[extropy-chat] GM Food [was: World map of human ES cellandnucleartransfer policies]

[Brett Paatsch]

Brent Neal wrote:

> (12/11/05 10:28) Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Brent Neal wrote:
>
>>very intense farming - Robert's bio-gruel idea - is not necessarily
>>going to be cheaper and so more cost effective than just intense
>>farming).
>
> Asimov wrote about a time where most human-coonsumed calories would come 
> from vat-grown yeast. I believe this was in the early 80s... (The Caves of 
> Steel)

Still earlier, H. G. Welles wrote about a future when most calories would 
come in the form of Eloi.  No vats required !  (The Time Machine).

>>Per unit weight, fat contains more energy (calories) than protein
>>or carbohydrates. That's almost fat's evolutionary metabolic
>>purpose, to be a light weight energy store, that packs energy
>>extremely densely into volume - volumes like camel's humps etc.
>
> As I recall, fat is 9 kcal/g and proteins average at 4 kcal/g.
>
>>
>>This says nothing about taste or nutrition though. Humans can't
>>live on fat alone.
>
> (12/10/05 17:43) Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>I don't know about that -- as I gaze about me incredulously on the 
>>streets,
>>I suspect this conjecture is daily refuted.
>>
> I'll have to agree with Damian on this one. :)

Alas, Australian's are tending the same way.

> (12/11/05 10:28) Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>Any given GM solution has to get over two classes of hurdles
>>(at least) - it has to be politically doable, and it has to be cost
>>effective against the alternatives (including non GM solutions and
>>other GM solutions) after taking into account what value the GM
>>solution is supposed to add.
>
> The politically-savvy solution may revolve around making land that is not 
> otherwise arable productive. Growing muscle tissue on artificial scaffolds 
> in tanks, for instance.  You avoid any danger of genetic pollution this 
> way. Further, meat is valued enough in areas where the daily caloric 
> intake is low that the demand will outstrip squeamishness objections.

Hmm, unless perhaps we are being too skittish about politics, and in so 
doing are failing to think outside the box, and thereby overlooking the most 
elegant solution of all.

The most economically efficient, environmentally friendly, and ethically 
utilitarian solution would probably be for human beings to just eat the 
Americans :-)
Its hard for me to imagine a better combination of nutrients for a human 
being in one free-ranging package than an American.

Heck one could say that Americans almost contain everything necessary for a 
human being, nutritionally speaking.  I wonder why Robert didn't think of 
this one? :-)

Brett Paatsch