Them's fighting words!UnmotivatedSlacker said:
...Nah, just running with the "can't take a joke" thing.
The Big Picture: Science!
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...Nah, just running with the "can't take a joke" thing.
Here's a counter arguement to the people complaining about scientists not making their dream futures for them.
Shut up.
They're working as hard as they can to fix the problems we half-wits created and refuse to take responsibility for.
You want a jet pack? Lose that hundred pounds without demanding a diet pill to do it for you. You want artificial meat? Stop destroying resource-rich ecosystems that could provide centuries of genetic breakthroughs for cattle space. You want to go to Mars and have sex with green women, create a demand for efficient fuels and donate to STD vaccine research.
Don't point at scientists and tell them to work harder, don't point at Glenn Beck and blame him for holding you back. Man up, do your part, and EARN it.
Shut up.
They're working as hard as they can to fix the problems we half-wits created and refuse to take responsibility for.
You want a jet pack? Lose that hundred pounds without demanding a diet pill to do it for you. You want artificial meat? Stop destroying resource-rich ecosystems that could provide centuries of genetic breakthroughs for cattle space. You want to go to Mars and have sex with green women, create a demand for efficient fuels and donate to STD vaccine research.
Don't point at scientists and tell them to work harder, don't point at Glenn Beck and blame him for holding you back. Man up, do your part, and EARN it.
In all honesty... not at first... I have a difficult time telling if someone's being serious or of they're just messing around. I'm more used to MovieBob's more intellectual and analytical side... Or rather, I PREFER that side of him most of the time, so this kind of threw me off guard, I suppose.Lenin211 said:
Well Lying got us into the space program in the first place. So I guess lying about black gold on Mars isn't such a hard pull to get us back on track. Hell we need to start colonizing other places so we can start fucking up so bad the only person that can stop it all is the Emperor of Man.
Erm, Bob, you do know what'll happen when we claim there is oil on Mars, right?
And there won't be any oil on Mars, unless maybe there actually was life and greenery and stuff there a bajillion years ago. Like a veritable Tatooine...
Oh, and if I've been ninja'd, then well played, sir...
And there won't be any oil on Mars, unless maybe there actually was life and greenery and stuff there a bajillion years ago. Like a veritable Tatooine...
Oh, and if I've been ninja'd, then well played, sir...
Ok, one argument for killing and eating animals that I'm yet to find a good rebuttal for:
What's better for the cow,
(1) using space and resources to grow cows and then kill and eat them.
(2) using space and resources to grow meat and then eat it/Not eating meat.
One way cows live for a time, the other way they're redundant and so aren't bred by humans for food any more (that particular cow at least will never exist).
Personally,
I'm think (1) is better for the animal (Even if Bad living conditions it's better than nothing!), making (2) more a matter of avoiding responsibility for the killing part (obviously argument more complicated than this, I don't mean to offend anyone!).
What's better for the cow,
(1) using space and resources to grow cows and then kill and eat them.
(2) using space and resources to grow meat and then eat it/Not eating meat.
One way cows live for a time, the other way they're redundant and so aren't bred by humans for food any more (that particular cow at least will never exist).
Personally,
I'm think (1) is better for the animal (Even if Bad living conditions it's better than nothing!), making (2) more a matter of avoiding responsibility for the killing part (obviously argument more complicated than this, I don't mean to offend anyone!).
Fun stuff, Bob. Very entertaining. I agree! Darn you science people! I wants mah Jetpack and green alien babes!
... sorry, was I supposed to take it seriously? Then rant about Bob ranting and type out complete explanations about the complexities of these issues, and then start exploring the morality of growing and eating meat?
Oh, well, that just sounds boring, I watch these for fun.
... sorry, was I supposed to take it seriously? Then rant about Bob ranting and type out complete explanations about the complexities of these issues, and then start exploring the morality of growing and eating meat?
Oh, well, that just sounds boring, I watch these for fun.
Must ... resist ... urge ... to ... correct ...unlimitedwin said:For those who don't get the joke: atomic transmutation = nuclear fission. Nuclear fission reactors do already exist!Djinn8 said:Cool. If they can get this working then all they have to do is develop atomic transmutation (splitting of atoms to create multiple, less massive atoms) and we'll have an unlimited, renewable fuel source to power the fussion reactors.unlimitedwin said:Yep, currently it's all experimental. I guess that could be assumed from how I wrote that though.Djinn8 said:
They are working on fusion reactors, however and everything actually written in my piece on fusion is true.
Here is the big project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
I'm not sure about creating gold in a fusion reactor though... Anything heavier than iron requires the energy of supernovae (exploding star) to form... sounds dangerous to me
That'll be a real special day for humanity. It really would change everything.
Yeah, it'd be pretty sweet Djinn8
Resistance failed. Proceeding to correct.
OK, there are two basic types of nuclear reactions, fusion and fission. Fusion is when two atoms fuse to form a heavier atom. As a rule of thumb the lighter the atoms are the more energy is released, which is why hydrogen (lightest of the elements with only one proton) fusion is the most common way to release energy. For example hydrogen bombs are fusion devices. Also, fusion can be achieved in a laboratory easily these days. The problem is that massive amounts of energy are needed in order to generate the conditions under which hydrogen fusion can take place, far more than the energy gained from the fusion.
As I said, as a rule of thumb the lighter the atoms being fused, the more energy is released, and conversely the heavier the atoms the less energy is released. So fusing two helium atoms (atomic number 2) releases less energy than fusing hydrogen, and so on and so forth, until around atomic number 26 which is iron. Then the process is reversed - fusing atoms absorbs energy and energy is released by splitting (fission) an atom into lighter atoms, and the heavier the atoms, the more energy is released (again, this is just a rule of thumb). This is part of the reason why uranium or plutonium (the two heaviest naturally occurring elements found in appreciable amounts on earth) is used in nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.
Unfortunately it's difficult (probably even impossible) to control into what elements the uranium or plutonium will split into. Often the end result is nasty stuff like caesium-137, a highly radioactive isotope with a long half-life.
However you don't need the energy of a supernova to create elements heavier than iron, though supernovae do come into play in creating heavier elements in appreciable amounts (relatively speaking). Since fusing elements heavier than iron absorbs energy, not much of those elements are created in main sequence stars. Only once a star goes supernova is enough energy released to allow those heavier elements to be created. But in a laboratory you could theoretically fuse heavy elements under the right conditions. Those conditions would have to be the conditions in a supernova, which sounds scary, but then again so does the idea of creating the conditions in a star (which is needed for fusion of hydrogen).
I apologize if I sounded patronizing and lecturing, I just wanted to clear some things up. On the other hand what I wrote would probably give a nuclear physicist an aneurysm.
1)Where are the jet packs? The answer? Automobile mortality rates.
2)Synthesized meat? The answer? It's still cheaper to raise and kill cows than pump expensive protein cocktails through more expensive machines.
3)Space? E=MC2 is a total buzzkill, and space is huge. Travel is boring. Slow. Uneventful. Gene Rodenberry imagined technologies that break the laws of physics. The vacuum of space. We're not going to get to Gene Rodenberry's universe by colonizing Mars or the Moon, but by experimenting on our home planet. Richard Branson and other entrepreneurs are already making headway. In fact colonizing the Moon could be dangerous for the gravitational pull on the tides. Some of the most important scientific discoveries happen outside government funding or institutionalized thinking.
Most recent example? The person that recently discovered the missing mass from the young universe was a 22 year old female physics student Amelia Fraser-McKelvie from Australia that had her discovery vetted by professors and int'l experts after the fact. Pwned.
Even if this was a joke/troll video, it wasn't well thought out.
2)Synthesized meat? The answer? It's still cheaper to raise and kill cows than pump expensive protein cocktails through more expensive machines.
3)Space? E=MC2 is a total buzzkill, and space is huge. Travel is boring. Slow. Uneventful. Gene Rodenberry imagined technologies that break the laws of physics. The vacuum of space. We're not going to get to Gene Rodenberry's universe by colonizing Mars or the Moon, but by experimenting on our home planet. Richard Branson and other entrepreneurs are already making headway. In fact colonizing the Moon could be dangerous for the gravitational pull on the tides. Some of the most important scientific discoveries happen outside government funding or institutionalized thinking.
Most recent example? The person that recently discovered the missing mass from the young universe was a 22 year old female physics student Amelia Fraser-McKelvie from Australia that had her discovery vetted by professors and int'l experts after the fact. Pwned.
Even if this was a joke/troll video, it wasn't well thought out.
Okay; one by one:MovieBob said:
Jetpack:
Pobably as good as you're going to get in earth's gravity Bob. Sorry.
Cultured meat:
Cultured meat is currently prohibitively expensive, but it is anticipated that the cost could be reduced to about twice that of conventionally produced meat.
Hmm only twice as expensive as raising cattle for something that is currently only worth putting into sausages and hamburgers. :S
The economics involved suggest that cultured meat will only be commercially viable when grain becomes prohibitively expensive to feed to feed to animals. When that happens I think well have hunger problems more important than where your next steak is coming from.
These will probably be solved by some sort of algal/krill farming. Crab sticks anyone?
Space:
Okay good suggestion. Though I hesitate as to whether I want oil republicans in space. It is possible that there are fossil fuels on Mars as a result of possible life on Mars in previous geological ages.
The reasons against doing this are going to be again. Prohibitive expense. Especially when you compare it to offshore drilling/fracking/tar sands.
And if we get to Mars to exploit this hypothetical oil then it is far more likely to be used to produce value added plastics or other petroleum derivatives on Mars surface than to be expensively shipped out of the Martian Gravity well to earth.
A more likely location for off world mining is the moon probably in search of rare earths, noble metals and other high value ore.
Breeding bears:
If you want to go corral a bunch of bears and breed them over their 4 year breeding cycle go nuts; I'll read about you being eaten on the news. Simple answer too much labour for too little utility.
I found it quite hilarious when Bob said he would totally keep "his jetpack" a secret if he was given one. I imagine he would be able to keep it a secret....for about five seconds (which is about the same as anybody given a motherfucking jet pack). I also have to confess I got a tiny guilty chuckle out of imagining somebody of Bob's...erm...physique....flying around with a jetpack on his back.
As for Bob wondering why animal rights activists aren't campaigning for cultured meat....really? He's wondering why a group of people populated by a considerable number of misinformed, irrational and sometimes balls-out crazy fucksticks isn't doing something logical and intelligent???
And finally, fuck the assholes who decided to breed tiny dogs. Don't get me wrong, I love dogs...of most sizes. It's the extremes I have trouble with. Extremely large dogs (e.g. Great Danes) tend to make me nervous and tiny dogs usually annoy the piss out of me.
As for Bob wondering why animal rights activists aren't campaigning for cultured meat....really? He's wondering why a group of people populated by a considerable number of misinformed, irrational and sometimes balls-out crazy fucksticks isn't doing something logical and intelligent???
And finally, fuck the assholes who decided to breed tiny dogs. Don't get me wrong, I love dogs...of most sizes. It's the extremes I have trouble with. Extremely large dogs (e.g. Great Danes) tend to make me nervous and tiny dogs usually annoy the piss out of me.
I think every important response has more or less been made after reading 2 pages, but I already logged in just in case, so I may as well add my 2 cents (that's a weird expression).
I hope you actually read all your comments like you said, Bob, because with a thread this long, I usually assume nobody will read my post and pass by.
It seems to me that the only really serious question you raised in why we aren't using cultured meat. People have already responded the present problems, and people have said that if we put money into it, it will be economically viable in the future.
So here's what I would like to add, which may have been said on one of the pages beyond page 2. I suspect you already know this, but either did not think about it or don't care or just decided to leave it out of the video or have a counterpoint.
Maybe we could make cultured meat economically viable, and maybe it has all sorts of advantages, but any money we put toward it is taken away from somewhere else. Maybe shoving tons of money into that area of research isn't the best way to use the world's resources. Maybe it is a good idea, but I'm just saying that the opposite might be true.
I was considering saying that the free market would be putting more money into cultured meat if it were the best use of that money, or at least it would tend toward the right amount of money over time or approximate it. But then again, there are all sorts of situations where free market doesn't work (ignoring the fact that humans aren't entirely rational) like tragedy of the commons. I don't really know exactly which category this falls into.
Also, yes, this argument could be used for just about anything. I'm just bringing it up.
This got awfully long. I'm not sure if anybody will actually read this. 2 cents. There you go.
I hope you actually read all your comments like you said, Bob, because with a thread this long, I usually assume nobody will read my post and pass by.
It seems to me that the only really serious question you raised in why we aren't using cultured meat. People have already responded the present problems, and people have said that if we put money into it, it will be economically viable in the future.
So here's what I would like to add, which may have been said on one of the pages beyond page 2. I suspect you already know this, but either did not think about it or don't care or just decided to leave it out of the video or have a counterpoint.
Maybe we could make cultured meat economically viable, and maybe it has all sorts of advantages, but any money we put toward it is taken away from somewhere else. Maybe shoving tons of money into that area of research isn't the best way to use the world's resources. Maybe it is a good idea, but I'm just saying that the opposite might be true.
I was considering saying that the free market would be putting more money into cultured meat if it were the best use of that money, or at least it would tend toward the right amount of money over time or approximate it. But then again, there are all sorts of situations where free market doesn't work (ignoring the fact that humans aren't entirely rational) like tragedy of the commons. I don't really know exactly which category this falls into.
Also, yes, this argument could be used for just about anything. I'm just bringing it up.
This got awfully long. I'm not sure if anybody will actually read this. 2 cents. There you go.
I'd be astonished if it wasn't already noted on the other 8 pages that peta is actually all about cultured meat.Urh said:
And so am i.
Disclaimer:
What you will get with cultured meat will most assuredly NOT BE MEAT. It will be a cultured, gelatinous tissue. So much of the flavor and texture of meat comes from the way the animal moves.. it will take a long time to develop the technology to include connective tissue and marbling.
Which as Bob mentions, could be perfect for burgers off the dollar menu.
Also, bobbybear, i'm a little dissapointed in you. Come on, jetpacks? You gotta burn fuel to fly, and you simply can't carry enough fuel on your back to fly very far. So until we develop magic fuel, no practical jetpacks. You can demo the regular ones for a lot of money though, so have fun!
Jet packs:
They exist. Just more in a "hover pack" way rather than a "jet pack" way. Putting a real jet pack on your back would cause the exhaust to set fire to your legs. Also incredibly extravagant as far as fuel usage/cost is concerned and an all round shitty mode of transport anyway. Use legs. They get you places.
Cultured meat:
Really expensive, really unrefined and huge ethics roadblocks. Cultured meat doesn't result in tasty steaks. It results in blobs of meat like protein. Besides, having the right proteins doesn't equate to having the right taste. Also, hella expensive. Again. You can't feed the third world on this stuff. You can grow it in a lab and dispose of it because its unsafe for human consumption.
Space:
Scientific fraud is... a huge deal. If people are found to lie about things, they get ostracised by the community in a pretty enormous way. Its even happened to Nobel prize winners. Space isn't a big priority right now, because its unfeasible (read: difficult) to get there with current technology. The world isn't in apocalyptic danger so there's no rush.
Mini-animals:
There are naturally small breeds of dog. There aren't naturally small breeds of bear (at least not the grizzly bear style bear). But yes, you are quite correct in postulating that an ankle height hippo named "Slaps" would be incredibly awesome. It's just not feasible.
They exist. Just more in a "hover pack" way rather than a "jet pack" way. Putting a real jet pack on your back would cause the exhaust to set fire to your legs. Also incredibly extravagant as far as fuel usage/cost is concerned and an all round shitty mode of transport anyway. Use legs. They get you places.
Cultured meat:
Really expensive, really unrefined and huge ethics roadblocks. Cultured meat doesn't result in tasty steaks. It results in blobs of meat like protein. Besides, having the right proteins doesn't equate to having the right taste. Also, hella expensive. Again. You can't feed the third world on this stuff. You can grow it in a lab and dispose of it because its unsafe for human consumption.
Space:
Scientific fraud is... a huge deal. If people are found to lie about things, they get ostracised by the community in a pretty enormous way. Its even happened to Nobel prize winners. Space isn't a big priority right now, because its unfeasible (read: difficult) to get there with current technology. The world isn't in apocalyptic danger so there's no rush.
Mini-animals:
There are naturally small breeds of dog. There aren't naturally small breeds of bear (at least not the grizzly bear style bear). But yes, you are quite correct in postulating that an ankle height hippo named "Slaps" would be incredibly awesome. It's just not feasible.
At first I thought "Wow, the first thing to come from PETA that I agree with." Then I read PETA's press statement on its million-dollar in-vitro meat prize. It's a fucking joke. They've deliberately set the bar impossibly high, to the point where I can't help but call bullshit. They're offering a one million dollar prize, but the cost of meeting their criteria would likely run into the tens of millions. Furthermore, there probably aren't that many scientists and engineers who in their right mind would strive to win a prize from PETA. Sure, it's a million dollars, but they're batshit crazy dollars. Then again, if someone were to win, PETA would be down a million dollars, and that can only be a good thing. Quite the dilemma...thiosk said:
So are you saying we should just not make any sort of scientific progress that might offend Christians? Christians already had their turn at running this place, it's called the dark ages. I say let them ***** and whine all they want, their ridiculous ancient beliefs should no longer be allowed to hold back progress for mankind.Sylveria said: