Would Vegetarians Eat Meat if No Animals Were Killed?

Welcome!  Or welcome back, as the case may be.  Today's blog is about the things we eat.  If you don't want me to frank about food, please stop reading here.  I'll do my best to be as un-frank as I know how.  I might try being jim about it... or maybe steve... I like steve.

One of the key problems of human existence is that we need to eat to live, yet some of us have developed sympathy for the creatures we consume.  This is one of the main drives of the vegetarian movement, an attempt to limit the amount of animals killed by eating less meat.  That's like trying to keep a democrat or a republican from being elected by not voting for them; You have a slight effect, but it's really just for you.  Vegans are people who take it a step further and won't even have anything with animal products in it, like eggs, milk and cheese.  Vegan is such a strange term that I find it easier to call them herbivores, which is a term I learned about when studying dinosaurs for a creature that only eats plants.

Moo?

As a point of argument, everything we as humans eat came from something that was alive.  Meat, eggs, yeast in bread, grain in cereal, apples from trees.  Plants just don't have faces or make noise when you take their sexual organs off their branches and stalks* and generally don't die when you harvest off them, so it's more bearable.  There is precisely one exception I've managed to find to this rule, which is salt.  Salt is a naturally occurring resource that is mined the world over to make french fries and popcorn taste better... Except in France of course.

What it all boils down to, as I see it, is that some people say that eating animals is "wrong" or "unnatural."  All of that is inherently funny because animals, frequently, eat other animals.  In fact, certain species of ant will invade a termite colony and capture the termite queen so that she produces more termite larvae.  Not to raise them, just to eat them, kinda like cattle farming.  Of course, no one will win an argument using ants, they aren't people.**

However, here's an interesting thought experiment: What if we could have meat without killing any animals?  The ethical argument would go away completely and we could enjoy some guilt free prime rib.  Plus, if we had a way of producing it without using animals, we could remove the costly and land consuming need for huge livestock farms and put that land to better use in the future.***  A couple different scientists around the world are trying to accomplish that very thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110130/sc_nm/us_food_meat_laboratory_feature

Cluck?

As you may read in the article, assuming you READ the article, you'll notice that the programs outlined in the headline are currently unfunded.  However, it's theoretically possible to take a gene from the meat of a cow or chicken, grow it in a laboratory and produce animal meat without the animal.  The same techniques are being tested to grow new organs for people using their own genes.

Imagine it, the ability to "grow" food without having to grow plants, feed those plants to an animal, wait for that animal to grow to the right age and size, kill the animal, remove the important meat parts and then have dinner.  I'd be curious to see how many ex-vegetarians we'd have in this country.  I'm sure PETA would still have a problem with it, exploiting animals for our own usage, but who really cares about PETA anymore?****  I'm a Person Eating Tasty Animals.

Anyway, let me know what you guys think about growing cultured meats (meaning meat grown in a lab, not meat that can tell you which operas are the best to attend) and I'll try to keep the interesting stuff a-comin'.  Time to go hunt and gather some fried chicken.

*Which is essentially what fruit and vegetables are.  Think about that next time you have a salad.
**Unless you have an aunt in the slaughterhouse industry.  Then the analogy works... sort of.
***Well, better use than a huge manure production facility, I suppose.  There will always be a need for bull shit some where.
****Aside from crazy celebrities who are in it for the media attention.

Japan: Proud Producers of 3D and Mammoths

Since we're early in this blog's life, I figure it's a good time to define some terms for everyone.  These aren't the "according to Hoyle"* definitions, but my own personal ones.  Language evolves through usage and this is how I use these words...


Nerd:  An intelligent person who puts their intelligence towards practical uses.  For instance, a good scientist is a nerd.  Nerds can generally tell you the square root of things or build a rudimentary adding machine out of sticks & stones.
Geek:  An intelligent person who puts their intelligence towards trivial uses.  A geek might be able to tell you square roots, but he'd rather explain how the warp drive on the USS Enterprise theoretically works.
Dweeb:  A moderately intelligent person who doesn't know enough about trivial or practical things to talk to geeks & nerds on the same level.  Someone who can't remember if the Force is in Star Trek or Star Wars or someone who doesn't know the difference between rational and irrational numbers** is a dweeb.
Dork:  An idiot.


That being said, there are many cross breeds in the mix.  I personally define myself as a nerdy geek; I'm more prone to geekdom, but I do know a fair amount about math and science.  Also, anyone can be demoted to "dork" if they make a dumb enough statement (Tax cuts for the rich solve everything!).  Anyway, let's have a look at what some Japanese geeks and nerds are up to.

How about a nice game of 3D Chess?

Humans are innately curious beings.  We are fascinated by the things we do not know (which is a huge amount of stuff) and are always trying to learn more about this little blue ball we live on.  More than anything though, we like doing what essentially boils down to tricks for one another.  Take the newest craze sweeping the entertainment world: 3D screens.  They're everywhere and everyone's talking about them.  Pretty soon, they're even going to be hand held with the upcoming release of Nintendo's 3DS.  Get it?  It's... it's like a DS, but also 3D... so it's a... a... yeah...

The Snuffleupagus in
it's natural habitat.

However, if the Nintendo Wii has taught me anything, never judge a gaming book by it's gaming cover.  It could be great, it could be the next big thing.  Nintendo seems to be good at creating the next big thing.  Speaking of BIG things; Wooly mammoths.  These huge, furry, tusked Snuffleupegases went extinct over 5,000 years ago, but a few were considerate enough to get themselves frozen in ice.  This has led Japanese scientists to the idea that if they were to impregnate an elephant with a cloned embryo of a woolly mammoth, we could have woolly mammoths again.


And, if reading novels and the subsequent film series they are based on have taught me anything, this bringing back to life of creatures that were once extinct means only one thing... Cenozoic Park!  Lawyers trampled by mammoths, a greedy employee shutting off the power, sabertooth tigers turning out to be FAR smarter than we thought.  Oh shit, what happens when they cross the mammoth DNA with that of the common moth?

We are all doomed, DOOMED!

Anyway, hope you all liked my first blog with pictures!  Granted, they probably break some copyright laws or licensing issues, but what the hell.  I'm not makin' any money here.  Though I hear Snuffy's lawyers are real monsters...  Feel free to subscribe/comment/discuss/burn me in effigy.***


*Besides, Hoyle sucks.  Bicycle makes much better playing cards.
**Irrational numbers are more likely to go on shooting sprees or believe in psychics.
***As long as it's not the REAL me, knock yourself out.

Video Game Industry: A Few Steps Forward, a Few Steps Back...

My first post at Blogspot.  So exciting, I can barely contain myself.  Anyway, some ground rules.  This particular post was actually a note on Facebook earlier, so there's that.  Also, if you're reading my work for the first time, I use lots of asides and footnotes, plus I curse whenever the fuck I please.  Those of you with sensitive eyes should turn back now.  For the rest of you, please to enjoy.  Follow if you like what you read, I try to keep a steady stream of text coming and please comment, good or bad.  I like discussion.  Anyway...

I'm a life long gamer, unless you want to get really technical.  I've been playing video games since I was 3 years old.  In that time I've watched video games grow from dots on a screen to near photo realistic interactive stories.  They're, arguably, at the level of most action movies and even surpass them on occasion because it puts you right in the action playing a part in the telling of the tale.  Most interestingly, games are getting to the point where they are actually dramatic fiction, rather than a game of Tetris while you're bored.*  Yet it seems that lawmakers the world over and "concerned parent groups" still haven't gotten that through their heads.  And with what's been going on lately, it's kind of hard to blame them.

Back in Ought 5,** California governator Arnold Schwarzeneggar signed a California law restricting the sale of violent video games to people under the age of 18 (Pause for irony while you realize the Terminator is trying to restrict violence, carry on), and allowing federal fines to be levied against retailers who did so.  This is effectively government censorship, something the first amendment is fairly clear about, ie, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."  This law was challenged and managed to make it to the Supreme Court at the end of last year, decision pending sometime in June of this year.***

Now, I don't WANT children playing violent video games, but if their parents decide to let them that is their affair, not the government's.  More importantly, most retailers already adhere to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rating system, which gives parents more than enough information printed on the box of EVERY video game sold in this country about the content of the game.  Stores who want to stay in business require anyone buying a game rated M for Mature to be carded, only someone 17 or older can buy it.  Beyond that, it is still a parent's responsibility to monitor what their children do, not to just leave them to their video games for days on end.

For example, Sony released a video game last year called Heavy Rain for the Playstation 3 that is effectively an interactive R rated movie.  You control 4 characters trying to uncover a serial killer who preys on young boys before he strikes again.  I can honestly say it was a gripping tale, one of the most suspenseful "games" I've ever played and really disturbing at points.  It deals with a subject often left to speculative fiction or suspense films of how far a person is willing to go to save someone in their family, in this case, your son.

Note the wording, YOUR son.  Not a character you passively watch, YOUR character, the man you are playing.  Content like this serves a different audience than kids who play Disney games or kick shells around in Super Mario.  It is this very important distinction that lawmakers and "concerned parent's groups" seem to be missing.  Games are not just toys, they are a piece of media akin to movies and books that can deliver deep narratives and touchy subjects.

Then again, for every art house story you get, you get a lot of slasher horror flicks.  Dead Space 2, an upcoming game from EA, is one of those slasher horror games.  I have no inherent problem with someone making a slasher horror game, I honestly couldn't get very far through the original Dead Space before I was jumping at real world shadows.  My problem is with the marketing campaign they went with to promote it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKkPFDEiC6Q

Give it a watch, it shows mothers reacting to footage from the game.  The telling line is "It's revolting, it's violent, it's everything you love in a game... and your mom is going to HATE IT."  Ok... it's rated M for Mature.  This kind of message is in the, "If your parents hate it, it MUST be cool category."  However, if you're young enough that your mother's reaction to this game matters in the slightest... (inhales deeply) YOU SHOULDN'T BE PLAYING THE FUCKING GAME!!!***  Sorry to bold, italic AND underline that, just trying to make a point.  This is EA setting the industry back a few notches, marketing something like this to kids.  This is a game made solely for the purchase and play by adults, why would you even contemplate this kind of marketing scheme?

Remember when Hostel II came out and there were ads for it during Dora the Explorer?  Or when Saw V was coming to theaters and posters went up all over McDonald's Playland?  Or that porno that always has a spot during Sesame Street?  Oh, those things didn't happen?  Right, because THAT would be stupid.  It's a blunder on that level and I am so very disappointed in the marketing team for this...  Anyway, argue, discuss, comment below, catch you later.

*Tetris is still amazing though.  I am the man who arranges the blocks...

**2005, for those of you who don't speak old coot.

***Because, you see, the Supreme Court is composed entirely of turtles, three toed sloths and a species of snail that can read.  I just hope they never read this... glances around furtively

****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Full text of the first amendment available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

And the full text of the Supreme Court hearing is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf