Well they will be here soon...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/09/3d-printed-ribeye-steak-usda-fda/?outputType=amp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/09/3d-printed-ribeye-steak-usda-fda/?outputType=amp
Remember the replicators from Star Trek?
- Thread starter Cnsper
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
I'm gonna tag this as not ready for "prime" time. I'm sure they'll make progress on the 3d Steak-O-Matic Printer and one day synthetic meat that is chemically indistinguishable from once-living meat will be a thing. I'd be OK trying it, too. The question will be whether it is less expensive to make syntho-moo rather than the actual beef.
Now. Star Trek. Replicators were...are...will (maybe?) be based on transporter technology. That is, transporters turn matter into energy and back into matter, BUT the matter the energy is turned back into can be pretty much anything. So in that regard, our 3d meat-maker has a bit of catching up to do. Our printers can only print with the materials they're provided. But transporters could turn a Buick into Ronald Reagan (provided Reagan's pattern were known).
This also opens a door to ethical questions on Star Trek in the area of ensuring that no one dies. If you just keep someone's transport pattern safely stored away just before they go down on an away mission and they are soon killed, should they be brought back to the way they were just before they transported down? In the ST universe, this is possible, but ethically should it be done?
I opened too many doors. I'll go sit down now.
Now. Star Trek. Replicators were...are...will (maybe?) be based on transporter technology. That is, transporters turn matter into energy and back into matter, BUT the matter the energy is turned back into can be pretty much anything. So in that regard, our 3d meat-maker has a bit of catching up to do. Our printers can only print with the materials they're provided. But transporters could turn a Buick into Ronald Reagan (provided Reagan's pattern were known).
This also opens a door to ethical questions on Star Trek in the area of ensuring that no one dies. If you just keep someone's transport pattern safely stored away just before they go down on an away mission and they are soon killed, should they be brought back to the way they were just before they transported down? In the ST universe, this is possible, but ethically should it be done?
I opened too many doors. I'll go sit down now.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
- Messages
- 22,979
I don't want to eat fake meat. Concerned they would put in bug protein. I don't even eat at Taco Bell.
Sorry I read you topic and saw replicators and thought: They weren't on Star Trek they were on Stargate SG1
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,630
or
you've got to tell everyone.......Soylent Rib Eye is people....you got a tell em......you got a tell em
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
- Messages
- 22,979
I like both shows. I want a stargate.
Someone had a huge yard art one set up in Espanola, New Mexico.
Someone had a huge yard art one set up in Espanola, New Mexico.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
- Messages
- 22,979
OK, I'll tell them, Hardcalibres. Don't eat that meat.
Actually......
They sorta made a point in ST that you couldn't make living things with replicators. Even though the technology was similar to transporters, there was a key difference. Transporters converted matter into energy, moved the energy and then turned it back into matter. They couldn't actually record all the information of a living thing, specifically, the actual position of all the electrons in their orbits around all the atoms. In ST that was equivalent to a 'soul' and why a transporter wasn't actually killing people every single time it was used.
This was the purpose of the 'pattern buffer' they where always having trouble with, a magical gizmo that held all the information of what was being transported without actually being able to 'read' that information. Think of a computer that can hold a compressed version of some file to big to ever actually be opened up in the computer where it was stored.
Replicators had patterns in them and would pick and choose atoms from the 'reclamation tanks' and assemble them as needed into molecules for almost anything you needed. (Some things like some medicines and spices where considered too complex to replicate)
Which really, makes sense. If you think about it, a pound of living cow muscle is probably millions of times more complicated than something with a similar structure and same basic ingredients but that was never alive. You can't taste wether the endoplasmic reticulum in your steak is the right shape or not after all.
Since I have 15 years of 'hands-on' experience with beef cattle, I can offer some advive.
We carried cows that were near death to the stockyard.
Even us hungry teenagers wouldn't eat them.
Every one of them sold.
To where?
Well, people have to ask themselves how Taco Bell can put ground beef in a taco, and sell it at a profit, for only $1.00 today.
https://www.tacobell.com/food/tacos/loaded-nacho-taco
Where does that 'beef' come from?
I know!
Yet they were able to replace Worf's broken spine using this technology. And, in Relics, Captain Scott was reconstructed unharmed after 75 years of being stored in the pattern buffer in the transporter. So I'm suggesting it's both possible with their technology and that there's room for improvement in the 24th century and they're on the cusp of bumping into what I'm suggesting.Actually......
They sorta made a point in ST that you couldn't make living things with replicators. Even though the technology was similar to transporters, there was a key difference. Transporters converted matter into energy, moved the energy and then turned it back into matter. They couldn't actually record all the information of a living thing, specifically, the actual position of all the electrons in their orbits around all the atoms. In ST that was equivalent to a 'soul' and why a transporter wasn't actually killing people every single time it was used.
This was the purpose of the 'pattern buffer' they where always having trouble with, a magical gizmo that held all the information of what was being transported without actually being able to 'read' that information. Think of a computer that can hold a compressed version of some file to big to ever actually be opened up in the computer where it was stored.
Replicators had patterns in them and would pick and choose atoms from the 'reclamation tanks' and assemble them as needed into molecules for almost anything you needed. (Some things like some medicines and spices where considered too complex to replicate)
Which really, makes sense. If you think about it, a pound of living cow muscle is probably millions of times more complicated than something with a similar structure and same basic ingredients but that was never alive. You can't taste wether the endoplasmic reticulum in your steak is the right shape or not after all.
(Delving deeper: if you can record the position of every electron of every atom in every molecule to reconstruct it moments from now somewhere else (what a transporter does), why can't you store that information indefinitely - because the process of transportation is far longer than the orbit of an electron around its nucleus - and use it at a much later date?)
But I get what you're saying and in the context of cannon you're right.
Yet they were able to replace Worf's broken spine using this technology. And, in Relics, Captain Scott was reconstructed unharmed after 75 years of being stored in the pattern buffer in the transporter. So I'm suggesting it's both possible with their technology and that there's room for improvement in the 24th century and they're on the cusp of bumping into what I'm suggesting.
(Delving deeper: if you can record the position of every electron of every atom in every molecule to reconstruct it moments from now somewhere else (what a transporter does), why can't you store that information indefinitely - because the process of transportation is far longer than the orbit of an electron around its nucleus - and use it at a much later date?)
But I get what you're saying and in the context of cannon you're right.
The idea is that the electrons and there orbits are maintained in transit and you are conscious during the transport process, you are simply energy rather than matter.
Scotty was just stored somehow in stasis in the patter buffer. But the it wasn't as if there just a scotty blueprint in a computer that they could fire up and make at will. They had to materialize that stored pattern.
Worfs spine was somewhat cannon breaking. Of course StarTrek cannon is broken so often anyway its hard to call it cannon.
The whole thing really wrote itself into a corner by the end. (Voyager), which everything after that was a prequel. They reached the point where 'cannon' had an easy technological answer for every problem. When you can make fully functional AI's, wormholes and time travel easily there isn't much room left for a good plot.
Really, I have no point here, I'm just rambling on with my startrek geekdom.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2017
- Messages
- 11,713
bet the eggs will be runny
There were laws passed that downed cows can't be sold at auctions. They have to be able to walk on their own through the ring. Of course that won't stop parking lot sales....
It probably will not be all that far away when we can truly say
Soylent Green is people.
Soylent Green is people.
