Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
-- Douglas Adams, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

Space; It seems to go on and on forever...but then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
-- Fry, Futurama

Basically there's lots of space.

Congratulations! Your video, Swedish Chemist's Shop joke, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

Your video, Swedish Chemist's Shop joke, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The best evidence you have for your claims (as I see it) is anecdotal at best.
3rd world countries 1) are not at all vegetarian and 2) don't get most cancers Westerners do largely because they don't eat processed foods or expose themselves to carcinogenic chemicals constantly....we do.
Again, NEVER get your science from the internet.

"Pro-life" is by definition "anti-choice".

If you're really pro-planet, a MUCH better way to go about it is try to get people to have fewer children. That will make exponentially more difference than some people eating fewer animals. In fact, if past human behavior is a guide, if we all stop eating animals, animals will cease to exist for the most part, so that's not helpful to them at all.

Again, fewer people is the proper answer, not forcefully change biologically engrained behavior. I made that choice, so I can eat all the animals I ever possibly can and I've done more for the planet and it's animals with that single action than 1000 vegans with vegan children...or more positive difference than one vegan with children, depending on how you want to look at it.

As a living being, I'm standing up for all living beings who certainly object to your choice to breed, both the voiceless and those with voice, and saying stop making choices that negatively impact us all, like having more children and grandchildren. If enough people would do that, eating meat won't be an ecological issue. ;-)

I didn't watch the videos, I don't get my science from the internet. I read scientific publications that contain peer reviewed science papers, and I've never seen one that said ALL the nutrients found in meat could be replaced with vegetable nutrients easily, simply, viably, or without excessive expense.
Also, it ignores that fact that most produce available in the first world comes with a huge carbon footprint and massive ecological damage because of the production methods, so it's not the 'clean' trade off you seem to assume.

Small family farms were plenty to meet demand for all of human history until about the last 50 years. Quit having kids, and it will be enough again and we can stop abusing animals and the eco system just to make enough food for humans.

A short, good life is preferable to no life at all.

Nope. I should have scheduled the one in that picture that's mine to end his life at least a year earlier, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. NOT doing it was immoral. If someone had been willing to eat him, I would be all for it. If someone wants to eat me, go for it...I suggest slow smoking and a molasses based BBQ sauce. Eating my dog would be ecologically sound, as opposed to the cremation we ended up with, or burial, being the only other option available.
If I raised dogs for food, I would not think twice about ending their life in their prime. That would be the reason they existed in the first place, and without that reason they would never get that chance.

Again, milk cows only exist because someone wanted to partner with them to benefit both. Without that symbiosis, they would not get the opportunity to exist at all. IMO, existence is preferable to no existence. Yes, they need to get pregnant at least once, but as I understand it, that's it so long as you keep up with milking them. Veal, now there I'll totally agree with you that IT'S abuse.

Animals are not people. They do not usually have the same need for freedom, and those that do have that need were never domesticated. It is not immoral to form a symbiosis with another species as long as you both benefit in some way, otherwise you're just a parasite.

? Taste, as in how animals taste? BS, that's not all. That's a component, sure, but there's incredibly more to it than that.

I prefer to give animals a reason to exist, knowing that without that human centric reason, they simply won't get the chance, but I do my best to purchase animal products that are created with the least distress and best conditions for the animals in question...granted that's not always possible to know.

Trust me, I've tried vegetarian 'meats', I know the difference, and absolutely don't prefer vegan fare, or vegetarian fare that attempts to emulate meat. If I want meat, I'll eat meat. You'll get my butter only by prying it from my cold, dead hands. ;-)

I don't think taste is quite as simple as you imply. Yes, there is a component of 'addiction' to certain foods, especially sugar rich foods.
There's no such thing as vegan cheese or chocolate, you mean tofu and carob...and I agree, they both suck.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. A poor eating vegan can certainly negatively impact the planet with their food choices. It's easy. Oreos for instance, are most certainly made with ecologically damaging factory farm methods creating the ingredients...well, those methods and chemists. I don't know off hand the carbon footprint and ecological impact of an oreo, but it's not "none".

Yes, my teenage years were irresponsible, and a main reason I often chime in to suggest at least having serious knowledge about what you're doing and safety precautions before going this route.

Yes, because it is different for different people, and even different for the same person dependent on their mindset when they take it, it's impossible to be totally 'safe' when taking it, even with full knowledge. You can't know for sure how it will react with you, or how you'll react to it until it's too late.

Making your own, if you're a decent chemist, at least gives you a good idea of WHAT you're taking, but without spectral analysis, you can't know the strength of the psychoactives for certain. Also, that probably leaves you open to more legal trouble for manufacturing a schedule 1 narcotic...more reason to not go in public and take it and get caught.

The fear is that, when someone is having a bad trip, they aren't likely to think straight enough to take something to counter act the effects...even if they're smart enough to have that handy. Unfortunately, a clinical setting is probably also not conducive to a great experience, so 'under a doctor's supervision' isn't really totally helpful or practical.

The quantum mechanics part can be understood, he seemed to have just miss-stated/miss-understood what the experiment was about in his wish to find some science that explains his experience, which may not be understandable.

As I understand it, clinical depression is often caused by an imbalance in brain chemicals. My godfather is, in essence, the godfather of pharmacological anti-depressants. He's a brain chemist that discovered many of the chemicals in the brain back in the 70's-80's, and how they work with each other, particularly those involved in mood regulations. This eventually led to the development of pharmacological anti-depressants.
The real issue is, there's not ONE form of 'depression', not even one single biological form...there are many, and each comes in a range from barely perceptible to extreme. That makes proper diagnosis of which problem(s) one might have probably the MOST important step in treatment. Unfortunately, the diagnosis is usually precursory, and rarely involves actually testing the brain's chemical make up, meaning it's a crap shoot for the most part. Therapy can't help if you have a biologically caused depression, and drugs usually won't help if you have a non-biologically caused depression.
I only hope that diagnosis can catch up with treatment methods...and that treatment method continue to evolve themselves. Without both, many people have no chance of proper treatment/cure.

Gay chemist on drugs blows himself up. That's what the newspapers would write.

See now I can tell you really know nothing about it, since you do not need to be a chemist. You could grab yopo seeds and just smoke those (they were found in a 3,000 year old bowl in Costa Rica - people have known about it for a long time, then for some reason it became a secret - I think Christianity stepped in to get rid of the knowledge of it), it's found throughout nature - you could grab some acacia bark, boil it and drink. It is safe and it is not dangerous. It's been studied many times and is still being studied for how it affects the brain & as well for it's natural therapeutic effects. It is believed to be endogenous - that is it already exists within your being (it's in many plants and animals, recently found produced in an animal's pineal gland). Not a huge Tool fan but they often allude to this substance, the pineal gland, Alex Grey's artwork - pretty sure they know full well of what it is.

Anyway, I totally did derail the comments and I do apologize for that, but you guys were calling me "religious" and downvoting me so I took offense. I derailed mostly to post the link about Dawkins having a profound experience that humbles his approach, it was a joke - but really I think all of us that have experienced the wonders would love people like Dawkins to spend the 5-10 minutes to experience it and then hear what he has to say about it.

*promote

What @eric3579 said.
Not the first time you have hijacked a thread to espouse the wonders of DMT. Are you a chemist that makes the stuff or what? It is not a 'safe' drug in any way.
If it's not about being a 'religious experience', your interjection of it here is out of place and odd.

Understand that claiming to 'know' the 'unknowable' is a definition of insanity. :-)
I can understand your position on ET life, but I disagree it's a certainty, it's merely a statistical NEAR certainty. Just as I must leave that tiny possibility that 'god' exists, you should leave open that tiny possibility that other life does not. We can't know (until we find positive proof, of either, until then it's a question...one can't prove a negative).
Please don't indicate I said any such thing. I do not 'hate people who do', nor have I ever said any such thing. I have said I am disturbed by the ACT of claiming to know the unknowable, and hate the assertion of 'proof' that is never 'proof' (or as you said, BS as fact). It doesn't matter what the topic, to me.
While you may be correct, most don't mention their beliefs daily, that's not what I said...I said when they DO discuss their beliefs, it's usually offered in a 'these are the facts, believe them' manner, morphing to anger if the beliefs are not simply accepted as fact. Again, not always, but more often than not in my experience.
No, proselytizing is not just accepting others' different beliefs, and allowing others to make up their minds. It's saying 'my way is right, anything else is wrong, now do and believe as I do'. I'm guilty of it myself at times, but I'm looking for people to not 'believe' anything but learn how to assess data and figure out reality for themselves (not based on others ideas and beliefs).
I'm pretty much there with you about greed and religious elite.
We differ about science. Beauty, love, love of beauty (art) have been boiled down to chemical processes in the brain scientifically (my godfather was the brain chemist that discovered most of the chemicals in the brain and how they interact). I see no need for anything else, no matter how cool it might be if there were really 'magic' or 'supernatural' things out there to explore and understand.
I try to never take it personally, unless I see a personal attack. I hope you do the same. As I said, I usually try to 'hate' actions and methods, but not the people that use them (with some exceptions for assholes).

EDIT: I think it boils down to people mistaking what they fervently believe for what they 'know', an understandable mistake.

It's not too late. I know someone who made it his second career, after becoming disillusioned with his first one (industrial chemist I think, or metallurgist? Something like that).

Get this DIY chemist some more coffee filters, I've got to get to work organizing his campaign for mayor.

Funny stuff, but I'm wondering what he's doing there.. I mean if he's a chemist , why no chemistry (or pharmacy, I can never understand the english chemist/pharmacist naming thing..)? Is he hired as a stand-up comedian? If so, I guess props to the white house for finding the talent..

Your video, Chinese chemist turned political comedian is hilarious, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Okay, Sift Chemists! What the heck is this, and why did it go all Kraken???? Was it reacting with the aluminum foil once all the orange stuff was gone?