It would be really cool to put a few million dollars into researching this more closely, but I guess that would qualify as "pork" and/or "socialism" so we'll just have to wait for some rich asshole to do the research for us.

i think this is endlessly fascinating. i'd grow a branch if it meant i could get nourishment straight from the sun.

the discription is misleading -- surely it must get other nutrients from somewhere. You can't survive on CHON alone.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Very cool. Someday we'll have chloroplasts embedded in our skin. Goodbye hunger.

^Wouldn't people in Alaska get incredibly fat and then later go on a crash diet?

this guy has it figured out. the practice is called sungazing

pleas please please can I be reincarnated into this

>> ^kulpims:
this guy has it figured out. the practice is called sungazing

That is truly ridiculous.

If this made sense for humans, it probably would have emerged in the form of a divergent species. There is a reason plants subsist on solar power, whereas animals eat plants or other animals: animals move around which takes a greater amount of energy than sitting still. When you eat food, you are essentially eating stored solar power...power which has been stored as sugar over months or years.

Even if it did provide energy, how many of you are outside for 12 hours a day, naked? You'd probably die of skin cancer or third degree sun burns long before you eliminated your hunger. Even if those problems could be overcome, who would want to spend 12 hours a day laying outside just to eat? As far as spending millions of dollars researching this for human benefit, well that would be quite a waste wouldn't it?

Its a fascinating example of the diversity of nature, and an example of how new species can emerge through hybridization.

Neat!, but since when are algae plants? (as in "hybrid plant/animal!"). I thought the whole point of New Scientist was to make science palatable for the masses Without resorting to lazy inaccuracies.

^imstellar, I don't think that it even gets to a question of whether humans with chloroplasts would be a 'good design'. The historical constraints on this sort of thing evolving through natural selection are huge. Horizontal gene transfer enabling algal chloroplasts and a vertebrate host to live together as a chimeric organism ain't going to happen... probably more because of the immune response to the chloroplasts than because of barriers to introgression of the genes.

..besides, isn't it cool enough that this happened in a mollusk?

>> ^imstellar28:
As far as spending millions of dollars researching this for human benefit, well that would be quite a waste wouldn't it?


But you don't know that, stellar.

You just sat there, threw out a bunch of opinions, then declared the argument over.

You did no research, and you failed to consider any alternative or secondary benefits that may arise from studying this more closely.

What happened is that energy has been created, or at least harnessed, in a new and novel way that we've never considered before, that we've never even considered possible.

That deserves study. Who do you think's going to look into it? Oil companies? Coal companies? Nuclear power companies?

It would be good if they did the studies, but bad if the government did, right?

Because if they did the studies, then they would get the lion's share of the profits involved in creating and distributing the new technology, and you like that idea.

But if the government did it, then we all would have the chance to benefit equally from the new technology, and that would be socialism, or communism, and that would be bad.

one word. breathanarism.

her intonation in some of these sentences makes me think she's a French valley girl.

What in the hell was with the dead kid under the guy's computer? What the fuck are they selling!?

^Come on, just give it a click. I know you want to.

1. "plant"-animal hybrid reference is appropriate because it is the energy pathways being discussed, not the food source.

2. Photosynthesizing humans may have evolved. but they would have been so appetizing in appearance and delicious, that they would have been eaten into extinction by the carnivorous humans before they ever left a fossil record.

3. i think they should study this to see if through reverse-engineering, they can learn to graft discarded human fetal arms onto apple trees, and thereby grow trees that can pick their own apples! Just like in the Munchkinland suburbs!

^volcanito I'm not sure if comment #1 is serious, but
the "energy pathway" is algal plastid -> opisthobranch. As the little lady with the crappy hamburger says, "where's the plant?"

...and more importantly, does anyone else think that the still for this video looks like labia?

cool. a pokemon

Elysia Chlorotica, I choose you!!!

imstellar, when has more knowledge ever been a disadvantage for the development of human society?

hehe, You know. I'm sure some day we'll find out a way to use the sun to recharge our bodies, and destroy world hunger.

And I'm also sure, sunlight will somehow taste like chicken.

*brief, if you skip the commercial at the end.

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by Haldaug.

Would you make that same argument about your personal life? That is:

"when has more knowledge ever been a disadvantage for the development of your personal life?"

If not, what reasons do you give, and why do you disregard those reasons in the case of the sum collection of millions of personal lives which comprise a society?

Resources are finite, as is time. You don't (I presume) spend all your time obtaining knowledge at exorbitant cost. There is no benefit to the wanton collection of knowledge. Most people only seek knowledge if it can be used for some sort of benefit be it physical, spiritual, philosophical or otherwise.

We could for example, divert billion of dollars from our transportation budget into research on the flight patterns of winged insects, but what would that investment of money and time gain us? To make it personal, you could spend half of the wages from your job and hire research assistances to obtain and report vast amounts of random information to you. Would you consider such endeavors advantageous or disadvantageous to either societal or personal development?

I think the root of your fallacy is the assumption that knowledge is free.

>> ^lavoll:
imstellar, when has more knowledge ever been a disadvantage for the development of human society?

>> ^imstellar28:
I think the root of your fallacy is the assumption that knowledge is free.


Knowledge may not be free, but ignorance is far more expensive.

It never even occurred to me to transfer this to human beings.

I was thinking more along the lines of learning new and better ways to harnass solar energy.

will my most popular video ever be about a slug?

..Roughy, what better way could there possibly be to harness solar energy than to power autonomous vaginas? Here we are at the pinnacle of our evolution, and we find that a divergent species of human has evolved completely unknown to us. A form of human which is perfect: That is a woman which has no other parts except for a vagina and a clitoris, and the whole thing is solar powered! You don't even have to buy it dinner!

I hereby declare Evolution complete! great job!

^ lavoll, it's not about a slug, it's about a miracle.

>> ^cindercone:
That is a woman which has no other parts except for a vagina and a clitoris, and the whole thing is solar powered! You don't even have to buy it dinner!


Imaginative, depraved, and thrifty. You've won my respect.

>> ^imstellar28:
As far as spending millions of dollars researching this for human benefit, well that would be quite a waste wouldn't it?


>> ^rougy:
But you don't know that, stellar.

...if the government did it, then we all would have the chance to benefit equally from the new technology, and that would be socialism, or communism, and that would be bad.


My, aren't we young and gullible. The government basically takes your money, by force, and then it's hands it out to researchers of its choice. Now, why would we do this? Why would we give the money to someone who didn't earn it and allow them to spend it? They have none of their own labor behind it, so there's no risk of loss to prevent the recipient from being chosen on the basis of campaign financing, friendship, or other conflicts of interest. Socialism expects the politician to be completely impartial and decide with more knowledge and thrift as he who earned the money, but that's an idealist absurdity. Research and invention in the private sector has always blown away USSR distribution models. Nobody spending their own money wants to create a product that utterly fails to be seen as valuable to others, they need voluntary purchases or they'll never offset the costs of making it.

Now, it's true, there's a lot of private funding towards highly experimental and directionless research at universities to "maybe stumble on something major." But philanthropy from wealthier members of society is sufficient for that as well. Priorities dictate that we pursue these interests when we've secured our necessities. Like hell we need to deprive somes families, with a generalized tax, from having a second kid or a better education or more food so that we can blindly finance public research on things no private company sees as having potential.

You should look at monster blunders like corn ethanol, a continuous misallocation of research money that never would have happened in the private sector. The massive subsidies it got made it profitable to reduce field use for food crops, thereby raising the price of food. Doh! Also turns out that ethanol is very inefficient, taking almost as much energy to create as we get out of it.

When oil does become too expensive, you begin to see private research and investment in companies with the best records and most promising ideas. Unfortunately, some of the best ones lose to competitors because their competitors have political connections and win forcibly appropriated money. The oil companies themselves get special tax credits. It's all been manipulated, delaying replacements by subsidizing the price of fuel. Not easy to compete with businesses that never had to convince an earner of a voluntary investment or purchase. I personally think electric cars are the future, with a nuclear infrastructure, always have. Nuclear power is very cheap and safe and independent, but our government has blocked new plants for DECADES. We are such a socialist, interventionist failure at this point economically and with energy policy, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

>> ^BansheeX:
My, aren't we young and gullible.


You just made the ignore list, fuckwad.

Say hello to Quantumushroom. I'm sure you'll find you have a lot in common.

And keep pretending that you're the only person in the world who pays taxes, or that all of your taxes are wasted on "entitlements" and foolish research.

It's really the only leg you have to stand on.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^BansheeX:
My, aren't we young and gullible.

You just made the ignore list, fuckwad.
Say hello to Quantumushroom. I'm sure you'll find you have a lot in common.
And keep pretending that you're the only person in the world who pays taxes, or that all of your taxes are wasted on "entitlements" and foolish research.
It's really the only leg you have to stand on.


Quantumushroom is an inflammatory neo-con who parrots hypocritical fiscal criticisms and pro-interventionist nonsense. What has he criticized Democrats on that Bush didn't DO when he was in office? Other than a few social issues, nothing, yet he defends the (socialist) neo-conservative party to the last.

Question is, why do you want to force others to finance things they believe are inefficient and don't want to participate in? Public schools and retirement schemes would theoretically be very easy things have opt-outs for. It's not illegal to sell education services apart from the government, or manage your own earnings for retirement. I'd prefer not to waste my time trying to convince you how Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable ponzi schemes, you've already convinced yourself of the impossible. Yet you are adamant at forcing me to participate in them with you despite my preference (after an enormous amount of research) not to devote part of my earnings there. All YOU should be concerned about, is you and those like you who believe it will work between you. Whether I believe I can save and invest my money more efficiently than the social security system shouldn't make any difference to its proponents. And the same logic goes for this fucking sea slug. A politician could come to your door with any damn reason to want money, and you'd give it to them, we already know that. But you don't own what others have or earn, so stop trying to vote in a learned minority who has doubts.

Have you even been paying attention to the stimulus packages? These people do not fucking care about you, buy a clue. If they cared about waste, Obama would have used his veto pen umpteen times already instead of verbally admonishing earmarks and the undeserved bonuses begotten by giving billions of stolen money to idiots who drove their companies into the ground. If they cared, they wouldn't brazenly state it out loud that you don't:

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