I’d say, yes, you are literally consuming your food to take anything of value that your body can extract from it, often at the cost of everything for the thing you’re eating (but definitely at the cost of the parts you eat). Like I’m a bit baffled as to how you can consider it not a form of theft. Hell, I’d even argue it is the purest form of theft there is and quite likely the original theft that only scavengers, photosynthesizers, and other life forms that survive on non-biological sources of energy aren’t thieves in that manner.
It uses the chloroplast as the algae uses them. It doesn’t really it them it uses them to photosynthesize. If you took the wing off the chicken and used it to fly you could say that was stealing its wing
Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what I’d just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.
Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (“why is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isn’t?”) I think it’s pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way for something im actively digesting.
Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if you’re just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.
To put it simply, that slug basically absorb and keep the chloroplast in their own body and let it continue to photosynthesis, hence stealing the ability of the plant they feed, while in your example we basically digest it whole, leaving none of the chloroplast cell to photosynthesis.
That’s a huge difference between this two organism, kinda silly to bring it up as an example, no? And technically, it’s still the salad that does the photosynthesis in your example. You do know what’s up, so not anti-science but trolling? Sealioning? Idk. But overall silly.
You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.
Counter Definition:
Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.
“Stealing”? Am I “stealing” fat from the food I eat? Since when is retaining some components of what you consume equivalent to theft?
I’d say, yes, you are literally consuming your food to take anything of value that your body can extract from it, often at the cost of everything for the thing you’re eating (but definitely at the cost of the parts you eat). Like I’m a bit baffled as to how you can consider it not a form of theft. Hell, I’d even argue it is the purest form of theft there is and quite likely the original theft that only scavengers, photosynthesizers, and other life forms that survive on non-biological sources of energy aren’t thieves in that manner.
Yes you are and you need to be stopped.
I would have gotten away with it, too, if not for you mean cows
It uses the chloroplast as the algae uses them. It doesn’t really it them it uses them to photosynthesize. If you took the wing off the chicken and used it to fly you could say that was stealing its wing
I assume chloroplast is much more complex than fat and we do actually have fat within our body, while the slug doesn’t naturally grow chloroplast.
Am I stealing chloroplasts when I eat a salad?
Can you photosynthesis afterward?
Can we learn how to steal the chloroplastic piracy of the algea?
I imagine there is an incredibly short window in which I technically can.
Can’t tell if joking or anti-science, but ok.
Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what I’d just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.
Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (“why is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isn’t?”) I think it’s pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way for something im actively digesting.
Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if you’re just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.
To put it simply, that slug basically absorb and keep the chloroplast in their own body and let it continue to photosynthesis, hence stealing the ability of the plant they feed, while in your example we basically digest it whole, leaving none of the chloroplast cell to photosynthesis.
That’s a huge difference between this two organism, kinda silly to bring it up as an example, no? And technically, it’s still the salad that does the photosynthesis in your example. You do know what’s up, so not anti-science but trolling? Sealioning? Idk. But overall silly.
You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.
Counter Definition: Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.