I suppose I might seem quite old-fashioned. To me, laboratories are primarily for quantitative analysis, statistical analyses and testing of parameters and standards, perhaps some R&D and related things.
I don't associate food production with a laboratory. If food is being produced in a sterile, qualatively-controlled environment, it is probably experimental, and not what I would consider wholesome. I feel the same about most (but not all) GMO foods. When some of us were wee sprouts, corn and wheat had a much different nutritional index; wheat and corn have been radically modified to produce MORE, but at cost of nutritional value and measurement. Thus, people are finding themselves semi- or completely allergic or intolerant to various grains which were previously in human history a constant in the survival matrix of our species. I'm just suprised somebody hasn't chosen to screw with the basic potato. 'Let's make them bigger!!! Let's make them big as a Volkswagon Beetle! We can ship them all over the world, and people will enjoy their empty calories!! weeeeee!"
People. Science is amazing and wonderful, and scientists -- while, in my world, not being opposed to religious folk -- often ask 'what can we do', rather than 'should we do this', or even 'is this an embracement of evil?' .......... ...... which is where de debil comes in, because evil -- if it exists as a cloud or manifestation or entity, surely loves confusing and tempting people who are curious, people who are seekers. Otherwise, we would not have antibiotics, or vaccines, or modern medicine, or theoretical physics, but we would also not have GOF viruses, or chemical weapons, or nuclear arms sufficient to vanquish ourselves.
Don't worry though. I'm pretty certain the roaches will always survive whatever we dish out.
Food shouldn't be created. We don't live on Soylent food. We aren't mature enough as a species to create food and understand all the ramifications and consequences of our works. We can debate whether animal or plant life is more ethical to eat; perhaps someday we'll survive on various plankton wafers, who knows? Should humanity survive and evolve, we might learn the answers to these questions. I continue to believe that almost every time -- if not every time -- humanity chooses to manipulate nature, they create, or invite disaster.
Yes, after no less than seven edits, that is my final answer.
I don't associate food production with a laboratory. If food is being produced in a sterile, qualatively-controlled environment, it is probably experimental, and not what I would consider wholesome. I feel the same about most (but not all) GMO foods. When some of us were wee sprouts, corn and wheat had a much different nutritional index; wheat and corn have been radically modified to produce MORE, but at cost of nutritional value and measurement. Thus, people are finding themselves semi- or completely allergic or intolerant to various grains which were previously in human history a constant in the survival matrix of our species. I'm just suprised somebody hasn't chosen to screw with the basic potato. 'Let's make them bigger!!! Let's make them big as a Volkswagon Beetle! We can ship them all over the world, and people will enjoy their empty calories!! weeeeee!"
People. Science is amazing and wonderful, and scientists -- while, in my world, not being opposed to religious folk -- often ask 'what can we do', rather than 'should we do this', or even 'is this an embracement of evil?' .......... ...... which is where de debil comes in, because evil -- if it exists as a cloud or manifestation or entity, surely loves confusing and tempting people who are curious, people who are seekers. Otherwise, we would not have antibiotics, or vaccines, or modern medicine, or theoretical physics, but we would also not have GOF viruses, or chemical weapons, or nuclear arms sufficient to vanquish ourselves.
Don't worry though. I'm pretty certain the roaches will always survive whatever we dish out.
Food shouldn't be created. We don't live on Soylent food. We aren't mature enough as a species to create food and understand all the ramifications and consequences of our works. We can debate whether animal or plant life is more ethical to eat; perhaps someday we'll survive on various plankton wafers, who knows? Should humanity survive and evolve, we might learn the answers to these questions. I continue to believe that almost every time -- if not every time -- humanity chooses to manipulate nature, they create, or invite disaster.
Yes, after no less than seven edits, that is my final answer.
