Search
Forum Home | Login
Draginol
Draginol
Join Date 03/2001
+137

Has global warming become a religion?

Methane and other factors of green house production

November 18, 2007 4:30:45 AM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

CO2 produced by humans is causing the recent increase in temperature is a hypothesis. But it has no evidence to support it. It's not even what one would label as a theory. It could be correct, it might not be correct.  I have about the same opinion of it as I do for the hypothesis of "intelligent design".  Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But there isn't evidence.  Given the movement's spotty record for yearly temperatures (it's actually gotten cooler since 1998 incidentally, not that you hear much about that little tidbit) it's hard to argue that it's firmly based on "science".  Theories are science and they make testable predictions. (see theory vs. hypothesis).

Methane is also a green house gas. It traps heat at over 20X the level of CO2.  Moreover, while CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up some since the start of the industrial revolution, the rise in methane has gone up vastly more in the past 50 years in particular.

But at the end of the day, the hypothesis remains: CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gases trap heat. More trapped heat will cause temperatures to rise. Temperatures have risen in the northern hemisphere since 1976 slightly. Therefore, it must be CO2.

Of course, temperatures in the southern hemisphere have not risen and the antarctic ice cap has grown. 

But I will grant that the northern hemisphere has definitely increased in temperature.  And I'm willing to also grant that humans are probably helping it a long.

Therefore, what should be done?

First, we have to decide whether global warming is a "bad thing".  The case really hasn't been made that it really is a "bad thing" (Al Gore's ridiculous arguments that the sea level will suddenly rise by a dozen feet or whatever notwithstanding).

Then, we have to decide what we would do about it.  Even if we removed every car off the road, it would make a trivial impact on worldwide CO2.  Humans only produce 14% of the CO2 that goes into the air each year.  And CO2 only accounts for a couple % of the green house effect. (this data is available on the global warming advocate websites btw, they don't dispute these facts).

The bottom line, there is really very little we can do to affect the situation other than largely eliminating all worldwide use of fossil fuels AND largely moving to a vegetarian diet (methane levels have gone up because the population of animals for meat is now several BILLION -- people don't like talking about this fact).

As a meat eater and someone who likes to use energy, I don't really want to give up my pork chops or my air conditioning in the Summer.

Talk about raising fuel standards or Kyoto accords or what have you are not serious discussions as they would have no impact.

Which is the problem with global warming as a religion. Because its adherents are generally ignorant of the details of it, they've simply been hammered with "the debate is over" mentra, they don't really understand the ramifications of their belief.  It's sort of like the person who believes that the old testament of the bible must be followed literally only to get ticked off when we start talking about Leviticus and stoning his wife for being out in public during certain times of the month. 

That is, if you believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming and that the CO2 in question is from humans then only deinustrializing most of the planet is going to cure that.  Getting rid of SUVs or switching to hydrogen based cars or solar power isn't going to have much impact unless it's done completely, worldwide and even then, the effect is going to be miniscule (especially as long as we have billions of methane producing livestock hanging around).

politics
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
2 Pages1 2 
Draginol
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #1 November 18, 2007 6:19:32 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
It is a religion, and your reasoned logical article will not sway them.  I would equate them to the current jihadist of Islam, or the Middle Ages Catholic church in their approach and zeal on their faith.  It is not enough that they believe, they must make sure that all are "saved" and so they burn the heretics (those not of the faith) at the stake of ridicule and ostracism.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
M-Post
Join Date 07/2004
+4
Reply #2 November 18, 2007 10:22:58 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Plant a LOT of tree's... millions upon millions of tree's and as many plants as we can. Since plants take the CO2 out of the air and produce normal oxygen.... just seems like a good option...

Though if we plant too many and suddenly we are producing too much oxygen, then that'll start another cult....
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Zoologist03
Join Date 04/2004
+52
Reply #3 November 18, 2007 11:30:37 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Hmm...the way I understand religion is someone trying to access sacred power by actions and a set of beliefs that goes along with it.  So, if these people believe in a sacred power...or more precisely they think the earth is sacred and global warming is an evil force then yeah, this actually could be seen as religious.  In fact, that would make and excellent paper.

~Zoo

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Zoomba
Join Date 11/2002
+114
Reply #4 November 18, 2007 11:53:52 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Hmm...the way I understand religion is someone trying to access sacred power by actions and a set of beliefs that goes along with it. So, if these people believe in a sacred power...or more precisely they think the earth is sacred and global warming is an evil force then yeah, this actually could be seen as religious. In fact, that would make and excellent paper.

I think you're confusing religion with faith a bit here.  Faith involves the sacred.  Religion can be anything built up around an idea that has fervent enough believers.  You can, for example, be religious about football (see the annual OSU/U of M rivalry game for example).  A religion actually doesn't need anything other-worldy or spiritual, it just often happens to overlap with those ideas.

Political Correctness is one of those things that can also be considered almost a Religious effort with people believing so strongly in it's absolute correctness to the exclusion of all else.  Talk to a PC nut, and there's nothing you can say to sway them from the idea that everything must be completely gender/race/classification neutral and that everyone is just as good as everyone else.  In fact, if you try to argue with them, they'll become quite irate usually.

An idea can become a religion when people start believing in it and following it to the point where any conflicting information is shouted down as ignorance and heresy.

In the case of Global Warming, I think there's a lot of good science floating out there on the topic, but it gets drowned out by the celebrity cause mongers who have to have some seemingly noble cause to scream about.  I don't think we'll start hearing the truth on this issue until those folks move on to a new pet cause.  Maybe we can harness their collective rabid energy and get them to start advocating for a newly reinvigorated space program?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Cikomyr
Join Date 06/2005
+11
Reply #5 November 18, 2007 12:02:03 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I find the people who deniers to be as much dogmatic in their arguments as the peoples who says global warming exists.

I find it utterly irrelevant to wether decide if Global Warming exists or not. It is not a topic to debate to us, since we are not specialist (whatever Paladin77 is trying to shovel us).

On the other hand, we could debate wether the application of measures - lights or hard ones - is something we desire on the long term. Global Warming issue aside, do we want a cleaner industry?

I think it's perfectly possible for us human being to create a way we can raise cattles and collect their CO2 emmission so it doesn't pollute the atmosphere. But it won't happen if we do not push the industry to struggle to find a way. There is a huge gap between simply banning meat and any polluting industry and doing nothing, Draginol. You waive the "It's stupid" flag by using the most extreme ways of cutting these emmissions as examples.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
adnauseam
Join Date 05/2004
+4
Reply #6 November 18, 2007 1:20:25 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I'd like to put in my tuppence worth. Yesterday Ban Kyi Moon (S.G. of the United Nations) announced that we are facing a global catastrophe. My immediate thought was: Yes, Darfur, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and, of course Somalia, amongst others.

No, wrong, he was talking about climate change. It is imperative that we have to do something about climate change to ensure the survival of the planet. It is also important, however, to note that, without all groups doing their bit, slowing down climate change is quite a challenge. I've noted some countries in Africa but I can add twenty others--and I can add India and China and the Phillipines and I can go on ad infinitum. Does a mother in Darfur give a continental about her little fire? Does a factory in Egypt give a continental about noxious gases when there are no penalties? Does an energy saver light bulb really help when the third world pollutes all our air? The debate on climate change is worthy but you cannot plug in a nice bulb in New York and think it will help.

Education is the answer and I'm not sure enough is being done about that.

Back to the first point. Is climate change as catastrophic as millions dying in diseased, impoverished, wartorn countries. I'm confused--are you?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Draginol
Join Date 03/2001
+137 moderator
Reply #7 November 18, 2007 1:30:46 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

 

I find the people who deniers to be as much dogmatic in their arguments as the peoples who says global warming exists.

I find it utterly irrelevant to wether decide if Global Warming exists or not. It is not a topic to debate to us, since we are not specialist (whatever Paladin77 is trying to shovel us).

I don't have to be a specialist to understand quantum mechanics.  I don't have to be a specialist to understand String Theory.  I can read about them, look at the predicted data and look at the tested results (though String theory is still borderline hypothesis but that's another question).

The "specialists" don't agree either.  There is a "consensus" by scientists who make their income from political bodies.  But there is no consensus in private industry.  For example, two weeks ago the founder of the Weather Channel, a lifelong meteorologist stated that global warming is "the greatest scam in history".  I would say that his credentials are pretty impressive.

I think it's perfectly possible for us human being to create a way we can raise cattles and collect their CO2 emmission so it doesn't pollute the atmosphere. But it won't happen if we do not push the industry to struggle to find a way. There is a huge gap between simply banning meat and any polluting industry and doing nothing, Draginol. You waive the "It's stupid" flag by using the most extreme ways of cutting these emmissions as examples.

What I find stupid is when people just wave and say "It's perfectly possible" to do something without explaining how to do it, not even a hypothesis.  So I'll say the obvious - no, I don't think it's "perfectly possible" to collect CO2 from pigs, chickens, and cattle.  Have you ever been to a farm? Or a factory farm? It doesn't sound like it.

Global warming, as a theory, IMO has more to do with making the ineffectual feel good about themselves by allowing them to make some token gesture ("Look, I put in florescent bulbs").  Because if these were serious people, we would be outlining real world solutions that would need to be taken in order to do something about it.  But we don't. 

Let me say it plainly: Even if we took every motor vehicle off the road in the United States right now, it would have no measurable effect on world CO2 levels.  But you rarely hear about that because carbon emissions are being treated like sin rather than as a practical problem. You can't eliminate sin so we all feel good about trying to sin less.  That's nice and I support lowering our impact on the environment. But I don't kid myself that it's going to have any affect on the weather. Us "global warming deniers" tend to be stuck knowing about the real world.  Just as us "Jesus deniers" are stuck having to deal with the realization that after we die, there is probably not some heaven to go to.

People of reason do not fear or stifle dissent. Only those who are emotionally attached to a faith, belief, or ideology would attempt to stamp out dissent.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Zoologist03
Join Date 04/2004
+52
Reply #8 November 18, 2007 1:54:15 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I think you're confusing religion with faith a bit here. Faith involves the sacred. Religion can be anything built up around an idea that has fervent enough believers.


Well, religion is about praxis. Something that is done in a ritualistic way in order to tap into something they consider special or sacred. Faith is just the belief. Religion is a practice...be it prayer, ceremonies, dances, acting a certain way, etc. Religion taps into sacred power almost always. One of the ways to identify religion is looking for some example of the extraordinary and how it acts on the ordinary. Of course there are exceptions.

~Zoo
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #9 November 18, 2007 2:29:41 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
My solution is simple and would work, simply eliminate 7 out of every 10 people on the planet. Food consumption goes down dramatically {meat} the amout of Co2 expelled into the Air goes down by 70% fossil fuel will last longer giving us time to come up with rational solutions for energy. We can base it on a simple fair I.Q. test make the cut off at 110 everyone lower than 110 goes.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Zoologist03
Join Date 04/2004
+52
Reply #10 November 18, 2007 5:42:20 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

We can base it on a simple fair I.Q. test make the cut off at 110 everyone lower than 110 goes.

Whew...safe.

~Zoo

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #11 November 18, 2007 5:43:23 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

My solution is simple and would work, simply eliminate 7 out of every 10 people on the planet.

It already has been proposed.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Cikomyr
Join Date 06/2005
+11
Reply #12 November 19, 2007 12:54:02 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
So I'll say the obvious - no, I don't think it's "perfectly possible" to collect CO2 from pigs, chickens, and cattle. Have you ever been to a farm? Or a factory farm? It doesn't sound like it.


I'm sorry, but they *have* created a pig farm where there is minimal CO2 emmission. They turn gaz and liquid wastes into natural gaz used to warm the farm itself.

QED. I think you only visited backward farms Draginol. You've declared that it's impossible for any industry to find ways to stop these emmissions simply because you don't even dare admiting the possibility that you may be wrong.

Let me say it plainly: Even if we took every motor vehicle off the road in the United States right now, it would have no measurable effect on world CO2 levels. But you rarely hear about that because carbon emissions are being treated like sin rather than as a practical problem. You can't eliminate sin so we all feel good about trying to sin less. That's nice and I support lowering our impact on the environment. But I don't kid myself that it's going to have any affect on the weather. Us "global warming deniers" tend to be stuck knowing about the real world. Just as us "Jesus deniers" are stuck having to deal with the realization that after we die, there is probably not some heaven to go to.


Let met summarize your point: blablabla you are just another liberal psycho.

I don't think you even read the articles where I took the time to carefully describe to you the practical ways we can make the industry find better way to clean the air. How I find the whole "we have to suffer in order to clean the Earth" treehugger-originated argument silly and stupid, and I think that if we want a cleaner industry, there should be a buck to be made to be clean.

Lemme tell you a thing, Draginol: If you call me liberal simply because I do not see eye to eye with you on some topic, then the liberals are an incredible huge portion of the population. On the other hand, if you restrict the liberal to those who are WAY even more liberal than me, then I would agree with everything you say about them, and I already despise them, because they are, indeed, hypocrits.

But I still believe that global warming exists.

I don't want the multinationals to start doing the "right" thing about the environnement because they want to feel better about themselves. I want to find a way they would have no other choice to do the right thing, because they would EARN MONEY doing it.

If they can MAKE MONEY out of it, they will be creative, they will push to find new competitive ways to be even and even more efficient. Everybody wins on the long run.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #13 November 19, 2007 3:14:20 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Sunday, November 18, 2007
My solution is simple and would work, simply eliminate 7 out of every 10 people on the planet.

It already has been proposed.

Shoot, by who?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #14 November 19, 2007 6:24:02 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Shoot, by who?

Earth Firsters.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Draginol
Join Date 03/2001
+137 moderator
Reply #15 November 19, 2007 9:20:12 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

I'm sorry, but they *have* created a pig farm where there is minimal CO2 emmission. They turn gaz and liquid wastes into natural gaz used to warm the farm itself.

How does that cut CO2 emissions? Do you have a link to this pig farm?

QED. I think you only visited backward farms Draginol. You've declared that it's impossible for any industry to find ways to stop these emmissions simply because you don't even dare admiting the possibility that you may be wrong.

I have not declared that it's impossible. I simply don't think it's "perfectly possible" which to me implies that you think it wouldn't be that difficult.  There's a big gulf between what is possible and what is practical.

I'm not even sure what you believe I am "wrong" about. 

Let met summarize your point: blablabla you are just another liberal psycho.

I don't think you even read the articles where I took the time to carefully describe to you the practical ways we can make the industry find better way to clean the air. How I find the whole "we have to suffer in order to clean the Earth" treehugger-originated argument silly and stupid, and I think that if we want a cleaner industry, there should be a buck to be made to be clean.

I don't think you're a liberal psycho. But I do think you might be a bit narcisistic if you think that most of my response was about you specifically.

I don't want the multinationals to start doing the "right" thing about the environnement because they want to feel better about themselves. I want to find a way they would have no other choice to do the right thing, because they would EARN MONEY doing it.

If they can MAKE MONEY out of it, they will be creative, they will push to find new competitive ways to be even and even more efficient. Everybody wins on the long run.

Sure, if they can make money they will do it. So how do they make money? 

It gets back to the general issue that I have (in general) with people who latch on to global warming - they trivialize the obstacles to actually doing something.

Let's say that global warming is caused by humans.  Okay. Now what? What, specifically should be done to actually do something about it?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
danielost
Join Date 07/2003
+38
Reply #16 November 19, 2007 9:49:04 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
They turn gaz and liquid wastes into natural gaz used to warm the farm itself.


pig gas is methane. methane is a green house gas. burnng natural gas creates co2.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
KarmaGirl
Join Date 03/2001
+118 sdemployee
Reply #17 November 20, 2007 2:00:12 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

 

I'm sorry, but they *have* created a pig farm where there is minimal CO2 emmission. They turn gaz and liquid wastes into natural gaz used to warm the farm itself.

QED. I think you only visited backward farms Draginol. You've declared that it's impossible for any industry to find ways to stop these emmissions simply because you don't even dare admiting the possibility that you may be wrong.

Can you link to that?  How do you turn waste into natural gas?  And, why are you heating a pig farm?  (Pigs produce an enormous amount of heat on their own).

I have heard of blue lagoon systems: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar05/pig0305.htm
They are pretty well used on PIG farms, but nowhere else.  Pig farms are not nearly as problematic as dairy and beef farms, and lets not even talk about poultry.

Anything that decomposes produces CO2.  They have used animal wastes as fertilizers, but is decomposes first (which gives off greenhouse gases).  They have come up with Lagoon systems, but that is a way to try and avoid ground water contamination.

I think you only visited backward farms Draginol.

What, you mean the ethical ones that don't confine all their animals to inside barns so that they can easily contain the wastes?  What about the ethical farms that believe in free range and ethical treatment of the animals?  How long do you think that waste sits around before the farmer gets to it?

What about the hobby farmer?  They do nothing but spread the wastes around and let them decompose.  How much does that type of animal waste produce in the way of greenhouse gases?

And, have they developed a way to keep the animals from passing gas (methane)?  Cows average 400 quarts of eructation per day (that's 400 quarts of methane burps).  Are we now going to put cows in bubbles to capture their methane?

I may not believe that "global warming" is real, but I at least have a firm grasp on what farms do to the environment.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Cikomyr
Join Date 06/2005
+11
Reply #18 November 20, 2007 10:00:35 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
pig gas is methane. methane is a green house gas. burnng natural gas creates co2.


How does that cut CO2 emissions? Do you have a link to this pig farm?


http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/dpe/Anglais/dpe_main_en.asp?innov_fiche_200409a

Here it is.

Off course, you have to consider that even if gaz is burned and release CO2 emmission in the process, their energy requirement will be lowered. Thu, even if some sort of pollution is created, it has served double duty rather than simply either burn to produce energy, or was expulsed out of pigs.

It is all about improving efficiency in our production in many ways.

I simply don't think it's "perfectly possible" which to me implies that you think it wouldn't be that difficult. There's a big gulf between what is possible and what is practical.


You make a very valid point. I am sorry, I have my best and my worst moments, and my outburst definetly was one of my worst.

However, if you consider what we though was absolutely impossible about 20 years ago compared to what we are able to achieve now, I can say that unless a general collapse of society, we can be hopeful that we will keep breaking new frontiers of impossibility.

I don't think you're a liberal psycho. But I do think you might be a bit narcisistic if you think that most of my response was about you specifically.


point taken, and will be reflected upon

Sure, if they can make money they will do it. So how do they make money?


The Carbon Credit market can do exactly that. The people who will find it more efficient for them to buy credits to those who thinks they can make a buck by greatly reducing their CO2 emmissions or simply absorbing the CO2 out of the atmosphere itself.

The market will find an eventual balance. And the governement will be able to slowly lower the cap as the industry gets more and more creative.

They are pretty well used on PIG farms, but nowhere else. Pig farms are not nearly as problematic as dairy and beef farms, and lets not even talk about poultry.


QFT. However, if the industry is given incentive to invent ways to either reduce animal emissions, it is a distinct possibility that they can find a way. Maybe create biospheres.. I don't know.

But they won't lift a finger (except the theorical peoples who wants to feel good about it) if they don't have a reason to move their asses about it.

I may not believe that "global warming" is real, but I at least have a firm grasp on what farms do to the environment.


And aren't you interested in forcing the farmers to pollute less, but not trough simple sanctions.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
danielost
Join Date 07/2003
+38
Reply #19 November 20, 2007 10:55:38 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
However, if you consider what we though was absolutely impossible about 20 years ago compared to what we are able to achieve now, I can say that unless a general collapse of society, we can be hopeful that we will keep breaking new frontiers of impossibility.


this can be said in any 20 year period.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
KarmaGirl
Join Date 03/2001
+118 sdemployee
Reply #20 November 21, 2007 9:23:17 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

QFT. However, if the industry is given incentive to invent ways to either reduce animal emissions, it is a distinct possibility that they can find a way. Maybe create biospheres.. I don't know.

But they won't lift a finger (except the theorical peoples who wants to feel good about it) if they don't have a reason to move their asses about it.

An easier solution would be to eat less meat.  Where does almost 1/3 of the CO2 emissions come from?  And, why is it growing at the same rate as our increase in animal consumption?

And aren't you interested in forcing the farmers to pollute less, but not trough simple sanctions

I am more interested in ethical farming.  If we had ethical farming, meat production would be on a smaller scale, and this whole argument would be a moot point.

The problem is that will not happen, and neither will having farmers spend more money to produce the meat.  People won't pay more for the end product, so how are farmers going to afford putting in new systems.  The factory farms already overcrowd and treat the animals horribly, what will happen if they have to make up for losses they incur by having to put in new equipment?

A statistic for you, in the US, the average person eats 22 pounds of meat more than they did in 1970.  That is, with an estimate population of 301,000,000 people in the US) 6,622,000,000 pounds of meat a year more that has to be produced (on top of the amount needed for the increase in population).  An average cow is 1,300 lbs, but less than 1/2 of it is meat.  We'll go with 1/2 as an average, which is 650 lbs.  So, that means that we have to raise 10,187,692 more cows (or equivalent animals) to keep up with the current "need", not including the extras needed to cover the population growth.

So, "who" is really to blame here?  It's not just the farmers

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Cikomyr
Join Date 06/2005
+11
Reply #21 November 21, 2007 11:08:07 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
The problem is that will not happen, and neither will having farmers spend more money to produce the meat. People won't pay more for the end product, so how are farmers going to afford putting in new systems.


well, if we somehow discourage meat farms in some ways or other (like carbon emmission cap penalties), the end product will cost more, and thu lowering the demand.

Hmm.. wait a second. I think they have created a technology that allowed, from a sample of skin, to grow in laboratory large amount of skins. Couldn't we do the same with cow meat? The actual animals would be breeded in the best situation, which favor the quality of the meat, and then we could collect samples of them and grow steaks in laboratory... Ye know, simply growing the tissu...

*sigh*, I'm too much of a dreamer.

Well, still. I am sure if we make the meat cost more, there will be less demand, and we could change America's diet to a meat-less (not meatless) one.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
KarmaGirl
Join Date 03/2001
+118 sdemployee
Reply #22 November 21, 2007 11:16:39 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Hmm.. wait a second. I think they have created a technology that allowed, from a sample of skin, to grow in laboratory large amount of skins. Couldn't we do the same with cow meat? The actual animals would be breeded in the best situation, which favor the quality of the meat, and then we could collect samples of them and grow steaks in laboratory... Ye know, simply growing the tissu...

all I can say to that is EWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwww!  That is a really bad visual.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #23 November 21, 2007 12:08:51 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Hmm.. wait a second. I think they have created a technology that allowed, from a sample of skin, to grow in laboratory large amount of skins. Couldn't we do the same with cow meat?


Isnt that called Soylent green?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Cikomyr
Join Date 06/2005
+11
Reply #24 November 21, 2007 2:09:44 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Isnt that called Soylent green?


Wash..


Well.. originally, the idea behind the technology is to create skin to graf on greatly burned peoples. (I think they managed to create artificial organs too with home-grown tissues, but only simples ones)

But I wonder if the technology could be twitched in order to create meat without having to go trough the process of "animal". You know, nutrient --> meat directly.

Ye know.. growing the tissue of meat itself. You could make an art out of it, maybe even trim out the fat, or however you want your steak.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Draginol
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #25 November 21, 2007 2:17:55 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Wash..


Lost in translation - Explain please?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
2 Pages1 2 
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Stardock Entertainment

Press | Support
Copyright © 2026 Stardock Entertainment. The Political Machine is a trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved.