Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through May 22, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru May 2002 » Carbon: a Red Bull clone, with absinthe » Archive through May 22, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Verawench
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"or for their tiny pleasure centers to be constatantly stimulated."

Together with Kallisti's antique crapper, this phrase has made my day.

My head is full of strange pictures...
Verawench
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hahahahaha, it's all going down, oh yes. The whole stinkin' Western world is going to collapse in on itself and we'll be back to sacrificing virgins to appease our gods and cure that pesky black plague epidemic...

We will forget all we've learned. Our children will eat berries and dirt. We'll fuck in complete darkness and give birth in ditches. We'll speak a monosyllabic dialect of Spanish and Chinese.

Roman Empire, eat your heart out. Our fall will put you to shame...
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 3:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

It's real- they developed them for hot places like Africa, the theory being that the chickens will be more productive if they are not dying of heatstroke.




Or, more generally, they eat less, since they don't waste protein making feathers, they have less fat under their skin, and they require less ventelation, so there is less...chicken shit contaminating the environment.

Anyway, the conditions under which chikens are kept are horrible enough (worse for layers than broilers, however) that this can hardly considered a step down. If you feel any compassion towards chickens, yous houldn't be eating them or their eggs in the first place. If, like me, you think they are just a step up from potatoes, then this is kinda cool.

Maybe we can genetically engineer them to have no pain receptors, or for their tiny pleasure centers to be constatantly stimulated.

Or so they won't have heads!
Verawench
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 3:03 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Tortainglese, dear - Did I mention those chickens have been practicing their scales? They're doing remarkably well at chop sticks....

Visions of tuxedo-clad fowl thumping away the Raindrop Prelude...
Tortainglese
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

the only good reason for immortality is to have a chance to eventually play Chopin competantly on the piano. If those chickens represent the future, I dont want any part of it.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 2:40 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

It's real- they developed them for hot places like Africa, the theory being that the chickens will be more productive if they are not dying of heatstroke.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 2:38 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

As long as I get my jet-pack and cyborg eyeballs that see in infrared and UV, along with an immortality drug, I don't care if my chickens have feathers.
Tortainglese
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 2:38 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

PLEASE PLEASE tell me that those chickens are not real! How fucking sick is that! It can't be true...my brain can't process it. Fucking perverted meat industry will make a buck any way it can. A total holocaust on animals. Tell me it isn't real.
Verawench
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Cloned cats, finger prints as credit cards, monstrous, low-fat chickens...

bawkbawk

I have seen the future, and it is absurd.
Larsbogart
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 2:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Or cultivate us for our balls.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yeah, I was speaking on a larger scale- I don't know from Aspartame.

I think Anatomist has the survival strategy right-there is no way to get away from Worser Living Thru Chemistry, so general health seems like the best bet.

On the plus side, our dickless children wont have that whole population problem thing to worry about.

But then, that probably means they will leave us to die because our old wrinkly asses are going to outnumber them.

Maybe they could set up something similar to those little food-in, poop-out crates they keep chickens in for us.
Larsbogart
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:57 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Some chemical stresses might actually negate the others...
Uhm, Im holding on to my balls thank you.
Anatomist
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:21 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Rather than trying to make it work in terms of a particular substance, I think the general thrust of Rabid's argument makes more sense on a larger scale. There are a vast number of relatively recently invented chemicals that inundate the air, water, food, etc... We are being bombarded with hundreds and thousands of chemical stresses all the time that are relatively unprecedented in our genetic lineage. As a result, we have epidemic rates of cancer, a host of mysterious new diseases and - what I think may turn out to be most serious of all in terms of humans' future - precipitously declining fertility rates in males due to an array of estrogen-mimics in the environment. This last bit will eventually hit us right where it hurts, as 'males' may eventually be born with no testicles, shrunken non-functional penises or no male reproductive equipment at all. Of course, with the continuing sperm-count trend, not many will be born by that time anyway - I don't remember the particular numbers, but I think the overall drop in the past 50 years is already around 50%. We already see some of these more extreme expressions in amphibious and other fresh-water dwelling creatures like alligators who take a bath 24/7 in the water we merely drink.

On an individual level, right here and now, I don't think drinking a few diet cokes will make that much difference. I think the best things to do to help preserve yourself as an individual, without degenerating into obsession, are to avoid or minimize exposure to known strong toxins like partially hydrogenated and damaged oils, the pesticides on certain commercial produce (BTW, strawberries are the worst) and the kind you use to kill bugs around the house, fliter your drinking water, etc... The other angle of attack is to strengthen your immune system by getting lots of exercise, staying hydrated, taking vitamin and antioxidant supplements, eating less processed foods overall, getting adequate fiber, etc...

I don't by the 'why bother, you're going to die anyway' hokum, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy, ensuring that both the quantity and quality of your life will most likely be reduced. My father used to say that kind of thing all the time, neglecting proper diet and exercise, and drinking excessively. Now that he's dying of metastatic colon cancer at age 59, he doesn't talk like that any more.

K.
_Blackjack
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 9:22 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hm. Interesting idea. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, Aspartame is actually two amino acids (one of them an essential amino) bound together with a methyl ester. All things your body has been dealing with effectively for thousands upon thousands of years.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 7:52 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"I mean, which would you rather drink, anti-freeze or botulinim-infected water? "

Well, if you're buying....

It's not the origin of the chemical- it's the history of it's interaction with us.

Stuff that kills people outright will always kill people outright, barring a completely random mutation- there is no chance to evolve around it. That could be botulism or sarin- doesn't matter.

But for things that don't, the fact that my strawberries are covertly attempting to destroy me is less frightening because that is an old war and I'm not without tricks of my own.

My cell membranes and digestive system have developed to defend me against the vicious attacks my ancestors faced from cucumbers and the not-generally-eaten plants they sometimes subsisted on.

There are substances that would make me loopy or high or sick were it not for the blood-brain barrier being set against them. As it is I don't know they're there, and my beleaugered liver breaks them down.

Now look at all those solvents out there that are 'huffable.' All new to the species. None defended against well. It's not that they're 'technological' in origin, it's just that they're new.

And the more historically unfamiliar they are, the more fucked you are- because it's much easier to improvise to defend against a chemical that is at least in your metabolic ballpark.
_Blackjack
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 6:55 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

For instance, if I eat grass from my lawn, it may make me throw up, but it wont have nearly as far-reaching implications as drinking a tiny amount of degreaser or anti-freeze or whathaveyou.



Eh, I disagree. Remember that plants have had the same millions of years to evolve toxins to KEEP you from eating them. Some of the most potent toxins known are of natural origin, and there are plenty of complex synthetic compounds which are totally inert. I think it's pretty much a toss-up as to which is more likely to be nasty.

I mean, which would you rather drink, anti-freeze or botulinim-infected water?
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 5:39 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

My point is if whatever it is is new to our evolutionary heritage there is a higher risk of damage. For instance, if I eat grass from my lawn, it may make me throw up, but it wont have nearly as far-reaching implications as drinking a tiny amount of degreaser or anti-freeze or whathaveyou.

My liver is a hell of a lot more likely to be able to deal with toxins from a vegetable, even an unfamiliar one, than it is with a class of chemicals not seen before, as are my cells themselves. My liver is also much better able to process ethanol than that of your average native american because of that evolutionary adaptation.

Industrial solvents for instance tend to sicken people over time- their systems aren't set up to defend against them, and they tend to wander around fucking things up much longer because of it.

If you can find a chemical in someone's body years after exposure, that means their body can't get rid of the stuff, but not that the stuff is inert. Mercury is a great example- that's forever and it will always be fucking with your system too.

Had there been signifigant amounts of it in the environment for the last 2000 years, I bet few people would run into a problem from drinking the odd barometer.
Pikkle
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 5:03 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

All I got to say is... eat meat. It complements your absinthe nicely!
_Blackjack
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 4:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Anyway, I can almost guarantee that aspartame is safer than regular consumption of ethanol, which is, after all, the subject of this forum ;)
_Blackjack
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 4:48 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

If it isn't something your ancestors consumed, you are rolling the dice that it won't cause you harm. Like, my genes know how to deal with the many chemicals present in a tomato.



Probably not, since tomatoes were not used as a food crop by most of the planet until the past few centuries.

The question of what your ancestors ate is a pretty damn complex one, since the human diet has varied greatly through time and across the globe. Quite honestly, the science of nutrition is still very sketchy, and our ability to understand it is hampered by the fairly unique nature of the human metabolism--limiting the utility of animal models--and the difficulty in isolating dietary from other external and internal variables.

As it stands, except for people with fairly specific conditions, we just don't know enough about how the numerous chemicals in foods affect our bodies to be able to draw anything more than general conclusions. MOST diet-related illness can be minimized by basic common-sense moderation. Simple obesity and hypertension certainly harm and kill far more people than imbalances of various poorly-understood micro-nutrients or amino acids, so there is little advantage in sweating these details, at lest until we have stronger data.

The safety of aspartame, specifically, is witnessed primarily by its extremely wide use for the past 20 years without any major outbreaks of adverse effects. Whatever risk it presents, it is minor compared to others readily accepted by most people. I suspect the per-capita consumption of aspartame is greater than that of aspirin, and aspirin has far more adverse effects.

To the question of headaches, I will not make argument. All sorts of chemicals in foods seem to cause minor adverse reactions in small portions of the population, like the tannic acid found in wine, or the tyramine (related chemically to the phenylalanine in aspartame) found in cheeses, nuts, chocolate and fermented foods. If you get a headache consistently from something, by all means, don't eat it. It probably won't do any permanent damage, but who needs an extra headache?

Incidentally, the ingredients of aspartame are aspartic acid and phenylalanine, both of which are amino acids which occur naturally in many foods. Phenylalanine is a precursor to the neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine, and you need some amount of it, or its precursor tyrosine, in your diet to survive. They certainly fall into the category of "something your ancestors consumed", tho probably not in those quantities.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 3:29 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I think as a general rule, putting chemicals into your body that you don't have an evolutionary background with is a bad idea. You MIGHT get away with it. You might not.

If it isn't something your ancestors consumed, you are rolling the dice that it won't cause you harm. Like, my genes know how to deal with the many chemicals present in a tomato.

They haven't had much chance to develop a defense against what is in a Diet Coke.

As examples, I present:

the relatively new common use of refined sugar, and it's previously mentioned hell-on-the pancreas problem

Alcahol's effects on populations that had no previous exposure (north and south America, much of Africa)

In other words, our bodies have developed defenses over time. Nutrasweet is a sucker punch.
Pikkle
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Sugar is the DEVIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 12:46 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hmm, I was trying to save Kallisti some bandwidth, but it looks you can only go Low-Res so much...
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 12:44 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

This is the sugar content of your average 12 oz can of soda.

sugar

Imagine one of those 60 oz Mega-Gulps...
Pikkle
Posted on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 - 12:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

so what? no diet absinthe?

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page