A Decidedly New Type of "Meat"

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Why yes, I *have* seen Soylent Green.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The "history" is irrelevant.

I tended to think that way too at one time, but then I learned about quantum entanglement, which forced me to reexamine the relevance of history in broader philosophical musings.

I think you might be extrapolating a bit too much from quantum theory here. If what you say is true, then there would be the same risks from protein from any source, because you won't know with 100% certainly what the constituent atoms and even subatomic particles of that protein have been through in the duration of their existence.

If you are using quantum entanglement as an argument against recycling waste products, I have to say that strikes me as completely off the rails.

As a semi-related aside, how do you feel about recycling dead people? Earlier this year, a proposal was made to build an environmentally friendly alternative to crematoriums, where bodies could be passed through an industrial process, with metals and other chemical compounds extracted and recycled. Surely there is a lot of protein in a corpse that could be extracted too?!

Dead people aren't using their bodies anymore. They should become the "property" of the next-of-kin, and if they opt to have the body processed into chemicals and sold for their value I have no objections. Likewise, people can do whatever they wish with my body--I won't be in it at the time.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If you are using quantum entanglement as an argument against recycling waste products, I have to say that strikes me as completely off the rails.

And going completely off the rails is MY schtick.

 

[PathWithoutEnd]

"Nature purifies.?" That's just an euphemism for 'nature recycles'.

No, it's a separate concept.

Physically and biochemically - it is the same 'concept'.

In both cases you start with waste products (also called fertiliser) and in both cases you end with the same proteins - identical on a subatomic scale (and beyond - even including their 'metaphysical' history).

The ony difference is on a psychological level.

Nature just takes longer, which is why you don't see the entirety of the recycling chain - that doesn't change the fact that the fruits you're eating were fertiliser a year ago.

Protein extraction is a process of getting hold of a chemical that already exists in waste. The product retains it's history, in the same way that a knife used to kill somebody retains its history, even though it's function as a knife hasn't been compromised, few people would want to keep the knife, because it has that history.

The purification stage with fertilizers occurs as they become part of the body of the earth, where history is laid to rest. When new plants grow, chemical compounds are manufactured anew... beginning a new cycle, and a new history.

'History is laid to rest"?
As said, the only difference is on a psychological level.

If humanity would have behaved as nature 'intended'...

misquote.

Your post: "That's working in harmony with nature, which is how it should be."
My response: "If humanity would have behaved as nature 'intended', as 'it should be', today, the few thousand humans in existence would still inhabit Africa and die at 25, after a brutal and short existence, lived in a tree."

Define 'harmony with nature'.

 

[Jadzia]

If you are using quantum entanglement as an argument against recycling waste products...

I'm not. I mentioned it because that is what first prompted me to reexamine the relevance of history.

 

[Hound of UIster]

This story is a total hoax...

Google it and watch the associated video, the doctor is literally looking at a big chunk of meat underneath a microsope. No slide, just a big thick plop of it.

Do you have any actual evidence that it's a hoax?

It looks like some people think it is a hoax but there's been no proof or confirmation.

The scientist in question doesn't exist.