posted 20-03-2007 21:23
I know this is a bad time to start a thread but I can't wait 18 hours to put this one up.
Last night, a programme called Kill it, Cook it, Eat it featured some worrying yet defensible ideas involving genetically modifying food, including putting vitamin A in rice (rice contains none and about the same number of people who died in 9/11 die everyday from vitamin A deficiency) and a bull who had been modified to produce shitloads of muscle, which turned out to be thoroughly tasteless.
But at the end they showed the weirdest thing of all: meat grown from cow stem cells that was grown in a petri dish.
My question:
Would you eat the Petriburger?
At first thought I don't think I would, but my only reason for saying so is that it's so different, weird etc. So perhaps I'd grow into the idea over a few years if they became popular.
posted 20-03-2007 21:35
I'd probably give one a whirl, but I'd much prefer to be eating 'real' meat. I'm not too well-up on these petri-based food solutions but I'm pretty sure that they're very expensive. I'd certainly have no qualms about trying one though.
Posts: 1696
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Lickapaw#2: a bull who had been modified to produce shitloads of muscle, which turned out to be thoroughly tasteless.
Did they taste it? I wasn't paying attention. Fierce looking animal, though. Cattle that's selectively bred for yield or 'purity' can be tasteless. I spent a fortune on Charolais that looked fantastic and cut like butter but tasted distinctly meh.
posted 20-03-2007 21:54
I'd have no qualms about eating a petriburger. I mean, come on. Most of the way real meat is prepared would sicken most meat eaters to their stomachs. Why get squeamish about something prepped in a lab instead of in a howling, grinding blood spattered abbatoir manned by half-wits and Northerners?
-------------------- Now that you've called me by name? Posts: 2007
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Nathan Bleak: Why get squeamish about something prepped in a lab instead of in a howling, grinding blood spattered abbatoir manned by half-wits and Northerners?
I said I'd try one didn't I? I've just never tried one previously, therefore - as is usually the case with any foods that you're unfamiliar with - you're hardly going to leap in with extreme confidence. If it tasted nice, then I would jump around telling everybody how great petriburgers were.
Posts: 1696
| IP: Logged
Louche
Carved TMO on her clit just to make you feel bad
posted 20-03-2007 22:05
I think I'd let loads of other people eat them for a few years then tentatively try thyem. If the loads of other people hadn't died or sprouted horns in the interim, obviously.
Posts: 5776
| IP: Logged
posted 21-03-2007 13:40
I didn't watch the programme, but it was on somewhere in the house and I heard the bit about how farmers have been selective breeding for thousands of years and we've not complained about it so far. Like how carrots were originally white and the Dutch (or perhaps Belgians who had strayed across the border) selectively bred them to be orange in honour of their royal house. And how potatoes used to be poisonous till they were bred safe.
You know, one thing I don't get is why those creationist types don't say, "Yeah, evolution is correct, that's what happened, you're quite right." And then everyone would go, "Yay! They admit it at last! We are winner!" And then the creationists would go, "Yeah, it was God doing selective breeding, see." Instant reconciliation of the two theories, and everyone's happy. Except the athiests who would probably go into a rage as usual.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: Do athiests rage? I thought they just moped.
Oh, chemical chance, chemical chance etc.
I might be mixing them up with scientists. But scientists don't have to be athiests, and I presume that the ones who aren't atheists don't get particularly bothered about conflicts of interest (mainly because there really aren't any when you think about it). But I imagine there are also atheists who aren't particularly bothered about science. It's the (Venn diagram) atheist-scientists. They're the ones that rage.
posted 21-03-2007 15:56
Yeah she did have a freaky voice...if you watched her face you could see her mangling her voice by gurning a bit. Like she was trying to do a Lloyd Grossman impression...
Posts: 2793
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dang65: But I imagine there are also atheists who aren't particularly bothered about science. It's the (Venn diagram) atheist-scientists. They're the ones that rage.
What if the atheist-scientists intersect with the apatheticists? Maybe there's only me in there.
Posts: 1386
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: Do athiests' rage? I thought they just moped.
I'd say we mostly mutter quietly to ourselves and polietly (unless your Richard Dawkins)place our objections when the crazy cultists try to do something really stupid (like claim they should be exempt from any new laws - as in the case of the Catholic adoption thingy)
Posts: 520
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic