^ Sorry, either give a link or it's not true. Urban legend, you know.
A Decidedly New Type of "Meat"
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
It should come as no surprise that the meat in a taco contains seasoning ingredients, and is not 100% "meat". If it were it probably wouldn't taste very good.
---------------
Taco Bell's taco filling contains meat... but mostly oats, too.
In my head, there's still a world of difference between eating processed meat and processed feces even if you do know all the facts. One is animal flesh (which, admittedly, carries all manner of harmful/disgusting substances prior to processing) and the other is bodily WASTE--product expelled by the human body. I suspect I'm not alone in not being able to get over that fact, whether I eat meat or not.
Uh, no.
Most drinking water supplies come from groundwater and reservoirs, which are replenished by natural rainfall. Some reclaimed and treated wastewater (so-called “gray water”) is used for gardening, irrigation, washing, and industrial purposes — not for drinking. Gray water pipes and outlets are clearly marked as such, with big “DO NOT DRINK” warnings.
Well, go far enough back and that rainwater was probably at least partially waste water at some point. Nature is just better at filtration than us so far.
As far as this concept goes, it doesn't sound all that different from Star Trek's food synthesizers. I would be cautiously willing to explore the concept further.
As far as this concept goes, it doesn't sound all that different from Star Trek's food synthesizers. I would be cautiously willing to explore the concept further.
A
Amaris
Guest
Society would eventually get over it.
Well, I'm half right. It seems sewage water treatment is becoming a viable option and has been implemented in some locations. There was an article a few yearsd ago that talked about the need to tap those sewage treatment plants for potable water: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128120727.htm
Agreed.
Back in the 1980's I recall watching a show in which researchers turned garbage into food and actually feeding it to some unknowing diners. I don't remember the details but I'm assuming it was garbage of an organic nature. 30 years later, you don't see restaurants and grocery stores offering food products created from processed garbage, do you? I bet you won't see it 50 years or 100 years later either. As long there's not a worldwide food shortage of completely epic proportions, this idea will remain in the lab.
A
Amaris
Guest
You don't see it because there is yet no need for it. If anything, we have an overabundance of food. As the world's population grows, there will be new ways of recycling waste into food.
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.
Hoax or not, dogs seem to like dry cat turds, without reprocessing. And "cow chips" (sun-dried manure) are used as fuel, not to mention building materials, in some regions.
I think there is a degree of indignity about recycling waste like this. Nature purifies. We should instead be using our waste as organic fertilizer to grow new crops. That's working in harmony with nature, which is how it should be.
If this process becomes popular, imagine how many prepared foods will have this reconstituted protein included in the ingredients. It'll become a cheap filler ingredient, used to reduce manufacturing costs.
At most, I think this should be part of backup systems such as on a space station, for use where real food cannot be supplied.
If this process becomes popular, imagine how many prepared foods will have this reconstituted protein included in the ingredients. It'll become a cheap filler ingredient, used to reduce manufacturing costs.
At most, I think this should be part of backup systems such as on a space station, for use where real food cannot be supplied.
PathWithoutEnd
Ensign
"Nature purifies.?" That's just an euphemism for 'nature recycles'.
Which is just what this science project is said to do.
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.
In any practical terms - aka bio-chemical, physical - there's no difference between naturally recycled protein and artificially recycled protein. With the possible exception of fine distinctions, much like star trek's replicated food not having the exact same flavour as grown food (which may or may not be the case).
Yes, there's a strong mental block - taboo - against this. That does not mean that the argument "which is how it should be" is in any way convincing.
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.
Which is just what this science project is said to do.
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.
In any practical terms - aka bio-chemical, physical - there's no difference between naturally recycled protein and artificially recycled protein. With the possible exception of fine distinctions, much like star trek's replicated food not having the exact same flavour as grown food (which may or may not be the case).
Yes, there's a strong mental block - taboo - against this. That does not mean that the argument "which is how it should be" is in any way convincing.
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.
I reject the notion that just because nature does something, that automatically makes it better than any human equivalent. There is no inherent superiority to any natural process. It does make sense to harness natural processes when they provide clear benefits to us, but not everything nature does is automatically good or better than the way humans do it.
No, it's a separate concept.
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.
misquote.
I'm not sure it's a matter of "which is how it should be" but rather an issue of being unable to undo eons of human instinct that says the body's waste products are smelly, nasty matter to be avoided (and in more recent times, disposed of properly) and surely not eaten.
I think the only relevant question here is whether the proteins extracted by this process are usable by a human metabolism and not in some way deficient compared to "fresh" proteins. If they are chemically and structurally identical then I really don't see the difference. The "history" is irrelevant, it only matters what form they have at the end of the extraction process.
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 found thought experiments like the murderer's knife to be quite useful.
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?!