to the genes from the altered plant, GM has in some cases been used to introduce gene sequences from other animals like jellyfish, catiplliars, and other plants that humas cannot eat. I think this is where most of the probems with GMO's lie. Your last statements about the Hemlock is a great analogy. If the corn now naturally produces a toxin that kills bugs that would "eat the corn", what if that same toxin causes problems with humans. The cost and speed at which GMO's are produced don't lend through evalution of such issues. I am not 100% against GMO products from a principal standpoint, but the application of this very powerful tool has been for the purpose of making more money, not necessialry more nutrutious food.
Technically, any grown crop has been "genetically modified" since the first group of farmers started planting instead of harvesting. The only difference between using modern genetic engineering techniques and ancient crop selection methods is time. Between cross-breeding (hybridization) different species and selectively breed (or pollenating, as I'm solely discussing crops, not animals) for specific traits, ancient farmers could achieve similar results to any genetically modified crop. It's just that to get the same result they'd have to have access to different strains of crops that had the traits that were desired and then cultivate, likely thousands or more, of individual specimen before getting the "super" crop they wanted.
Using genetic engineering, you "just" take the genes from one strain that has qualities you want, combine with other traits from other strains in the same way, put those into a vehicle to effect pollination (or whatever method you're going to use to germinate a seed) and grow. They may have to cultivate hundreds instead of thousands or more to get the result they want. Exact same outcome though.
Now, adding hormones to livestock as opposed to growing for certain traits? Yeah, that I'm not ok with. Genetically modify your cow to produce more milk? Sure, go for it. It's just not done because of the complexity of mammals versus plants. It's cheaper to take a normal cow, pump it (or it's feed) full of chemicals to encourage milk production than it is to make Betsy, Super Udder Cow of Much Lactaction.
Even GMO crops that are breed with insectides in them are completely natually occuring; it's a gene sequence taken from something in nature to produce a desired effect. Now, maybe you wouldn't eat the source plant because it tastes like insectide-riden ass, as opposed to yummy, glucose-filled corn, but they don't inject poisonous insectide into the seed and it grows that way. They simply take a gene from a plant that naturally produces the poisonous insectide into the corn genome so that the corn can produce it as well. Completely natural! (disclaimer: you may not want to eat the poisonous insectide even if it is natural. You know what else is natural? Hemlock. Don't eat that.)
Actually gentically modifying and organism and selective breeding are two totaly different processes in the way they are practiced. Selective breeding takes place over many generations of the organism, historicly this has happened over hundreds and even thousands of years in the case of some staple foods. We have been able to co-evolve along with our food so that we adapt to each other for maximized benifit. Genitic modification (bio chemical gene splicing) rapidly accelerates this. Such accelaration greatly eliminates the naturall culling of new starins that are not as benifical to us. It also is not limited to the genes from the altered plant, GM has in some cases been used to introduce gene sequences from other animals like jellyfish, catiplliars, and other plants that humas cannot eat. I think this is where most of the probems with GMO's lie. Your last statements about the Hemlock is a great analogy. If the corn now naturally produces a toxin that kills bugs that would "eat the corn", what if that same toxin causes problems with humans. The cost and speed at which GMO's are produced don't lend through evalution of such issues. I am not 100% against GMO products from a principal standpoint, but the application of this very powerful tool has been for the purpose of making more money, not necessialry more nutrutious food.
I agree 100% with what you're saying. Indeed, that's what I meant by "the only difference is time". Perhaps using an example of a few thousand was .... low. >.>
Natural selection and iterative isn't necesasrily better than bio-chemical gene-splicing either; there's no guarrantee that new strains that aren't beneficial to use would be culled. The hyper-iterative process of GMO is likely to produce more strains more quickly, allowing for optimal selection. Now, Oldschool brought up an excellent point earlier: those that pay for the R&D into these strains have bottom-line concerns ahead of altruistic reasons for GMO. But that's another discussion into the role of government in developing regulations.
The addition of non-plant genes into crops is something I hadn't heard of; how would, say, a catepillar gene even be active and functioning within a crop gene, for example? I would have thought that it would have just resulted in clutter in the genome, though obviously (perhaps painfully so) my familiarity with genetic engineering and what's capable is a passing curiousity.
You know what, Little Bunny Foo Foo is probably the one I originally used, and makes a much better cadence to boot.
It's especially fun do to around people that didn't know veal was baby cow. The horror, the horror.
Edit:
I tried to go back and edit my original, but apparently that's a time-sensitive feature now. v3 FAIL, Doodi, v3 fail. *Sheldon head shake of disapproval*
This is something I've never understood about cannibalism: you don't get the hopes, dreams, and innocence. Legend has it that ancient warriors (usually attributed to Aztecs, I believe) would eat the hearts of their fallen enemies to gain the courage and strenfth of their foes. But what I don't get is, if you defeated them, aren't you just gaining their weakness? By the fact that you're eating their heart, you're consuming fail and lose!
This defeats the purpose of not eating cows (especially veal!), pigs, chickens, and so on. The yummy taste comes from their hopes and dreams! Freedom and innocence! That's the taste I want, not the mediocrity, hopelessness and apathy of the people that would end up in the soylent green meat grinder. Those people didn't have hopes or dreams! They had broken dreams and lives of failure that ended in tragedy. I expect better from my food!
Why do you think I care about the ethical treatment of livestock? Because I don't want them to suffer? Shit, I'm eating them, I don't care about their long life and happiness; I care that they're happy and clueless until they die. Why do you think wild animals taste "gamey"? Because of struggle and strife! And the people that eat wild animals are as foolish as the Aztec warrior that eat the heart of a fallen warrior; you're doin' it wrong, son, you want the trusting, happy ones.
So now that you know better, go forth and selfishly push for better treatment of animals in captivity. Trust me, it's freedom and happiness you can taste.
This is something I've never understood about cannibalism: you don't get the hopes, dreams, and innocence. Legend has it that ancient warriors (usually attributed to Aztecs, I believe) would eat the hearts of their fallen enemies to gain the courage and strenfth of their foes. But what I don't get is, if you defeated them, aren't you just gaining their weakness? By the fact that you're eating their heart, you're consuming fail and lose!
This defeats the purpose of not eating cows (especially veal!), pigs, chickens, and so on. The yummy taste comes from their hopes and dreams! Freedom and innocence! That's the taste I want, not the mediocrity, hopelessness and apathy of the people that would end up in the soylent green meat grinder. Those people didn't have hopes or dreams! They had broken dreams and lives of failure that ended in tragedy. I expect better from my food!
Why do you think I care about the ethical treatment of livestock? Because I don't want them to suffer? Shit, I'm eating them, I don't care about their long life and happiness; I care that they're happy and clueless until they die. Why do you think wild animals taste "gamey"? Because of struggle and strife! And the people that eat wild animals are as foolish as the Aztec warrior that eat the heart of a fallen warrior; you're doin' it wrong, son, you want the trusting, happy ones.
So now that you know better, go forth and selfishly push for better treatment of animals in captivity. Trust me, it's freedom and happiness you can taste.
Wife says mistreated animals give off a bad mix of hormones or something in the meat which is one of the reasons ethical treatment of animals (food) is desired...
SO, Plato's kinda right...albeit waaaaaaaay out on the right....
Wife says mistreated animals give off a bad mix of hormones or something in the meat which is one of the reasons ethical treatment of animals (food) is desired...
SO, Plato's kinda right...albeit waaaaaaaay out on the right....
That's... expensive.
However, it may be important if it can be viable in terms of both consumer adoption and production amount. After all, population is ever growing here on Earth. Plus, with all the talk about colonies on Mars, such as Mars One's one way trip for astronauts, this might prove useful in extraplanetary endeavors.
pass
Umm, no.
Wimps.
one thing to note - there is zero fat. so it doesn't hold together after being ground, and has not much flavor.
Look, we're already having issues with genetically altered wheat, now they're messing with beef?
No. ( And I'm not a big beef consumer, it's really not good for you anyway.I'll have a steak occasionally as a treat, but maybe 6 or 7 a year and that's it.)
If I'm going to eat beef (or any meat, really) I want to know that it had a mom, damn it. The "flavour" that's missing isn't from fat, it's from the hopes and dreams of the cow.
This is why veal is so tender: innocence and youthful hope permeate the meat. So delicious!
As I'm fond of singing in the grocery store when Ms. Plato says we can have veal: "Little baby moo-moo went running through the pasture. Along came the farmer and shot him in the head." *toss veal into cart. (It's important to singing the lines to the tune of Itsy-Bitsy Spider)
LOL
We aren't having issues with GMO wheat, since GMO wheat isn't even allowed to be sold. There was a case where some was found in the wild recently, but that's hardly a mass public health issue.
Wrong. Never said GMO, and technically the word "genetic" may be improper, lets say hybridized? It's semantics...
Modern wheat has been hybridized (crossing different strains to generate new characteristics; 5% of proteins generated in the offspring, for instance, are not present in either parent), backcrossed (repeated crossing to winnow out a specific trait, e.g., short stature), and hybridized with non-wheat plants (to introduce entirely unique genes). There are also chemical-, gamma-, and x-ray mutagenesis, i.e., the use of obnoxious stimuli to induce mutations that can then be propagated in offpspring. This is how BASF’s Clearfield wheat was created, for example, by exposing the seeds and embryos to the industrial chemical, sodium azide, that is highly toxic to humans.
Now, if that DOESN'T end up genetically altered as an end result, I don't know what is. But no, it wasn't gene spliced in a lab.
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/02/wheat-is-not-genetically-modified/
https://level4now.com/gmo-wheats-new-protein-a-key-to-obesity
http://www.the-age-of-woman.com/Wheat-GMO.html
I read it to the tune of Little Bunny Foo Foo. Now I can’t seem to do it to Itsy Bitsy. Regardless, this makes me happy.
most crops have been altered from their original state in order to be more useful for humans. Look at corn in the original natural state hundreds of years ago.
Read what I write, and respond to that - not what you think I wrote ( sound familar?). I said wheat. Don't misdirect to corn, which is crap nutritionally anyway.
No, most crops have been altered to make them easier to grow, last longer after harvest and more profitable to the seller...
nutritional value and the consumer's are way down the list...if you read the one link, this crap goes back to the late 60's early 70's.
Uh why did you rewrite what I wrote as if it was wrong but yours was right? Are those not useful traits for humans?
Wow, I think we just speak different languages you and me. Probably best just to ignore each others' posts because we obviously don't understand each other.
The nutritonal value of wheat is compromised because its been made in such a way to increase profit and durability at the expense of the, again, nutrional value and health of those that eat it. It benefits the seller, NOT the consumer. If that's what you meant, then we agree, but I doubt it.
I do agree you and I are through.
Now kiss.
Where's my ribs? Now if they can grow it with bbq sauce, that's a bus I can get on.
Technically, any grown crop has been "genetically modified" since the first group of farmers started planting instead of harvesting. The only difference between using modern genetic engineering techniques and ancient crop selection methods is time. Between cross-breeding (hybridization) different species and selectively breed (or pollenating, as I'm solely discussing crops, not animals) for specific traits, ancient farmers could achieve similar results to any genetically modified crop. It's just that to get the same result they'd have to have access to different strains of crops that had the traits that were desired and then cultivate, likely thousands or more, of individual specimen before getting the "super" crop they wanted.
Using genetic engineering, you "just" take the genes from one strain that has qualities you want, combine with other traits from other strains in the same way, put those into a vehicle to effect pollination (or whatever method you're going to use to germinate a seed) and grow. They may have to cultivate hundreds instead of thousands or more to get the result they want. Exact same outcome though.
Now, adding hormones to livestock as opposed to growing for certain traits? Yeah, that I'm not ok with. Genetically modify your cow to produce more milk? Sure, go for it. It's just not done because of the complexity of mammals versus plants. It's cheaper to take a normal cow, pump it (or it's feed) full of chemicals to encourage milk production than it is to make Betsy, Super Udder Cow of Much Lactaction.
Even GMO crops that are breed with insectides in them are completely natually occuring; it's a gene sequence taken from something in nature to produce a desired effect. Now, maybe you wouldn't eat the source plant because it tastes like insectide-riden ass, as opposed to yummy, glucose-filled corn, but they don't inject poisonous insectide into the seed and it grows that way. They simply take a gene from a plant that naturally produces the poisonous insectide into the corn genome so that the corn can produce it as well. Completely natural! (disclaimer: you may not want to eat the poisonous insectide even if it is natural. You know what else is natural? Hemlock. Don't eat that.)
^^ This
I agree 100% with what you're saying. Indeed, that's what I meant by "the only difference is time". Perhaps using an example of a few thousand was .... low. >.>
Natural selection and iterative isn't necesasrily better than bio-chemical gene-splicing either; there's no guarrantee that new strains that aren't beneficial to use would be culled. The hyper-iterative process of GMO is likely to produce more strains more quickly, allowing for optimal selection. Now, Oldschool brought up an excellent point earlier: those that pay for the R&D into these strains have bottom-line concerns ahead of altruistic reasons for GMO. But that's another discussion into the role of government in developing regulations.
The addition of non-plant genes into crops is something I hadn't heard of; how would, say, a catepillar gene even be active and functioning within a crop gene, for example? I would have thought that it would have just resulted in clutter in the genome, though obviously (perhaps painfully so) my familiarity with genetic engineering and what's capable is a passing curiousity.
^ this.
You know what, Little Bunny Foo Foo is probably the one I originally used, and makes a much better cadence to boot.
It's especially fun do to around people that didn't know veal was baby cow. The horror, the horror.
Edit:
I tried to go back and edit my original, but apparently that's a time-sensitive feature now. v3 FAIL, Doodi, v3 fail. *Sheldon head shake of disapproval*
So the new protein in the new what that your body doesn't know what to do with is ok with you?
Fucked if I know what any of you are on about, but I`m not paying that much for a tasteless burger.
There is an alternative.....
http://youtu.be/8Sp-VFBbjpE
This is something I've never understood about cannibalism: you don't get the hopes, dreams, and innocence. Legend has it that ancient warriors (usually attributed to Aztecs, I believe) would eat the hearts of their fallen enemies to gain the courage and strenfth of their foes. But what I don't get is, if you defeated them, aren't you just gaining their weakness? By the fact that you're eating their heart, you're consuming fail and lose!
This defeats the purpose of not eating cows (especially veal!), pigs, chickens, and so on. The yummy taste comes from their hopes and dreams! Freedom and innocence! That's the taste I want, not the mediocrity, hopelessness and apathy of the people that would end up in the soylent green meat grinder. Those people didn't have hopes or dreams! They had broken dreams and lives of failure that ended in tragedy. I expect better from my food!
Why do you think I care about the ethical treatment of livestock? Because I don't want them to suffer? Shit, I'm eating them, I don't care about their long life and happiness; I care that they're happy and clueless until they die. Why do you think wild animals taste "gamey"? Because of struggle and strife! And the people that eat wild animals are as foolish as the Aztec warrior that eat the heart of a fallen warrior; you're doin' it wrong, son, you want the trusting, happy ones.
So now that you know better, go forth and selfishly push for better treatment of animals in captivity. Trust me, it's freedom and happiness you can taste.
Best quote ever.
Wife says mistreated animals give off a bad mix of hormones or something in the meat which is one of the reasons ethical treatment of animals (food) is desired...
SO, Plato's kinda right...albeit waaaaaaaay out on the right....
I never try to be right, just facetious