Quote from: lisagurl on July 09, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
Well the more food that is on people's plates the more babies they have ended in people without food on their plate.

Okay, do point to one single example of poverty and widespread food-shortages resulting in a decline in birth rates. In fact, societies that rely heavily upon primitive forms of agriculture, Lisa, have a propensity for having incredibly high birth rates and rather low rates of female literacy. Female literacy is really one of the biggest factors, here. An economy that is not accessible to women is inevitably going to result in higher birth rates, eventually resulting in the population ascending into the gusty reaches far beyond carrying capacity. The technocrats have been right from the get-go. A high-tech economy that is heavily reliant upon an educated labor force is just better in the long-run.

AND THIS INCLUDES JAPAN, WHERE YOU EVEN GET YOUR PANTIES OUT OF A VENDING MACHINE!

Quote from: lisagurl
I am one that thinks things being too clean and antiseptic leads to reduced antibodies, so when you are exposed you have no defense.

As a microbiologist, I sort of agree with this.  It's actually the overuse of antiseptic sprays/antibiotics/pesticides, etc. that cause problems because you get drug resistant bacteria as a result of using antibacterial handsoap when just regular old soap would do just fine in 99.999% of the cases.  The 99% thing came out of my a$$ in case anyone's keeping score, but seriously, how many times in your life have you REALLY needed an antibacterial handsoap?  I stopped using it a year or two ago, and I haven't had any noticeable problems. 

Quote from: Sigma Prime on July 09, 2009, 03:04:34 PM
I have really never heard of that, but perhaps this is the reason I can't handle eating a lot of red meat.

Almost certainly.  I work with more than a couple vegetarians or non-red-meat-eaters, and every single one of them has reported the same thing at one point or another, like if they get a dish at a restaurant that has meat in it instead of fish/tofu it just about kills them.  Actually, just happened to one of my co-workers today because she grabbed a slice of non-veggie pizza on accident. 
Oops. 

As to the original topic--
I think synthetic food is a little too complicated for us.  Nanotech age and all aside, we just don't have that kind of technology.  Part of the problem is no one investing in it.  Think of all the farmers/etc. that might go out of business if food no longer had to be grown.  It wouldn't surprise me to find out that there's an agriculture lobby trying to keep things like synthetic food from ever being developed, just like the oil lobby is reputed to have been working against hybrid/electric cars for the past 20+ years.  I'm sure it'll happen eventually (synthetic food I mean, not hybrid cars), it'll just take longer. 

Then again, I also sort of like conspiracy theories, so maybe I'm being overly paranoid.  Maybe no one's really looked into it yet, because the US isn't in crisis mode wrt food supplies.  That other parts of the world are seems to not be of much concern to most of our government, or even corporate mucky-mucks who could conceivably make a lot of money with synthetic food if they were available to sell to a starving nation.  Maybe there's just not enough money in it yet?  When the rich people are willing to pay for synthetic food, then I think you'll start seeing a big surge in that one. 

--Other catching up type comments:

I'm not sure what exactly Lisa was talking about wrt quantum mechanics, but I might guess that she was trying to get at the concept of phosphodiester bonds that hold energy for the cell in the form of ATP.  We understand quite a bit about the processes that make and hydrolyze ATP, but I don't believe we have sufficient synthetic mechanisms to actually manufacture it.  There's still a lot we don't understand about certain processes that we think we understand quite well.  Of course I have no idea if Lisa was actually trying to say anything like this, but I feel like being charitable and giving the benefit of the doubt today. 

About replacing living cells as machinery for protein manufacture, or even other biological molecules, including things like HRT:  I do a lot of DNA-based work, like PCRs, and that particular process is complicated (and expensive) enough.  The components necessary to do something like protein manufacture would be very complicated, and you would still need to couple the process to some kind of ribsomal production system, and you would also need the mRNA transcript to serve as the protein's blueprint. 

OTOH, if you could figure out how to synthesize a protein without a ribosome, you could probably win a Nobel prize.  You would just need to figure out the right way to control the kinetics of the synthesis reaction.  It's one of the things that makes Kary Mullis invention of PCR so awesome.  It decouples some of the biological processes and makes them controllable using something simple like temperature changes. 

Also, I forget who mentioned it at this point, but IIRC, there is a type of bio-identical estrogen available that is derived from plants and converted to something that is active in humans.  Not sure if it's vegan safe, but it's gotta be better than premarin. 

Quote from: lisagurl on July 09, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
Well the more food that is on people's plates the more babies they have ended in people without food on their plate.

That's a complete logical fallacy. The wealthy elite, people who can afford to eat whatever they want, whenever they want, aren't the people having 13 babies.
Heck, the middle ranged folks, those that own their own homes, two cars and a labrador. Those people aren't having 13 babies either.
It is more common for women in societies and classes within societies that have the least amount of resources are the ones that end up having the highest number of babies.
Try some facts next time.

QuoteOkay, do point to one single example of poverty and widespread food-shortages resulting in a decline in birth rates.

How about Rwanda. Each family had an a small plot to grow their food. As the families got larger and the children divided the land the area was smaller meaning less food, add a drought and you have 100 thousands killing each other for lack of resources.

Then there is Russia the collective farms have destroyed much of there growing areas the birth rate is declining. China imposed a birth limit to slow down the millions that are starving they have more population then there land can support.
Then in India farmers are committing suicide because they can not raise enough food to support a family.
How about North Korea starving people reduce birth rate.

AND THIS INCLUDES JAPAN, WHERE YOU EVEN GET YOUR PANTIES OUT OF A VENDING MACHINE!

Used even, but that's not what your advocating is it?

A high-tech economy that is heavily reliant upon an educated labor force is just better in the long-run.

Oh, I see what the problem is now.  That's OK, McDonald's will always be still be putting people on the crew, even if its people like you.

Many have challenged the way India measures poverty.

QuoteThe government Planning Commission estimates that 27.5 percent of the country's population lives below the poverty line, which is calculated based on how much it would cost to buy 2,400 calories a day in rural areas and 2,100 in urban areas. (City dwellers are thought to exert less energy, so they should need to consume less.)

Quote from: Jessica L. on July 09, 2009, 07:23:43 PMhow many times in your life have you REALLY needed an antibacterial handsoap?

All I really use outside the shower is a cheap hand sanitizer on a good day.

QuoteI think synthetic food is a little too complicated for us.  Nanotech age and all aside, we just don't have that kind of technology.

Well, this is a logistical problem, and I think it's one that can be resolved.

QuotePart of the problem is no one investing in it.

PRECISELY!!! The food industry has no short-term reason whatsoever to invest in this kind of technology. It just isn't rational for them to waste their money on it. That's why I think the government should invest in it. You see, I am heavily progressive, and I am a firm believer in the idea that one of the benefits of the state is that the state can think in the extreme long-term. This doesn't necessarily mean that any given long-term goal set by the state is going to eventually pay off, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the state is always going to approach it in a meaningful, productive way. However, there are some areas of science that our culture could gain a great deal from exploring, and the state, in spite of its flaws, is one good instrument for investigating ideas that are unlikely to reap benefits within the career of any senior executive. The thing is, when do finally sort out this problem and find a way to produce synthetic amino acids and proteins extremely cheaply, on a truly massive scale, then it would completely transform our entire culture.

QuoteThink of all the farmers/etc. that might go out of business if food no longer had to be grown.

Oh, you mean those wonderful people who reliably cast their vote against the idea that I have the same rights in this country as they do? Well, as pleasurable as it would be to see these guys hung out to dry, truly sythentic proteins would follow the same route that green energy is today: it would take decades for the costs to come down enough to even be truly competitive with conventional agriculture. It probably wouldn't even be cost-effective within our lifetimes.

Quotejust like the oil lobby is reputed to have been working against hybrid/electric cars for the past 20+ years.

I actually have respect for some of the more reputable oil companies. BP and Shell have been pretty proactive in paving the way to transition. I think a senior-exec from BP actually came out with some kind of statement regarding greenhouse gases or something like that.

QuoteMaybe there's just not enough money in it yet?

Precisely.

QuoteI'm not sure what exactly Lisa was talking about wrt quantum mechanics,

Pure magical thinking. She's been exhorting the virtues of this philosopher up in Berkeley. Now, I'm not going to hate on that guy in particular. Perhaps he's selling BS, but he isn't as pretensious or twisted as some people I've heard of. If I weren't so upset about the circumstances under which I heard about the guy, I might even find the guy's BS relaxing to listen to; he's got a good voice. No, the real issue is that Lisa, here, thinks that we should throw away all of our science textbooks and just let this goof tell us how, "the mind is a dance." I'm not trying to sell philosophy short or anything, but it's really no replacement for valid science.

A lot of people don't realize that truly organized scientific research is really pretty grueling. You spend a lot more of your time studying really dessicated and boring details than making outstanding discoveries, and, most of the time you are doing that, you are either up to your eye-sockets in muck or at dire risk of contracting some kind of weird cancer. If you are working with dangerous chemicals, which you would be in the area of nanotech, you've got chemical burns to worry about. I have studied in the empirical sciences. I decided it wasn't something I wanted to do because I felt it vampirically leeching out my soul, and I decided that I would rather devote my life to hearing about the millions of imaginative ways that people can become completely broken. It's a lot less depressing. Philosophy may have its niche, but this what's-his-name probably hasn't studied the subject matter he's attempting to address with anywhere near the kind of depth that an actual scientist does.

QuoteAlso, I forget who mentioned it at this point, but IIRC, there is a type of bio-identical estrogen available that is derived from plants and converted to something that is active in humans.  Not sure if it's vegan safe, but it's gotta be better than premarin.

Mine comes from cholesterol!

You are full of ->-bleeped-<-.  Really.  I have spend years and years studying the history of science and you could not be more wrong.  But, of course, you conclusions pretty much prove that.

Quote from: tekla on July 09, 2009, 08:45:06 PM
You are full of ->-bleeped-<-.  Really.  I have spend years and years studying the history of science and you could not be more wrong.  But, of course, you conclusions pretty much prove that.

Fine, Tekla. You try getting into nanotech. Let's see how long you last.

QuoteLisa, here, thinks that we should throw away all of our science textbooks and just let this goof tell us how,

I did not say that. I have worked with research people and sat on funding boards as I listened to their proposals. I was an Engineer with a degree in Science. Empirical measurement works great for 19 century physical laws. But today we are beyond just looking at just the physical side of life. A whole lot more benefits can come from new ways of looking at things. Those new ways are thinking out side the box.

---

Post Merge: July 09, 2009, 08:54:41 PM

---

QuoteFine, Tekla. You try getting into nanotech. Let's see how long you last.

Well lets see what effect the nano machines have on the human body as you will be the first to volunteer?

Of course Lisa, when the finance types started thinking outside the box is pretty much the exact moment when the economy went into the dumper.  Just saying.

In my work, we never think outside the box, but we do it in the time honored way that keeps everyone safe - even if it costs more money.  The lawyers force us to is our reply, but in truth, we like it that way too.

I've sat on funding boards too, and sat in on major DoE decisions too.  What wins is what works.  Simple at best, but simple in the end too.  Tragically, simple seems to work.

And I have worked on some of those issues - perhaps long before old SP ever heard of them, and we are close, but not there.  And even still... people pay more for beer that is made by hand, and with awesome ingredients.  As long as people eat, real food will sell for more, for a reason, and its a damn good reason.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 09, 2009, 08:51:30 PM
I did not say that. I have worked with research people and sat on funding boards as I listened to their proposals. I was an Engineer

You mean a civil engineer!? A target-designer!? Do you seriously think that that equates to working in modern nanotech, Lisa? Or brain science?

Even standard chemistry classes go deeper than what they teach to engineers, and it's a lot harder! In an advanced chemistry class, you are expected to remember chemical reactions that take up multiple pages in your text-book while some weird acid you can't even remember the name of is burning a hole into your flesh! They dab it on you deliberately to, and they don't let you wash it off until you've spit out the correct answer. If you give up, there are people from various parts of Asia, Africa, and Central Europe lined up out the door, waiting to take your place, and most of them have a lot more right to be there than you do. And no few of them speak better English than most people you even know.

Have you really studied anything remotely related to the subject matter we are discussing here?

QuoteQuoteOf course Lisa, when the finance types started thinking outside the box is pretty much the exact moment when the economy went into the dumper.  Just saying

Thinking outside the box and applying those ideas to established living conditions are two different things. It takes years of study and testing to understand things. Then it takes centuries to see the effect on life. We are just now seeing the effect of the telescope invention. I do not just means seeing the heavens but the concept of extending the senses.

You really think your going to some major university - in some grad school capacity - that doesn't have a law school?  What, Bob's College of Engineering, Bible Studies and Oil Changes?  Really.  I want to see your undergraduate transcript, and your grad school creds may not hurt either.

QuoteHave you really studied anything remotely related to the subject matter we are discussing here

Engineering Sciences. Everything from the material science, to growth of trees, to making of chips, to Magnetohydrodynamics, etc.

It has been awhile but we dated moon rocks with the mass-spectrometer for Carl Sagan, he also was my professor.

Quote from: tekla on July 09, 2009, 09:12:05 PMYou really think your going to some major university - in some grad school capacity - that doesn't have a law school?

Major? Well, it's a branch of the state system. It's okay.

QuoteWhat, Bob's College of Engineering, Bible Studies and Oil Changes?

Okay, is this a place that actually exists?

QuoteReally.  I want to see your undergraduate transcript, and your grad school creds may not hurt either.

No.

---

Post Merge: July 09, 2009, 09:39:04 PM

---

Quote from: lisagurl on July 09, 2009, 09:15:53 PM
Engineering Sciences. Everything from the material science, to growth of trees, to making of chips, to Magnetohydrodynamics, etc.

You have never studied anything remotely related to brain science or molecular chemistry, have you? From the sound of it, Lisa, you were a civil engineer.

Oh come on, I'll show you mine, if you show me yours. 

(of course, my transcripts though my PhD show a 4.9somthing GPA, in a wide range of subject. Most of which were science, technology and history at a major school of science and technology - of course I did do a few writing courses, but my teacher in writing won a Pulitzer Prize, so those are not a toss off either.) [and hell, she always told me I was wasting my time in history I should be a writer, but I told her I didn't have the stories to tell, but I do now, so perhaps...]

So you studied history, Tekla. You studied history, and Lisa was an engineer. For that matter, she once had Carl Sagan, a physicist, as an instructor. It does not sound like either of you have any background in molecular chemistry. Or neuroscience, for that matter.

Nah, we did real science and engineering.  I worked for a little construction company called Bechtel for a few years, before doing nuclear weapons tech for the DoE, before I did history, which was before I was a union stagehand.  Lisa worked at a real (not fiction, or 'could happen sometime in the future') nuclear power plant.  So sorry we have real experience.

Quote from: tekla on July 09, 2009, 09:52:54 PM
Nah, we did real science and engineering.  I worked for a little construction company called Bechtel for a few years, before doing nuclear weapons tech for the DoE

"Real science." Nuclear weapons. My grandfather was a nuclear physicist, and he spent most of his adult life working for the power company. He was a little bit autistic. He didn't know much about molecular chemistry or neuroscience, either. Oh, I think that he could understand axons in principle, but try getting him to understand why the NMDA receptor requires two different ligands in order to function. Try teaching him to read a Fisher projection. It would be a complete waste of your time because he is dead.

QuoteSo sorry we have real experience.

Yet, for all of her experience, Lisa has produced, as far as this subject is concerned, meaningless, misleading psycho-babble. You, Tekla, have produced a few highly imaginative barbs. You really should be a writer, Tekla. However, you do not seem to have any meaningful experience in the subject of molecular chemistry.