The Big Picture: Science!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Casual Shinji:
Maybe you should change the title of this show from The Big Picture to The Big Soapbox.

Watch the very first episode of the Big Picture again...

The meat "problem" is not a science problem, it's a capitalism problem. Also the hunger in Africa is a capitalism problem (with more deep historical implications). We the 7 billion humans already produce more food than we actually need.

Don't kid yourself, it's a human greed problem. Did you forget that communism had its shot too? It failed because it didn't account for the greed and incompetence of bureaucrats. Capitalism is hardly perfect but it functions because it expects people to be greedy. The form of government or economic complex hardly matters, you'd have to change human nature itself.

Over the millenia, we've bred cows to need to eat colossal amounts of grain to survive. If we stopped farming cows, they'd starve to death because nobody would be feeding them anymore. The cows need us now.

And why go for the green alien chicks when the blue ones are so much hotter?

You've really got to give credit to Bioware's art team that I can actually tell the asari apart. That is Liara, right?

Nah, I think that makes you a Space Racist. Or something.

Hello Bob! I do so enjoy your productions and rantings, so I thought I might stop by to offer a few more replies on behalf of the "Science Guys."

(Full disclosure, I am merely a humble high school science teacher, with my advanced degrees all being in education. My response is by no means a definitive answer, but hopefully it will help bring some small measure of closure.)

Why we don't have Jet-packs - ultimately this is a safety vs reward issue. Thinking of it abstractly as a means to move an unprotected person around it is very similar to a motorcycle, which is already 20-30 times more likely to kill you than an automobile. A jet-pack, unfortunately, adds gravity to the already hazardous problem of violent deceleration-due-to-obstruction. So even assuming we could make a jet-pack that was cheap to produce, easy to use, and free of all fuel and energy constraints - it would still provide far too little actual benefit for the enormous risk involved.

Why we don't grow meat in a lab - this is actually really, really hard. Any living organism is an enormously complex system that is built literally cell-by-cell. (We can't grow replacement parts yet, so be sure to fill out that organ donor card.) In order to get an actual steak, you would need to recreate the system of cells that form the internal muscle and fat structures that are sliced up to make that steak. Those dividing cells need raw material just like a cow needs grain (and in a lab are actually 'fed' off of a nutrient gel.) To make a long story short, growing the cow is just easier - although it is not terribly energy efficient either. If we ever have enough control over organic molecules that we can just build up whatever we want out of atoms and energy, it won't just be steaks - we could build anything: vegetables, grains, organs, entire people...

Why we don't have Star Fleet - it's not the lack of motivation, it's the lack of destination and tools to get there. Space is big, as Douglas Adams so perfectly put it. Impossibly vast. The void between us and everything else is so mind-numbingly huge that it will take a means of energy use or distance travel that is outside of our current understanding. Once we need to start tapping into the planets in this solar system for resources, we might be able to find a way around interstellar distances.

Why we don't have tiny Bears but we do have tiny Dogs - Dogs have been with man for as long as we've been able to dig back in the history of all mankind. Seriously, we have a hard time finding any evidence of any human group that predates our dogs. So, it's not that dogs are amazing varied animals - they are simply the result of thousands of years of selective breeding. We absolutely could have teeny tiny bears if we started up a selective breeding program over the next thousand years or so. Stay tuned to your local genetics researcher, however - they may be able to short-cut this for us.

So, ultimately, all of the answers boil down to "because the problems are more complex than they appear." But that doesn't mean they are insurmountable problems. Simply asking the questions and trying to find answers will continue to provide results. Perhaps our world will never be as wondrous as our imagination would have it be - but what we have now would bug the eyes right out of the heads of anyone from a mere hundred years ago. Don't take everything around you for granted simply because it is all familiar to you. This place is amazing.

I'm not a physicist, so I can't tell you why you don't have a jetpack. I can guess - I believe it has something to do with fuel energy density - there isn't any non-explosive fuel that we have that can be used in a jetpack that would allow you to travel for any significant period of time. Don't get me wrong - we could probably totally build you a jetpack. It's just that we don't have the fuel that would allow you to fly for more than 5 minutes. Pretty useless. It would also be very expensive and dangerous.

Now, I am actually a biologist, so I can answer your question on cultured meat: It's expensive. Culturing tissue is not cheap, it's not even that easy. To grow large amounts of meat would require huge, vast, enormous arrays of tissue culturing equipment. Remember, it's not as easy as making a vat the size of a house and getting a chunk of meat the size of a house: tissue cultures need to have the media (that's the stuff they live in, usually consists of amino acids, maybe BSA and other things) constantly changed. They have to get enough oxygen, which requires that the tissue layers can't be too thick. You also need to use antibiotics and antivirals to ensure sterility. Hell, the whole thing's gotta be sterile since tissue cultures don't have their own immune system (they're just one tissue after all). Plus, we're.... not that good at cultivating more than one tissue at a time. We can do it... we're just not that good at it yet. Thus, any cultivated, lab-grown meat would taste pretty gosh darn awful. We can grow skin pretty well, because we've spent a ton of time researching skin and skin is pretty thin and we know how to keep it more or less "happy". But meat.... well, it's just not feasible at the moment. It's very expensive. We just don't have the system set up to easily automate the process and it's actually quite complex. We're working on the problem of making food cheaper - but that involves genetically engineering/cloning animals in order to make the grow quicker and require less grazing land. Apart from space exploration and space colonies, I don't really see a practical purpose for tissue-lab grown meat. And even then there wouldn't be that much of a purpose, since they'd just take vitamins and easily stored carbohydrate-food with them. As long as you take Vitamin B and Iron supplements, you don't actually NEED meat to survive. Any long space voyage that took place in the near future would just store vitamins and sugars and protein pills, instead of taking meat with them.

PETA have a prize for the first lab to commercially produce meat in vats.

As for space exploration and lying about finding oil... yeah, scientists are competitive. There's nothing we like more than catching the mistakes in other scientists work. We're kinda jerks to each other, but that's a necessary and vital part of science. Don't get me wrong, scientists lie sometimes... and that's why other scientists LOVE to catch those lies, since it makes them look like the better scientist. If someone wanted to lie about finding Oil on Mars to get sponsored for his project, there WILL be another scientist who will say "NUH UH! I haven't seen any data to support this conclusion".



Father Time:

Not all Jetpacks need to shoot fire, just something that can provide lift.

How's that work?

I think he provided a picture in the video of a jet pack that used propeller blades. Okay technically it's not so much a Jetpack as it is a Helipack but either way it's using a hi-tech backpack for personal flight.

EDIT: Apparently real life jetpacks that don't shoot fire already exist.

Hey now that you mention it, he never specified what kind of jetpack he wanted. I guess beggars can't be choosers.

I know now since MovieBob told me so and that news story of the steak made from waste matter that cultured meat is possible. However, even since finding a little manga called "Bio-Meat" that notions horrifies me just a little.

Imagine an organism that is small, extremely hardy and durable, and reproduces asexually dependent on the amount of matter it consumes. Now make it constantly hungry and capable of devouring anything save metal, glass, and fiberglass. That's a Bio-Meat, BM for short. In the manga, they were created to solve two worldwide problems: trash disposal and food shortages. But, they kept getting out, and NO one outside the company that made them knew this was what cultured meat actually was. I'm sure it would never happen like that in real life, but my mind always ends up wandering to the worst possible thing it seems.

Anyway, funny stuff Bob. Can't wait for the scathing you give Puss in Boots.

First off, what Bob and other people seem to not realize is that the current scientific paradigm, i.e. general and special relativity basically makes space travel a pipe dream in principle. Theoretically you could travel close to the speed of light and the time elapsed from your perspective would seem slight, but everyone you knew and loved back home would have died thousands of years ago. Who's going to do that? Unless we could all travel as a society it's hardly worth it.

You are never going into space.
You will never own a jet pack.
Your car will never fly.
HIV will not be cured in your lifetime.
Cancer will not be cured in your lifetime.
The common cold will not be cured in your lifetime.
Don't these things bother you?

Those are some awfully bold predictions. The last three should be solved in the next 50 years or so once we've mastered our understanding of genetics. At this point they are merely known unknowns. There's really no excuse why they shouldn't other than complete corruption. However, you couldn't bury cures and medicinal breakthroughs like alternative energy because it's too easy to produce and distribute it, someone will inevitably have too much of a conscience to be bought off and they'll end up screwing the pharmaceutical companies. Corruption can keep systems like our dependency on oil going because changing the system would involve a massive industrial overhaul. E.g. we would have to create an entirely new system of hydrogen pumps across the nation, or build an effective nation-wide mass transit system, both of which are massive investments and thus can be more easily argued against when people don't care. But with medicine there is no such problem. Once someone comes up with a cure it is easy to produce and distribute. At most it will be set back by the patent for a few years, but that won't last very long because people will clamor for a cure and ultimately society will be more efficient as a whole if it is burdened with less sick people. The pharmaceutical industry will eventually lose out.

You're clearly some sort of conspiracy theorist. Let me let you in on some bad news: we aren't in control of our own destiny. There is no illuminati. Society is driven by blind forces.

The reason why we are stagnating right now is because we have grown decadent. We are too busy enjoying what we already have and there is no reason to invest in anything revolutionary. Businesses are in it for profits. They aren't deliberately stealing our future, they are just doing what is in their nature to do. They won't invest in long term high risk/reward scientific research because it is too risky from an economic standpoint. This is just the way the world works, sorry. There isn't much you can do.

Think of the conditions which brought about the most revolutionary technologies... computers and the splitting of the atom just to name a few.. all were brought on by WORLD WAR. When engaged in an epic struggle a society is more willing to invest in high risk/reward revolutionary technologies. Europe isn't more technologically advanced because of some Hegelian world spirit; other civilizations such as Japan, India or China could just have easily stumbled upon the industrial revolution and scientific method. In fact, they came very close at certain points. The reason why it happened in Europe is because Europe was at constant struggle with itself, and thus was much more willing to invest in new technologies.
For instance, the optics that paved the way for Copernicus and Galileo were useful because they allowed one to see an approaching armada hours earlier and thus constituted a tactical advantage.

Other civilizations fell off in technological advancements once they became secure enough from external threats. Japan passed on rockets and gunpowder because it was largely concerned with internal struggles within its own society. Thus even though there was violence, it was a controlled violence and not an existential threat. The different sides were able to come to agreements about honor and chivalry, and this was a prudent thing because more efficient weapons technology would have actually destabilized their society on the whole. In contrast, the European civilizations were separate enough that they still considered each other an existential threat. The French complained about the English's use of longbows at the battle of Agincourt as non-chivalrous but this was an empty complaint because there was no greater rule of law above the French and English because they were too independent of one another. Whereas in Japan such a complaint could spell disaster for the perpetrator by turning other warlords against them.

Even now the source of most of our hard core scientific research comes through DARPA and the military industrial complex. But since we aren't currently facing an existential threat there isn't as much of a need for such investments, and funding falls off. I'll tell you right now that if we were worried about an enemy such as soviet Russia having genetically altered super soldiers we would be putting a lot more into genetic engineering ourselves, which would in turn lead to huge medical breakthroughs for civilians. In fact, the most vehement opponents to genetic engineering right now (i.e. conservatives) would be the ones calling for greater funding! It would be the liberals who would be against it. And ultimately the conservatives would win out because the instinct for self-preservation will always trump ethical reservations.

No, Bob. That was not fun and you should not do it again.

1: MovieBob forgot to include the movie.
2: Back to including your liberal politics, on a website called "The Escapist". Irony fail.
3: I hope this episode was some kind of secret satire because otherwise it is a staggering display of ignorance and thoughtless mouth noise.

Google "Frankenfood". Good luck marketing THAT to people or convincing a grocery store to stock it. You think "Corn Sugar" creates a backlash? Wait till you wheel out the vat meat. Never mind the cost per pound to produce vat meat vs the same for real meat.

Here's an idea. Take your politics, put it on your jetpack, fly it to the moon with promises of gold, and leave it there.

Ooooh, a Fox News fan in an unnatural environment. Fascinating.

Well most of these "problems" team science is having is the funding.... The people with the cash ask to many question like "is this really possible" "won't that leave a bit to many dead" and "how would I earn money on this..."

Not a bad episode, different does not mean bad... And "Team science" made chuckle to...

I need my jet-pack! and it needs to cost under 100$ and have a great life insurance in the package.... :D

James Mann:


James Mann:

1) Having a good reason for doing something isnt a legitimate reason to enjoy one persons work and insult anothers. Just because people on the internet dont get paid to share their opinions and pick things apart does not make their opinions any less valid, if anything it makes it more valid that someone whos paid, as the person who is paid must exaggerate in order to stand out.

2) Not true, on a lot of occassions he simply rants, he airs his opinions as he sees fit, while there is a sense of showmanship involved in his portrayal. Also, this is an irrelevant point, since you shows annoyance in people picking things apart instead of enjoying them. something bob does continuously through his webshows, it is his job as you said. Picking things apart, a quality you find repellent is the job of the person who you are defending. You clearly were not build to observe your own hypocrisy.

3) Arguable. But thats per personal taste, i personally enjoy seeing what a lot of the people in the comments have to see and find what they pick apart interesting, on top of most of what bob has to say on the big picture, while certain videos bob has produced i have found to be quite the opposite, having very little in term of interesting value or fun. His review of scream 4 and the green lantern movie being prime examples, while i did not enjoy watching either movie so much i found his reveiws of the two movies to be incredibly flawed and needlessly exaggerated to the point of being patronising. Scream 4 in particular.

And my last comment did make sense. And no, for the most part it was not an insult, as i was only trying to make a slight comment at the cyclic logic you implied and the post was only meant as a jestered comment with no real need to reply to it. Buuuut, why should i expect you to find that obvious, clearly you're not too far from my nerd brethren since you felt some compulsion to pick apart a easily ignorable jest at the way you phrased your comment. So i go ahead and sign you up for the weekly nerd newsletter or are you gonna stay in the proverbial closet for a little bit longer?

1) Alright. You win that one. It was a cheap shot and I missed.

2) Arguable. I have yet to see anything he has put out as having no entertainment value. Also, I show annoyance at people picking things apart JUST for the sake of picking things apart. Bob does it for entertainment and to inform people.

3) I was less saying that this is an entertaining video and more that the PURPOSE of the video was fun and entertainment. If some people did not find it to be so, fine. i simply ask that people take things in the spirit they are given.

Not the "Kind of" in my original statement.

You seem to imply that, a) I am not a total nerd myself and, b) dislike the nerd populace in general.

Neither of these things are true. However, I dislike the part of nerd-dom that drives us to pick apart things that do not require nor ask to be picked apart.

And although, yes, your jest was easily ignorable, I considering it was a good third of that post, I felt I should at least try and understand it.

Picking things apart is a rather fun past-time for many intellectual types, you'll find the critical mind required for scientific though tends to develop as a need to pick apart arguments for the sake of forwarding understanding, a point my friends and especially my girlfriend find annoying about me is that i tend to be overcritical of points that generally do not need a critical eye, however its how my brain works, as i'm sure it is with many of the people tearing apart bobs videos, unfortunately this state of mind is something that is very distinctively nerd and is a very integral part of the culture. And i must apologize, but upon reading your initial post i seemed to have glanced past the kind of without acknowledging it and therefore apologize if i therefore implied you were more disapproving of the nerd populace.

To your third point, i suppose to take something in the spirit they are given is of little meaning when the spirit is airing opinions; when i watched his green lantern review i just saw it as being harsh and needless. The joke were lost in a pool of hate and its hard to view the spirit of the review as being one of comedy, but rather of anger which as far as entertainment value goes just isn't that fun, or at least for me. In order to take things in the spirit they are given, it must first and foremost be presented in the spirit you are trying to give, and when i watched this video the tone of it did not seem humorous to me, and while the lack of sincerity in parts is obvious the whole thing just shows bob as an ass, and the whole thing just comes off as annoying to listen to.

Fair enough. Actually, watching the video again, his tone comes off as more than a little trollish.

I'm starting to think he was TRYING to get us all to nitpick and get mad at him on this one...

See the documentary, "Food Inc." It provides an overview of how the American food industry has changed over the past 50 years, including what technology McDonald's is interested in.

hampsbear would be amazing

Wow... This episode was AWFUL! Bob really came off as a big dick in this episode. I mean, there was some stuff in the middle, but most of it made me want to punch Bob for being so immature about these things.

Perception check failed.

Could you not tell that he was joking?

Hehehe, my child, dont you know? Common Sense and Logic are the Holy Grail of the 21th Century. It was gone before you know it and because of that reason there is people like Stephen Hawking "the smartest person alive" wasting his fucking time on Time and Space bullshit instead of, you know, researching for curing all illness and improving human standards, to have more people actually be more interested in the scientific research and reach a mayor number of professionals in every branch of science that never before has been reached and, you know, actually be able to read what the fuck his book are about. But no, it wont happen because Stephen only cares about himself.

Why you ask? simply because the only reason he may research something is because he wants to feel superior to all the human elite and nothing else. He thinks that he can make the world bend over over his intellect as a revenge for making him an almost vegetable but by doing so he may end up forgetting that by the time he founds something useful he may die or humanity will be back to the stone age by the sheer stupidity and will use books as toilet paper and the knowledge will be lost forever.

You may say that its to find and prevent cosmic dust or something to reach earth, but when they do find that kind of thing they will be a few people working on in instead of the entire planet helping out at the same lvl of intelligence as them. And good luck finding a government that actually believes and promotes your research, Mr. Hawking

I am sorry Movie Bob. This is my first time watching you and you end up hitting a nerve on me

this is the second time my post gets double posted -_-

I'm planning to just watch the episode, answer what questions I can and post at the end
1. The problem with Jetpacks isn't managing the citizenry, it's fuel consumption. Also, I don't know why you're asking us scientists this, that's an engineering problem

2. Science is actually working on growing meat in labs, the problem is it tastes AWFUL. Also, I don't know who told you we can grow organs and tissue for transplant in labs but that just isn't true.
Why aren't we working on it more? Cancer, mostly cancer.

3. Just not at all a solution:
One, people will ask for proof they found oil on mars
Two, there can't be oil on mars, look up how oil happens
Three, if mining mars was economical, we totally would. See how Mars is red. That's 'cos it's covered with Iron ore that involves extremely expensive shaft mining here on earth. We don't need to lie, asteroid mining and mining Mars would both be awesome. The problem is it costs an awful lot to get into space and most humans can't take the strain of zero gravity anyway.
The reasons we can't get "there" are simple
B. It costs $10 000 per pound to put objects in space
A. Relativity means we will never ever go faster than light. And yes, they did find out what happened with the neutrinos and no, they didn't go faster than light. At this point, I think it might be best to just let Einstein tell it like it is
t'= t/(1-v^2/c^2)^-2

4. Good point

Jet-packs: Mass production and sale of jet-packs on a scale to replace cars would be fucking retarded. In 2002 there were 6,316,000 car accidents in America alone ( If you crash while flying in a jet-pack, or any flying car, you'll fall to your death. The fact that people still whine about not having these things tell me that they've done fuck all thinking about them. I can only see jet-packs taking up the role hang gliding or paragliding, and Bob, if you really wanted to fly that much you'd probably be doing these things already.

Cultured Meat: As long as the same social stigma around GM foods exists, cultured meat will never gain any sort of popularity. The move to bullshit organic foods over the past few decades shows that as a whole western society is moving backwards in regards to it's ideas of food sources. The costs of cultured meat also mean that it wont be able to serve people in Third World Nations either, not for a while anyway. Still, if you read the Wikipedia article carefully, you might have noticed that there are plans to start producing cultured meats on a large scale next year. You might also have noticed that PETA has, perhaps strangely, offered a 1 million dollar incentive to anyone who can get cultured meats on the market by 2012.

Oil on Mars: Yeah, you can go fuck yourself. Do you have any idea, any idea how fucking stupid it is that you encourage scientists to collectively lie about the presence of fucking oil on Mars of all goddamn places. Do you even know what oil is? Oil is the fossilized remains of organic material. It is the remains of ancient life. Are you seriously asking people to lie about the discovery of life (or former life) on other planets, just so you can get away from all of those 'douche-bags on Earth'?. What the fuck is wrong with you, that's a horrible thing to do.

Not only do you seem to have no concept of scientific integrity, and the importance of honesty in the scientific and general community, but you seem to not even understand the motivations of oil corporations. Do you think that in the next 100 years corporations will invest in ventures to recover oil from a location that in no way will ever earn them profits, just for the sake of getting oil. You do realise how expensive it is to colonize another planet, right? And even if there actually was oil on Mars, do you think they wont try to figure that out themselves? They would have to actually find where the oil is before they starting extracting it. Hell, do you think that other scientists will just accept that there is oil on Mars without checking out the data for themselves. Do you know what peer reviews are?

Yes, I am well aware that there hypothesis stating that oil can be created without life (although not yet proven), but even then lying about something like that is still fucking disgusting. Lying about anything in a scientific context is fucking disgusting, and the fact that you would support that and place it as a precedent so that you can get what you fucking want paints you as the douche-bag you claim to hate so much. Do you know what happens when scientists lie to further their own agendas, or the agendas of others? People die. I like to think that you just didn't think much before you made this video, because the thought of someone believing what you just said is just too much.

I admit I've only read the first two pages, but am I the only one that didn't take this episode too seriously? Because I'm seeing allot of rage for something that, to me at least, was meant light-hearted and humerously rather than seriously asking where his jetpack is.

I mean, lie to get into space? Bring oil over on the first few trips? You really took that seriously? Anyone with the slightest idea of how hard it is to get -anything- into space would see that as unfeasable.

Come on guys, give Bob a little credit.

I'm planning to just watch the episode, answer what questions I can and post at the end
1. The problem with Jetpacks isn't managing the citizenry, it's fuel consumption. Also, I don't know why you're asking us scientists this, that's an engineering problem

2. Science is actually working on growing meat in labs, the problem is it tastes AWFUL. Also, I don't know who told you we can grow organs and tissue for transplant in labs but that just isn't true.
Why aren't we working on it more? Cancer, mostly cancer.

3. Just not at all a solution:
One, people will ask for proof they found oil on mars
Two, there can't be oil on mars, look up how oil happens
Three, if mining mars was economical, we totally would. See how Mars is red. That's 'cos it's covered with Iron ore that involves extremely expensive shaft mining here on earth. We don't need to lie, asteroid mining and mining Mars would both be awesome. The problem is it costs an awful lot to get into space and most humans can't take the strain of zero gravity anyway.
The reasons we can't get "there" are simple
B. It costs $10 000 per pound to put objects in space
A. Relativity means we will never ever go faster than light. And yes, they did find out what happened with the neutrinos and no, they didn't go faster than light. At this point, I think it might be best to just let Einstein tell it like it is
t'= t/(1-v^2/c^2)^-2

4. Good point


If we cant go faster than light then we should become light :D. They use the principle of making electric signals become become airwaves so it gets transmitted in long areas just to reach a receptor that has been previously configured to receive a signal of the same signature

And being of topic here, where can you find the people behind this kind of research:
How about Biological Immortality?
The hydra are not only absent of aging, but they can be separated into individual cells and recombine into a working hydra.

or How about the same thing but using Nanotech to treat illness?

ITT: People who can't take a fucking joke and just laugh about it. Jesus, some of you nerds need to lighten up. It's obvious he's just fucking around.

ITT: People who can't take a fucking joke and just laugh about it. Jesus, some of you nerds need to lighten up. It's obvious he's just fucking around.

Them's fighting words!

...Nah, just running with the "can't take a joke" thing.

Here's a counter arguement to the people complaining about scientists not making their dream futures for them.

Shut up.

They're working as hard as they can to fix the problems we half-wits created and refuse to take responsibility for.

You want a jet pack? Lose that hundred pounds without demanding a diet pill to do it for you. You want artificial meat? Stop destroying resource-rich ecosystems that could provide centuries of genetic breakthroughs for cattle space. You want to go to Mars and have sex with green women, create a demand for efficient fuels and donate to STD vaccine research.

Don't point at scientists and tell them to work harder, don't point at Glenn Beck and blame him for holding you back. Man up, do your part, and EARN it.


Wow... This episode was AWFUL! Bob really came off as a big dick in this episode. I mean, there was some stuff in the middle, but most of it made me want to punch Bob for being so immature about these things.

Perception check failed.

Could you not tell that he was joking?

In all honesty... not at first... I have a difficult time telling if someone's being serious or of they're just messing around. I'm more used to MovieBob's more intellectual and analytical side... Or rather, I PREFER that side of him most of the time, so this kind of threw me off guard, I suppose.

Well Lying got us into the space program in the first place. So I guess lying about black gold on Mars isn't such a hard pull to get us back on track. Hell we need to start colonizing other places so we can start fucking up so bad the only person that can stop it all is the Emperor of Man.

The reason we don't have cultured meat is the same reason the thought of eating dog or cat makes you nauseous.
What we really should start doing is eating insects, but that might take better marketing than the western world is capable of producing.

Dude, its simple. Just paint your girlfriend green for the day. Its totally doable. I mean if my ex could assemble a pretty decent Misty outfit for... reasons... then a bit of green paint in no issue.

Well Bob, someone has come up with a jetpack. You just need peroxide and silver to fuel it:

And why go for the green alien chicks when the blue ones are so much hotter?

There are various companies that have made them for instance

all it requires is a gas fill

Erm, Bob, you do know what'll happen when we claim there is oil on Mars, right?


And there won't be any oil on Mars, unless maybe there actually was life and greenery and stuff there a bajillion years ago. Like a veritable Tatooine...

Oh, and if I've been ninja'd, then well played, sir...

Ok, one argument for killing and eating animals that I'm yet to find a good rebuttal for:
What's better for the cow,
(1) using space and resources to grow cows and then kill and eat them.
(2) using space and resources to grow meat and then eat it/Not eating meat.
One way cows live for a time, the other way they're redundant and so aren't bred by humans for food any more (that particular cow at least will never exist).

I'm think (1) is better for the animal (Even if Bad living conditions it's better than nothing!), making (2) more a matter of avoiding responsibility for the killing part (obviously argument more complicated than this, I don't mean to offend anyone!).

Fun stuff, Bob. Very entertaining. I agree! Darn you science people! I wants mah Jetpack and green alien babes!

... sorry, was I supposed to take it seriously? Then rant about Bob ranting and type out complete explanations about the complexities of these issues, and then start exploring the morality of growing and eating meat?

Oh, well, that just sounds boring, I watch these for fun.




Yep, currently it's all experimental. I guess that could be assumed from how I wrote that though.

They are working on fusion reactors, however and everything actually written in my piece on fusion is true.

Here is the big project:

I'm not sure about creating gold in a fusion reactor though... Anything heavier than iron requires the energy of supernovae (exploding star) to form... sounds dangerous to me :P

Cool. If they can get this working then all they have to do is develop atomic transmutation (splitting of atoms to create multiple, less massive atoms) and we'll have an unlimited, renewable fuel source to power the fussion reactors.

That'll be a real special day for humanity. It really would change everything.

For those who don't get the joke: atomic transmutation = nuclear fission. Nuclear fission reactors do already exist!

Yeah, it'd be pretty sweet Djinn8 :D

Must ... resist ... urge ... to ... correct ...

Resistance failed. Proceeding to correct.

OK, there are two basic types of nuclear reactions, fusion and fission. Fusion is when two atoms fuse to form a heavier atom. As a rule of thumb the lighter the atoms are the more energy is released, which is why hydrogen (lightest of the elements with only one proton) fusion is the most common way to release energy. For example hydrogen bombs are fusion devices. Also, fusion can be achieved in a laboratory easily these days. The problem is that massive amounts of energy are needed in order to generate the conditions under which hydrogen fusion can take place, far more than the energy gained from the fusion.

As I said, as a rule of thumb the lighter the atoms being fused, the more energy is released, and conversely the heavier the atoms the less energy is released. So fusing two helium atoms (atomic number 2) releases less energy than fusing hydrogen, and so on and so forth, until around atomic number 26 which is iron. Then the process is reversed - fusing atoms absorbs energy and energy is released by splitting (fission) an atom into lighter atoms, and the heavier the atoms, the more energy is released (again, this is just a rule of thumb). This is part of the reason why uranium or plutonium (the two heaviest naturally occurring elements found in appreciable amounts on earth) is used in nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.

Unfortunately it's difficult (probably even impossible) to control into what elements the uranium or plutonium will split into. Often the end result is nasty stuff like caesium-137, a highly radioactive isotope with a long half-life.

However you don't need the energy of a supernova to create elements heavier than iron, though supernovae do come into play in creating heavier elements in appreciable amounts (relatively speaking). Since fusing elements heavier than iron absorbs energy, not much of those elements are created in main sequence stars. Only once a star goes supernova is enough energy released to allow those heavier elements to be created. But in a laboratory you could theoretically fuse heavy elements under the right conditions. Those conditions would have to be the conditions in a supernova, which sounds scary, but then again so does the idea of creating the conditions in a star (which is needed for fusion of hydrogen).

I apologize if I sounded patronizing and lecturing, I just wanted to clear some things up. On the other hand what I wrote would probably give a nuclear physicist an aneurysm.

1)Where are the jet packs? The answer? Automobile mortality rates.

2)Synthesized meat? The answer? It's still cheaper to raise and kill cows than pump expensive protein cocktails through more expensive machines.

3)Space? E=MC2 is a total buzzkill, and space is huge. Travel is boring. Slow. Uneventful. Gene Rodenberry imagined technologies that break the laws of physics. The vacuum of space. We're not going to get to Gene Rodenberry's universe by colonizing Mars or the Moon, but by experimenting on our home planet. Richard Branson and other entrepreneurs are already making headway. In fact colonizing the Moon could be dangerous for the gravitational pull on the tides. Some of the most important scientific discoveries happen outside government funding or institutionalized thinking.

Most recent example? The person that recently discovered the missing mass from the young universe was a 22 year old female physics student Amelia Fraser-McKelvie from Australia that had her discovery vetted by professors and int'l experts after the fact. Pwned.

Even if this was a joke/troll video, it wasn't well thought out.


Hey, science guys, we need you to answer a few questions.

Watch Video

Okay; one by one:



Pobably as good as you're going to get in earth's gravity Bob. Sorry.

Cultured meat:
Cultured meat is currently prohibitively expensive, but it is anticipated that the cost could be reduced to about twice that of conventionally produced meat.

Hmm only twice as expensive as raising cattle for something that is currently only worth putting into sausages and hamburgers. :S

The economics involved suggest that cultured meat will only be commercially viable when grain becomes prohibitively expensive to feed to feed to animals. When that happens I think well have hunger problems more important than where your next steak is coming from.

These will probably be solved by some sort of algal/krill farming. Crab sticks anyone?


Okay good suggestion. Though I hesitate as to whether I want oil republicans in space. It is possible that there are fossil fuels on Mars as a result of possible life on Mars in previous geological ages.

The reasons against doing this are going to be again. Prohibitive expense. Especially when you compare it to offshore drilling/fracking/tar sands.

And if we get to Mars to exploit this hypothetical oil then it is far more likely to be used to produce value added plastics or other petroleum derivatives on Mars surface than to be expensively shipped out of the Martian Gravity well to earth.

A more likely location for off world mining is the moon probably in search of rare earths, noble metals and other high value ore.

Breeding bears:

If you want to go corral a bunch of bears and breed them over their 4 year breeding cycle go nuts; I'll read about you being eaten on the news. Simple answer too much labour for too little utility.

I found it quite hilarious when Bob said he would totally keep "his jetpack" a secret if he was given one. I imagine he would be able to keep it a secret....for about five seconds (which is about the same as anybody given a motherfucking jet pack). I also have to confess I got a tiny guilty chuckle out of imagining somebody of Bob's...erm...physique....flying around with a jetpack on his back.

As for Bob wondering why animal rights activists aren't campaigning for cultured meat....really? He's wondering why a group of people populated by a considerable number of misinformed, irrational and sometimes balls-out crazy fucksticks isn't doing something logical and intelligent???

And finally, fuck the assholes who decided to breed tiny dogs. Don't get me wrong, I love dogs...of most sizes. It's the extremes I have trouble with. Extremely large dogs (e.g. Great Danes) tend to make me nervous and tiny dogs usually annoy the piss out of me.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here