Cheat Engine

[ipivb]

Things that are of "organic" origin are highly praised over those which are inorganic/synthetic.

However, the only difference between organic and inorganic chemicals is that organic chemicals are derived from plants, animals, etc and inorganic chemicals come from natural minerals or chemicals which don't require the interference of living organisms.

So in a sense, inorganic chemicals are the ones which should be called "natural", because they exist whether life does or not.

Furthermore, if you are a creationist and believe that life is not a natural phenomena (in other words, life was created by an all-powerful conscious being such as god), then that means chemicals derived from living things are not natural at all. They are only here because of the living organisms that god created, which is not a natural process.

I would rather have my food fertilized with sterile, pure ingredients rather than a complex cocktail of matter that was once living. I would rather take supplements that are chemically pure rather than an unknown mixture of organic nature.

Any thoughts?

[Jorg hi]

Why? Do you think some random apple that is organic could have a mutation that somehow makes it 70% s***?

Can you explain to me by what you mean.. synthetic? Do you mean Genetically Modified?

[ipivb]

I'm saying any apple is a mixture of literally thousands of chemicals, proteins, amino acids, lipids... anything organic is essentially the exact opposite of the word "pure".

I don't mean genetically modified. Anything that has genes is impure. Why would someone prefer something impure over something pure? You don't put crude oil in your gas tank. People expect their gas to be purified and distilled, otherwise our cars wouldn't work. The body is the same way... consumables should contain pure ingredients. The reason we don't purify an apple down to its essential vitamins, fibers, and flavors is because the process is too difficult and has little benefit. My point is that, when given the choice, why do people prefer organics, especially when they sometimes demand a higher price?

Synthetic is generally defined as something which is designed artificially, rather than by natural processes. But the key word here is natural. Creationists (read: religious people) argue that the process of abiogenesis is not natural (that life was created from intelligent design, rather than through natural processes).

Taking that into consideration, anything that is organic/living is not natural, it is artificial (created). So my point is that all these foods or products labeled "all-natural" are actually completely wrong, because the only thing that is truly natural are things like rocks, metals, certain gases and liquids, etc.

What synthetic truly means is anything that is created out of the combination of two or more parts, whether by design or natural processes. Therefor the true definition of the word really has no meaning for judging the quality of something. A better synonym for how we typically use this word is "organic".

Most modern medicine is synthetic, but can also be considered "organic" in a way, because much of it is derived from things that were once living (bacteria, petroleum, etc).

My main point is that I don't care whether or something is organic or inorganic, I just don't see a point in using a complex cocktail of chemicals rather than a purified ingredient, unless it is more convenient. And in the case of farming, it is far more convenient to use chemically pure fertilizers, rather than organic fertilizer derived from things like bat shit, decomposed fish, horse shit, rabbit piss, bone, blood, etc...

The very soil that we typically grow plants in is derived mainly from decomposed worms/leaves/other things that were once living. And guess what? Plants grow much better with hydroponics, which involves using absorbent rocks instead of soil, with machines that spray water onto the roots, using fertilizer that contains all of the necessary nutrients in their pure form.

Large scale farmers typically don't use hydroponics because they have so much land that they can sacrifice some yield and instead take up more space. But if your space is limited, hydroponics is cheaper than buying more space.

[AhMunRa]

[Jorg hi]

[ipivb]

[Legit]

Organic = C,N,O,F
Inorganic = Rest

So you're telling me you would take magnesium, potassium, aluminum, lithium, sodium, chlorine, and many, many more elements into your body on the simple basis that they are not derived from strictly C,N,O,F? Yet these elements and oxygen make up most of your body.... I don't understand your argument because both inorganic substances and organic substances are essentially to the human body, and quite frankly, to the circle of life. I really think you should study organic chemistry and realize how organics (not the process of organic agriculture) are essential to the body and how it can also be bad (superoxides).

Edit: after reading your last post I do agree that synthetic is just as good (if not better) as naturally occurring compounds... since we now have the tools to analyze and engineer the exact same compounds.

[ipivb]

Yeah I'm glad you agree. I am talking more about using once-living organisms vs purified chemicals as fertilizer. All this "organic food hype" has no true purpose.

[Legit]

Well one thing about humans is that they love to resist change, and if they allow change, and are let down, they tend to stay away from that change regardless of all the logical reasoning provided to them. What do I mean? Well, remember DDT? Well yeah, it screwed up the entire food chain and was initially thought to be harmless. Nitrogen enriched fertilizers are known to be good simply from results. I do not agree 100% that only organic methods or only synthetic fertilizers should be used. I do however see a bright, I'm talking VERY luminescent, future for synthetic fertilizers simply because our only option for providing a constant food supply to an evergrowing population is to build skyscrapers and grow fruit instead of them. The synthetic fertilizers, accompanied by genetic engineering, will allow the fruit to grow efficiently. Then, about 5 years after that, we will never need this debate because all fertilizer will be abolished (if capitalism permits) thanks to genetic engineering (which means we'll grow fruit and veges from JUST water and sunlight!).

Now take into account what a secondary gain from these skyscrapers: much lower prices! The cost of vegetables is as high as it is mostly due to transportation. If the proposed model of a skyscraper on every block follows through, transportation costs will be effectively null and the consumers save a lot of $$$!

[Trow]

I don't know what you two are getting at here, but organic foods are on the rise not because they use organic fertilizers, but because organic foods need to pass your country's requirements and tests for the absence of non-naturally-occurring pesticides and additives.

Usually, we are concerned with unnatural bioaccumulated compounds (read: DDT et al.), because these things get stuck in our body and we cannot find a way to get rid of these toxins until we die.

I'll stop here because it seems offtopic.

[ipivb]

No it's not off topic at all. It's exactly what I was getting at.

I assume by "not-naturally-occurring" you mean pesticides and additives that were not living at one point. But what benefit does that alone have? To be more specific, what you really mean is that "naturally-occuring" pesticides and additives have different chemicals, which is considered safe compared to inorganic pesticides/additives.

My point is... why not isolate those pesticides/additives which are found in "naturally-occuring" material, then find a way to synthesize it in a lab in its purified state? That way, it wouldn't be considered "organic", but it would have the exact same effect (less the potential harm of the thousands of unknown substances present in organic fertilizer/pesticides/additives).

My point is that it doesn't matter whether it is "organic"... just that it contains only the said pesticides and additives which do not cause bioaccumulation in humans. Just like it is cheaper to use purified, man-made fertilizer, the isolated pesticides of organic material should be theoretically cheaper than using the entire organic material as a whole.

If non-organic pesticides truly are harmful to humans, then the only reason they would still be used is because they are cheaper. I'm saying that while the non-harmful pesticides may not be as cheap as those, they should be cheaper than they are in their impure form. The thing is, "organic food" sounds a lot more attractive than "food which was grown with non-harmful pesticide"... it's a marketing tactic.

[Trow]

By non-naturally-occurring (which, strangely, doesn't mean "unnaturally-occurring") I mean compounds not found in nature before chemists learnt how to synthesise them. One example of these artificial compounds is aspartame (not a pesticide).

Benefits of using these compounds as pesticides is that they are 1) cheaper, 2) more effective, and 3) much easier to mass produce. All of these are tied to costs.

[ipivb]

Well said, agreed.

It may be cheaper to use naturally-occurring pesticides in their whole form, but even if it weren't, they would still be used anyway because then they can be labeled as "organic", which is appealing to some people.

Just as in the case of tobacco: it contains thousands of chemicals, but we haven't isolated each and every one and tested it on rats. Instead, we say "this combination of chemicals produces these effects". It could very-well be that one or two of these thousands of chemicals is actually *slightly* beneficial to health in some way, but we can't know that without testing and studying each and every one.

Similarly, organic material consists of thousands of chemicals, and we can't say that each one is beneficial to health. For example, we know that burned food contains carcinogens. But burned food consists of hundreds/thousands of chemicals, and maybe some of them are beneficial... but we don't know that because we haven't tested each one.

Therefor my point is that the "good" chemicals should theoretically be isolated, while the unnecessary ones should be filtered out. Whether or not that is cost effective is a different story, but the point is that organic fertilizer is no better than man-made fertilizer which has only the chemicals which are known to be beneficial, in their exact same form.

[Jorg hi]

Its just... the population doesn't know. Thats life.

The people with all the information, the false media, the smart people that have cures and truths, and the rich business men that deny and falsify.

If someone is gonna be stupid, (according to how you speak about evolution) they will eventual pop out of the genetic cycle.

YO dis aint my biased opinion, I'm basing it off of this:

http://forum.cheatengine.org/viewtopic.php?t=530405&start=30

&

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UFIYGkROII

[ipivb]

Not so, because the population of humans has reached a point where it's too large for anymore evolution to take place. Instead of it being us that evolve, it's now just our books. Human evolution has reached homeostasis. Any further apparent "evolution" will be in the form of culture/knowledge. That is, until our knowledge reaches a point where we finally get the bright idea to turn ourselves into cyborgs that feed on control and power, eventually spawning a civilization of artificially-intelligent robots (kind of like The Matrix), humans are not going to physically evolve on a large scale in any way... but that's a long ways off (it will happen though).

In short, it's not that they will pop out of the genetic cycle... it's that they will just pop out of human culture.

The last few generations had computer technology, but grew up mainly without it. And how many new stories/blogs have you heard about how new technology like cell phones, facebook, even computers themselves are preventing kids from learning? Or these "studies" that show you learn better from writing something rather than typing it. These stories are created by an older generation, and because humans are resistant to change, they are apprehensive towards computers.

I could go further with that but it would deserve a thread of its own, so to get more to the point... it's almost guaranteed that future generations will begin to think more and more logically, and eventually they come to realize that foods labeled as "organic" don't have a benefit simply because they are organic, but because they may contain healthier chemicals which could easily be reproduced in a laboratory. And it wouldn't be because humans had evolved, it would be because culture has evolved.