3 ms·

genetic engineering will be old hat soon. Our kids will be writing 'Hello World' in DNA++. As for creating pain-free livestock to eat? Why not go one step furth

genetic engineering will be old hat soon. Our kids will be writing 'Hello World' in DNA++. As for creating pain-free livestock to eat? Why not go one step further and create livestock without any awareness at all? Better yet, just add engineered nanobots to a nutrient solution to create the perfect steak? Livestock would be obsolete. Future generations will think us barbaric for killing other sentient life.

dejb 17y ago
The distinction between meat and non-meat would likely fade if that was the case. Of course you'd probably be able to control both the nutritional and taste characteristics of the food produced which would be a big benefit as well. .
patio11 17y ago
Future generations will think us barbaric for killing other sentient life. I think that it is more likely they'll look at us with bemused semi-contempt, much like we currently look almost all practices rendered economically irrelevant with the exception of a very few (slavery, child labor, etc). "Man, that sure must have sucked back when they had to grow a whole darn cow just to have some beef to eat. Can you imagine how inefficient that is? Heck, the cow bits would be so valuable, you'd probably actually save the ones you didn't eat, so that you could eat them later! Imagine how absurd that would be!" (If this dialogue strikes you as unlikely, consider what you would say to any friend who, on deciding they were done drinking from a glass of water, put a saran wrap cover on the top of the cup and put it in the fridge "so I can drink it for leftovers tomorrow". Local caching of water made plenty of sense up until quite recently, historically speaking.)
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  I often drink water from a refillable bottle, when I've had enough I don't throw the rest away but instead replace the cap and then drink the water later. You must be from the USA? Water costs plenty in production and produces waste due to energy requirements and chemical processing. Whilst water is cycled through their is a substantial lag involved meaning that water reserves can be damagingly depleted. Throwing consumables away that are still directly usable is unnecessary waste - put the rest of the water on your pot plants or pour it in the kettle to use later. One other thing, do you saran-wrap (aka cling-film) a glass of water sitting on the counter in the kitchen? Why then do that when it sits in the fridge? If you find you need a cover then use a reusable container with a cover. Local caching of water still makes plenty of sense.
  - Poiesis 17y ago
    Yeah, we're saving our own spare water (extra from a glass; leftover water from cooking, etc.). We have a jug in the kitchen with a funnel. But we're in an area with mandatory water restrictions.
cmars232 17y ago
Sure... as long as those nanobots know where the nutrient solution stops and us people begin.

dejb 17y ago

The distinction between meat and non-meat would likely fade if that was the case. Of course you'd probably be able to control both the nutritional and taste characteristics of the food produced which would be a big benefit as well. .

patio11 17y ago

Future generations will think us barbaric for killing other sentient life. I think that it is more likely they'll look at us with bemused semi-contempt, much like we currently look almost all practices rendered economically irrelevant with the exception of a very few (slavery, child labor, etc). "Man, that sure must have sucked back when they had to grow a whole darn cow just to have some beef to eat. Can you imagine how inefficient that is? Heck, the cow bits would be so valuable, you'd probably actually save the ones you didn't eat, so that you could eat them later! Imagine how absurd that would be!" (If this dialogue strikes you as unlikely, consider what you would say to any friend who, on deciding they were done drinking from a glass of water, put a saran wrap cover on the top of the cup and put it in the fridge "so I can drink it for leftovers tomorrow". Local caching of water made plenty of sense up until quite recently, historically speaking.)

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
I often drink water from a refillable bottle, when I've had enough I don't throw the rest away but instead replace the cap and then drink the water later. You must be from the USA? Water costs plenty in production and produces waste due to energy requirements and chemical processing. Whilst water is cycled through their is a substantial lag involved meaning that water reserves can be damagingly depleted. Throwing consumables away that are still directly usable is unnecessary waste - put the rest of the water on your pot plants or pour it in the kettle to use later. One other thing, do you saran-wrap (aka cling-film) a glass of water sitting on the counter in the kitchen? Why then do that when it sits in the fridge? If you find you need a cover then use a reusable container with a cover. Local caching of water still makes plenty of sense.
- Poiesis 17y ago
  Yeah, we're saving our own spare water (extra from a glass; leftover water from cooking, etc.). We have a jug in the kitchen with a funnel. But we're in an area with mandatory water restrictions.

cmars232 17y ago

Sure... as long as those nanobots know where the nutrient solution stops and us people begin.