- May 7, 2008
Once again Bob Chipman asks all the right questions.
And that episode was awful. He didn't understand anything he was talking about, did not present any of the inherent dangers and painted people with opposing opinions to be paranoid luddites tantamount to torch-wielding villagers. If he'd have done his research instead of waving his church of science banner blindly he'd have seen GMOD foods raise legitimate concerns mostly centered around their environmental and economic impacts. NOT, as he presumed, when you eat them. But that is Bob, a large man full of hot air. It's not that I don't agree with him somewhat a lot of the time, his intentions are good, but the arguments he uses are often angry, flawed and ignorant. And those same opinions are parroted by people who don't know any better, which ruins all chance for rational discussion as the ripples travel outwards. I don't know how many GMOD discussions I've been in where somebody comes in and goes "Carrots, lol! BOB said so!" But you know what, anger sells these days and he seems to be doing well from it so why's he gonna listen to me? He hasn't yet. By the same token why should the powers that be care what he says?KingPiccolOwned said:
You can have your objections without using the word "abomination", you know. There are other, perfectly legitimate words. Try "Cross species barriers", "monsanto" or "genetic drift" out some time.Scarim Coral said:Well I can assume the people who think genetic engineer fruits and vegetables are a abomination mention ages ago on The Big Picture will think growing meat from cells is also a abomination even when there no killing animal involves (what can I say they are narrow minded people).
I meant in the contest of harvesting artificial meat (much more expensive). I mean thinking that creating meat in a lab can solve hunger is naive. It is a capitalism problem as the much "easier" solution is the cheap one. And no URSS by definition was not communism, as if you ever go to history class (college degree level) they will teach you that URSS was a state capitalism (whatever that is).ReiverCorrupter said:Don't kid yourself, it's a human greed problem. Did you forget that communism had its shot too? It failed because it didn't account for the greed and incompetence of bureaucrats. Capitalism is hardly perfect but it functions because it expects people to be greedy. The form of government or economic complex hardly matters, you'd have to change human nature itself.brazuca said:The meat "problem" is not a science problem, it's a capitalism problem. Also the hunger in Africa is a capitalism problem (with more deep historical implications). We the 7 billion humans already produce more food than we actually need.
Really? REALLY? You think the only reason we haven't developed space travel is because we're afraid of something we can't see? Why not worry about our souls being anchored to earth and traveling too far ripping it from our bodies leaving us soulless reavers or what about if the first hyperspace jump transforms the whole of the human race into giant jelly penises. Is bacteria really the best unfounded fear you could come up with to keep us from researching space travel?Gluzzbung said:Hate to say it, but the reason we're still on Earth is because any type of bacteria on another planet would kill everyone it touched, most likely.
With SCIENCE. Duh.MB202 said:Also, about jetpacks, how are you going to solve the problem of having your pants and underpants burned off?
The Rocketter says alcohol based fuel is the key. Start looking there.MB202 said:
Personally, I´m not sure whether to be kind of happy or kind of angry about that.Ukomba said:Has it occurred to anyone else that more and more people use the word "Science" like people use to use the word "Magic"?
I kind of got some of that around the time he said he intended to shit down people's chimney's, but it was still pretty distracting. Not to mention, I wasn't sure if he really meant for people to lie about oil on Mars just so we can move there. And there's no guarantee that we'll meet any green alien ladies, and even LESS of a guarantee that they'd find him attractive. Again, that might have been one of his sarcastic moments, but given how (pathetically, IMO) obsessed with sex Bob is, I'm not so sure.RadiusXd said:I was under the impression bob was just fooling around and doesn't expect anyone to take his requests seriously.....MB202 said:FYI, I never troll. I think trolling is stupid and wrong,a nd I don't see any enjoyment in purposefully pissing people off. What I said there was what I meant, I really don't like this episode, because Bob's demands from science came off as really piffy.RadiusXd said:
Not that it matters, this show is LITERALLY about saying whatever he wants to say, so I can't really fault him here for saying what's on his mind. I just think it's really stupid.
EDIT: except for perhaps the cultured meat, but I immediately dismissed that as impractical for now. we already have a biological machine that produces beef with minimal upkeep and also provides fancy couch surfacing. it's called a cow.
Hey, when you have to beg and fight and discretely give handjobs for every dime of your grant money, you take what you can get.Golan Trevize said:Just a million? No wonder nobody gives a crap.M-JN said:I suspect people have already mentioned, but PETA actually offered a million dollars to the first company who can make in vitro meat as tasty and satisfying to eat as animal meat. Best thing they've ever done, imo.
Oh, I agree in regards to harvesting meat, that is a capitalism problem. Business are historically conservative in regards to new technology when they already have a technology that works, it goes for meat and energy. I was saying that our lack of willingness to help other countries is a result of human nature and not our specific economic system. And I didn't reference soviet Russia in particular. I doubt there were ever any pure forms of communism on the national level, the logistics alone would make it nearly impossible. My point is just that you can't blame capitalism for everything. Corruption and greed occur within all societies and economic systems, and the basic reason why we aren't helping Africa is simply that we don't really care as a society enough to seriously do anything about it. Some people do, but they are the minority. We would probably still refrain from giving them aid if we were socialists.brazuca said:I meant in the contest of harvesting artificial meat (much more expensive). I mean thinking that creating meat in a lab can solve hunger is naive. It is a capitalism problem as the much "easier" solution is the cheap one. And no URSS by definition was not communism, as if you ever go to history class (college degree level) they will teach you that URSS was a state capitalism (whatever that is).ReiverCorrupter said:Don't kid yourself, it's a human greed problem. Did you forget that communism had its shot too? It failed because it didn't account for the greed and incompetence of bureaucrats. Capitalism is hardly perfect but it functions because it expects people to be greedy. The form of government or economic complex hardly matters, you'd have to change human nature itself.brazuca said:The meat "problem" is not a science problem, it's a capitalism problem. Also the hunger in Africa is a capitalism problem (with more deep historical implications). We the 7 billion humans already produce more food than we actually need.
And a witty quote proves nothing.BgRdMchne said:Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.Father Time said:You don't know these thingsBgRdMchne said:You are never going into space.
You will never own a jet pack.
Your car will never fly.
HIV will not be cured in your lifetime.
Cancer will not be cured in your lifetime.
The common cold will not be cured in your lifetime.
Don't these things bother you?
- Mark Twain
Hope is the denial of reality.
- Margaret Weis
You may honestly have found the most badly written article on Wikipedia. Amazing.Nicolaus99 said:
Perhaps a simple explanation would clarify it better than a link to an article with no central cohesive theme, that leaves me guessing which one of half a dozen different points you might have been trying to make.If that does not clarify it for you, nothing will.
OK so I think I've figured out that you're trying to say that "liberal politics" (a fairly broad term) are an attempt to escape from the unpleasantness of the world. I would have to agree with that. I also conclude that you, by extension, believe that they are a fruitless, ultimately meaningless form of escapism. I can agree or disagree with that depending on what exactly you mean by "liberal politics".I particularly like the entry's opening statement: Escapism is mental diversion by means of entertainment or recreation, as an "escape" from the perceived unpleasant or banal aspects of daily life. It can also be used as a term to define the actions people take to help relieve persisting feelings of depression or general sadness.