Also, I don't think B12 is an issue in low-tech cultures that don't rely on heavily processed food. Its probably an issue in modern society because most of what you get from the supermarket is really shit. I have been to the supermarkets and I can find 1 out of 10 things that look nutritious at all. This is an abysmally low number.
You make very points in opposition to most all of mine. However as much as I care about my fellow human beings, what right does a corp like Monsanto have to get all uppity and dictate their method of survival on all the rest of us.
I suppose I really respect your points. But I hate that we have to all play nice with each other because GMO might save some lives somewhere. It could also screw the hippies and idiots who love nature.
I understand nature sucks and it will kill you and re-absorb your shit in a heartbeat. But I can respect nature, allot more sometimes then I can respect my fellow human pals. Especially the ones that work for Monsanto and tell us to STFU and go to the supermarket.
Hence my very inflammatory response. But I did learn quite a bit from your alternative perspective.
Everything is interconnected in an infinitely complex web of interactions. This is not understood to be a fact;p However science does not necessarily support this and is not the primary method of coming to this conclusion. People understood this in Hindu culture prior to modern scientific method. Maybe its a bad example. How you feel about your feelings is maybe a subject less understood by science. Science has not even figured out if this experience we share is virtual or physical or if I'm not talking to myself in a delusion. Well I suppose it says no. But I understand those concepts without needing to back them up with a thesis and white paper.
Astral projection, spirit animals. You have to dream and be psychically aware. This is something else I can understand without science. Works for me, you can totally laugh it off if you want. It might just be hallucinations, but I don't know this and science can't tell me for sure. It can give me the reasonable guess that they are not separate entities from myself. I can discard this and still understand them.
Precognition. Also not a "fact" but its something else I can understand.
Language existed prior to science, however this does not mean that science has not shed light on language.
I'm not sure were your trying to go with this question. Humans have believed all kinds of non-scientific concepts that have served them in some form or capacity. Our intuition is mighty powerful, and there are things we have not discovered yet that may be true or commonly explained as supernatural. Lightening use to be supernatural until science quantized it.
But I generally use science when I can get some obvious and immediately useful results (some might laugh at my special brand of it). I would never call myself a scientist and have never claimed to be. I may understand something fundamental here about science that makes it a totally defacto point of view everyone should have.
I suppose you can have philosophy without science. But science can guide philosophy if you want to go there.
Thanks for pointing that out, I did know about that study, but didn't see that much relevance.
I also re-analyzed my Eskimo woman theory.
That same Eskimo woman that lived to 90, even though her long age didn't necessarily correlate with her diet, might have died much younger on a bad diet in a different society where it would have actually correlated. I am pretty sure that eating only Taco Bell is going to correlate with badness;p (P.S. I do love some evil Taco Bell, see demolition man).
Lets face it, Eskimo's can freeze to death, get crushed by whales, fall through the ice, have no medical care for weird diseases such as cancer, may suffer a higher infant mortality rate. I don't really know. So the correlation is just not necessarily there. But it does provide more logic for their diet being part of the reason their average life expectancy is not even more abysmally short.
Which leads me to another point. You might live longer in a high tech society with your life extended via machines, and things like kidney dialysis. And I do not wish to take this away from anyone. But that extra 10 years you get may just suck in comparison to dieing when your body started to fail you rather then extending it with science (TM).
And thats why I didn't bother to read the article, post several flames, and proceed to read the +5 informative replies that change my perspective on this virus DNA injection thing.
I still dislike Monsanto on philosophical grounds;)
Damn fine perspective you have there. I really do like what you are saying. And in regards to human vs animal psychology.
I still can't help but believe the Klingon culture doesn't have some merit though. Obviously they had their moon praxis explode;p
It all boils down to choice. Having the freedom to understand the consequences of those choices in new depth and perspective is the greatest gift we humans have. We should nurture that.
Oh dear lord. There was this guy back in the 90's who was doing research at MIT and wearing a set of gear that allowed him to be linked to the internet 24/7. First wearable computer and virtual reality augmentation AFAIK. He even wrote a paper on how it would dumb us humans down. It got posted to slashdot a few times I'm sure. I cannot for the life of me google up the name or the study though. But it was done, maybe to the tune of a research grant int 1990. Since I watched the documentary in the 90's or early 2000's theres a fair chance the research was done in the late 80's even. Though I would hazard a guess at early 90's.
I've seen some impressive low power displays, like what the old kindle had. Its not really that sci-fi, probably in the XKCD realm of just we're not really looking at market applications now (I like being the only one with a hovercar).
I don't advocate taking no risks. I think my biggest argument is that Monsanto sucks and I don't trust them period because of much philosophical debate about human nature.
If I had the knowledge and power to do genetic tinkering with my food, I might try it on my own. But I sure as hell don't want to buy it from megacorp XYZ.
If that was directed towards my statement. My logic is that it's hard to get access to a ready supply of safe meat. There's plenty people in this country just able enough to subsist on Taco Bell and McDonalds.
Lots of fresh vegetable's is do-able by almost anyone though with the time, and able bodies to do the work for it, and willingness to sacrifice a full time job.
This can easily be solved with encoded information and visualization through some kind of augmented glasses. While shopping at the store, get code from can of beans, relentlessly uplink to database, and get a full text search right in your low power HUD. The interface doesn't need to be any more complex then a low rez text display with transparent screen and either a contrasting or dark opaque lettering.
You would be surprised at the differing levels of digestion and absorption of different compounds. Its not like a perfect incinerator down there. Some of our good guy bacteria even plays a big roll in how much some things come out the other end, and what gets absorbed.
And yeah, well, if I had a choice I would buy produce without pesticides all the time as well. We do grow some of our own food here, onions, potatoes, evil cauliflowers and the like. I like collard greens and they grow well here. Unfortunately thats not an option for the other picky eaters in my home.
Correct. What happens when corn that normally didn't have a particular allergen in it becomes the standard then though? All people who previously could eat naturally selected for corn, suffer GMO corn allergy.
Sometimes allergies take time to develop with exposure to. Given 50 years, we might see a specifically high number of people allergic to GMO because our bodies went WTF. This last little bit is highly speculative though, but enough to say pushing the human race to a 100% GMO perfected utopia is not an ideal to strive for. Does not nullify my distrust and dislike of Monsanto and the idea of tinkering with nature.
I suppose its subjective. But if the numbers look at average life expectancy I will temporarily take your word for it until I find out more. My counter to that, is life is boring if all you eat is canned GMO beans.
I think we are not so adapted to cooked food that its in our DNA, just yet. I think it might only take a few generations to see the benifits of less cooked food. Also the star that burns brightest burns shorter. So we might have overall better health until we die horribly from some disease we picked up because our immune systems are shutting down in our old age.
And yep, Vegans definitely know more then most people from Sol. J/K. Yeah, you guys are smart I'm not really trying to tell you how to think. But I think my arguments, while not 100% flawless do hold some merit. Its more fodder to consider, or not consider, or just flame back on.
Hehe, You know I agree with what you just illustrated there. That doesn't mean that hating Monsanto and disliking GMO and calling it unsafe is irrational or stupid. There's many that would argue that hate is a completely unreasoning and irrational attitude. But the general FUD and propganda I have heard about Monsanto is negative. I also know that given a choice I would pick, NOT THEM. But it seems like more and more our society is not about free will and self determination. Just do whats good for the horde because, science says so, Monsanto says so.
I just wanted to point out my logic as to why I distrust GMO so much. Take it or leave it for what its worth. And thanks for the reply. I will say that I have eaten plenty of potentially GMO infested products, simply out of practicality and necessity. I am not so insane as to say drinking polluted water is worse then no water.
I really don't think were being given a choice as individuals in this matter. Our culture forbids it. Some of us do, but not all of us. We are not equal and fair, and that is also another little boy concept, that everything should be fair.
Monsanto is however an injustice to those that dislike them.
Thanks, that was a pretty different enlightening perspective. I suppose I see the behavior of ants as just straight forward compared to the dubious and duplicitous behavior of nations, and organized groups of humans vs each-other.
And I never once thought nature was a kind mistress, I know exactly how brutal it can be. But I prefer direct honest confrontation, flesh and blood to mental and political battles, so I colored humans badly and not animals.
I want all trace elements in my tinfoil hat to be labeled. Particularly radio actives if the tinfoil was produced and or mined in china. Oh yeah radiation in low doses is not necessarily harmful. Maybe I should buy more of those. Let the biggest corporation convince me with their well funded research! HO!
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense.
Also, I don't think B12 is an issue in low-tech cultures that don't rely on heavily processed food. Its probably an issue in modern society because most of what you get from the supermarket is really shit. I have been to the supermarkets and I can find 1 out of 10 things that look nutritious at all. This is an abysmally low number.
*make very good points in opposition to mine
You make very points in opposition to most all of mine. However as much as I care about my fellow human beings, what right does a corp like Monsanto have to get all uppity and dictate their method of survival on all the rest of us.
I suppose I really respect your points. But I hate that we have to all play nice with each other because GMO might save some lives somewhere. It could also screw the hippies and idiots who love nature.
I understand nature sucks and it will kill you and re-absorb your shit in a heartbeat. But I can respect nature, allot more sometimes then I can respect my fellow human pals. Especially the ones that work for Monsanto and tell us to STFU and go to the supermarket.
Hence my very inflammatory response. But I did learn quite a bit from your alternative perspective.
* may misunderstand something fundamental about science that makes it a totally defacto point of view everyone should have.
Everything is interconnected in an infinitely complex web of interactions. This is not understood to be a fact ;p However science does not necessarily support this and is not the primary method of coming to this conclusion. People understood this in Hindu culture prior to modern scientific method. Maybe its a bad example. How you feel about your feelings is maybe a subject less understood by science. Science has not even figured out if this experience we share is virtual or physical or if I'm not talking to myself in a delusion. Well I suppose it says no. But I understand those concepts without needing to back them up with a thesis and white paper.
Astral projection, spirit animals. You have to dream and be psychically aware. This is something else I can understand without science. Works for me, you can totally laugh it off if you want. It might just be hallucinations, but I don't know this and science can't tell me for sure. It can give me the reasonable guess that they are not separate entities from myself. I can discard this and still understand them.
Precognition. Also not a "fact" but its something else I can understand.
Language existed prior to science, however this does not mean that science has not shed light on language.
I'm not sure were your trying to go with this question. Humans have believed all kinds of non-scientific concepts that have served them in some form or capacity. Our intuition is mighty powerful, and there are things we have not discovered yet that may be true or commonly explained as supernatural. Lightening use to be supernatural until science quantized it.
But I generally use science when I can get some obvious and immediately useful results (some might laugh at my special brand of it). I would never call myself a scientist and have never claimed to be. I may understand something fundamental here about science that makes it a totally defacto point of view everyone should have.
I suppose you can have philosophy without science. But science can guide philosophy if you want to go there.
Thanks for pointing that out, I did know about that study, but didn't see that much relevance.
I also re-analyzed my Eskimo woman theory.
That same Eskimo woman that lived to 90, even though her long age didn't necessarily correlate with her diet, might have died much younger on a bad diet in a different society where it would have actually correlated. I am pretty sure that eating only Taco Bell is going to correlate with badness ;p (P.S. I do love some evil Taco Bell, see demolition man).
Lets face it, Eskimo's can freeze to death, get crushed by whales, fall through the ice, have no medical care for weird diseases such as cancer, may suffer a higher infant mortality rate. I don't really know. So the correlation is just not necessarily there. But it does provide more logic for their diet being part of the reason their average life expectancy is not even more abysmally short.
Which leads me to another point. You might live longer in a high tech society with your life extended via machines, and things like kidney dialysis. And I do not wish to take this away from anyone. But that extra 10 years you get may just suck in comparison to dieing when your body started to fail you rather then extending it with science (TM).
Algae culture's could solve the problem without GM anything.
Enough spirulina could be produced to feed the entire world wonderfully nutritious green paste en-masse.
Of course this would be very socialist and dystopian if it was forced on the entire human race. But it would work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfCBDyPiTS4
I'm all for the /. TCG with cards like astroturf, strawman, rtfa, troll, flamebait, etc...
We could have special cards for characters with UID's lower then 1000.
And thats why I didn't bother to read the article, post several flames, and proceed to read the +5 informative replies that change my perspective on this virus DNA injection thing.
I still dislike Monsanto on philosophical grounds ;)
Damn fine perspective you have there. I really do like what you are saying. And in regards to human vs animal psychology.
I still can't help but believe the Klingon culture doesn't have some merit though. Obviously they had their moon praxis explode ;p
It all boils down to choice. Having the freedom to understand the consequences of those choices in new depth and perspective is the greatest gift we humans have. We should nurture that.
Derp Triple posting for the epic win, this has already be done, a bunch of times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wearcompevolution.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wearable_computer#History
Also most peoples modern phones could have an app for this using the camera functionality and a lovely dataplan. Scew the wearable bit.
Oh dear lord. There was this guy back in the 90's who was doing research at MIT and wearing a set of gear that allowed him to be linked to the internet 24/7. First wearable computer and virtual reality augmentation AFAIK. He even wrote a paper on how it would dumb us humans down. It got posted to slashdot a few times I'm sure. I cannot for the life of me google up the name or the study though. But it was done, maybe to the tune of a research grant int 1990. Since I watched the documentary in the 90's or early 2000's theres a fair chance the research was done in the late 80's even. Though I would hazard a guess at early 90's.
I've seen some impressive low power displays, like what the old kindle had. Its not really that sci-fi, probably in the XKCD realm of just we're not really looking at market applications now (I like being the only one with a hovercar).
LOL - logically or scientifically, or only when your particularly specialized brand of logic and observation is applied.
I don't advocate taking no risks. I think my biggest argument is that Monsanto sucks and I don't trust them period because of much philosophical debate about human nature.
If I had the knowledge and power to do genetic tinkering with my food, I might try it on my own. But I sure as hell don't want to buy it from megacorp XYZ.
If that was directed towards my statement. My logic is that it's hard to get access to a ready supply of safe meat. There's plenty people in this country just able enough to subsist on Taco Bell and McDonalds.
Lots of fresh vegetable's is do-able by almost anyone though with the time, and able bodies to do the work for it, and willingness to sacrifice a full time job.
This can easily be solved with encoded information and visualization through some kind of augmented glasses. While shopping at the store, get code from can of beans, relentlessly uplink to database, and get a full text search right in your low power HUD. The interface doesn't need to be any more complex then a low rez text display with transparent screen and either a contrasting or dark opaque lettering.
You would be surprised at the differing levels of digestion and absorption of different compounds. Its not like a perfect incinerator down there. Some of our good guy bacteria even plays a big roll in how much some things come out the other end, and what gets absorbed.
And yeah, well, if I had a choice I would buy produce without pesticides all the time as well. We do grow some of our own food here, onions, potatoes, evil cauliflowers and the like. I like collard greens and they grow well here. Unfortunately thats not an option for the other picky eaters in my home.
Correct. What happens when corn that normally didn't have a particular allergen in it becomes the standard then though? All people who previously could eat naturally selected for corn, suffer GMO corn allergy.
Sometimes allergies take time to develop with exposure to. Given 50 years, we might see a specifically high number of people allergic to GMO because our bodies went WTF. This last little bit is highly speculative though, but enough to say pushing the human race to a 100% GMO perfected utopia is not an ideal to strive for. Does not nullify my distrust and dislike of Monsanto and the idea of tinkering with nature.
I suppose its subjective. But if the numbers look at average life expectancy I will temporarily take your word for it until I find out more. My counter to that, is life is boring if all you eat is canned GMO beans.
I think we are not so adapted to cooked food that its in our DNA, just yet. I think it might only take a few generations to see the benifits of less cooked food. Also the star that burns brightest burns shorter. So we might have overall better health until we die horribly from some disease we picked up because our immune systems are shutting down in our old age.
And yep, Vegans definitely know more then most people from Sol. J/K. Yeah, you guys are smart I'm not really trying to tell you how to think. But I think my arguments, while not 100% flawless do hold some merit. Its more fodder to consider, or not consider, or just flame back on.
Hehe, You know I agree with what you just illustrated there. That doesn't mean that hating Monsanto and disliking GMO and calling it unsafe is irrational or stupid. There's many that would argue that hate is a completely unreasoning and irrational attitude. But the general FUD and propganda I have heard about Monsanto is negative. I also know that given a choice I would pick, NOT THEM. But it seems like more and more our society is not about free will and self determination. Just do whats good for the horde because, science says so, Monsanto says so.
I just wanted to point out my logic as to why I distrust GMO so much. Take it or leave it for what its worth. And thanks for the reply. I will say that I have eaten plenty of potentially GMO infested products, simply out of practicality and necessity. I am not so insane as to say drinking polluted water is worse then no water.
I really don't think were being given a choice as individuals in this matter. Our culture forbids it. Some of us do, but not all of us. We are not equal and fair, and that is also another little boy concept, that everything should be fair.
Monsanto is however an injustice to those that dislike them.
Thanks, that was a pretty different enlightening perspective. I suppose I see the behavior of ants as just straight forward compared to the dubious and duplicitous behavior of nations, and organized groups of humans vs each-other.
And I never once thought nature was a kind mistress, I know exactly how brutal it can be. But I prefer direct honest confrontation, flesh and blood to mental and political battles, so I colored humans badly and not animals.
I want all trace elements in my tinfoil hat to be labeled. Particularly radio actives if the tinfoil was produced and or mined in china. Oh yeah radiation in low doses is not necessarily harmful. Maybe I should buy more of those. Let the biggest corporation convince me with their well funded research! HO!