[haswell]

When we have the ability to replicate strawberries at the atomic level, then I’d grant you this point.

We presently do not, and the market is filled with products calling themselves one thing while in reality being in essence a vat full of chemicals.

[trelane]

My point was that strawberries are a vat of chemicals.

[haswell]

But surely you’d agree that “vat of chemicals” is not the only metric by which to evaluate a substance, and that not all vats of chemicals are strawberries.

You can play this game with everything that exists. Everything is just a concoction of atoms. But some arrangements of atoms result in nuclear weapons. Others make up the breakfast I ate this morning.

The fact that they’re all just atoms doesn’t mean they share other properties like: safe to eat, tastes good to humans, etc.

[randomcarbloke]

apples contain amygdalin and cyanide, theoretically lab-grown apples that exclude these are far better for you than wild/farmed apples.

[trelane]

> But surely you’d agree that “vat of chemicals” is not the only metric by which to evaluate a substance

So you're positing a spiritual or etherial nature for strawberries? Such that pure materialism is inadequate to address?

> , and that not all vats of chemicals are strawberries.

Yeah, this is elementary logic really. All A are B does not imply that all B are A.

> Everything is just a concoction of atoms.

yes, exactly. So what is the difference between an artificial and a natural arrangement of the atoms, if they are otherwise the same?

> The fact that they’re all just atoms doesn’t mean they share other properties like: safe to eat, tastes good to humans, etc.

Yes, which is why this wasn't my point.

[haswell]

> So you're positing a spiritual or etherial nature for strawberries? Such that pure materialism is inadequate to address?

Not in the slightest. You seemed to be placing a high degree of weight on the shared property “vat of chemicals”, and I’m trying to understand why or in what way this informs us.

> Yes, which is why this wasn't my point.

I’m trying to understand what someone is supposed to take from the point you say you are making.

My goal is to have a conversation so I can better understand your point, not to exchange a series of textual jousts.

[trelane]

I think we mostly agree but somehow you seem to still be missing my point.

A different tack, then. What do you mean by "vat of chemicals called a strawberry?"

[haswell]

To bring this back to where it started:

> It reminds me of people who won't eat certain foods because it contains "too many chemicals".

Maybe I misread this, but I took this to refer to the current food industry and how it processes/produces foods. The market is filled with products labeled "strawberry" that are not really strawberries or even close to the makeup of strawberries.

> What do you mean by "vat of chemicals called a strawberry?"

The breakfast food aisles at most (American at least) grocery stores summarize what I'm getting at. Many of the "strawberry" products are highly processed and highly artificial.

My point was that the ship of Theseus analogy seems misapplied, since we're not talking about a situation where the food choices we have are between the real thing and some molecularly perfect replica.

And secondarily, to call strawberries just a "vat of chemicals" in this specific context seems like a misnomer when considering that the reason people "avoid food with too many chemicals" is quite unrelated to the fact that everything is made up of the same stuff of the universe and more to do with questioning whether or not the human-made processed option is safe in the long run.

[hiccuphippo]

How about diamonds? We are able to make diamonds and yet people prefer naturally created ones for some reason.

[haswell]

I think this is somewhat beside the point.

Going back to where this started, many people feel uncomfortable consuming products that contain chemicals added by humans/corporations.

Whether or not this concern is fully justified is a fair point to debate. If we could perfectly replicate the ideal strawberry down to the molecular level, said strawberry shouldn’t be a concern, even for people who go out of their way to avoid food additives.

People value diamonds for an entirely different reason. What they value is the narrative behind the diamond. Its (supposed) rareness, and the fact that natural forces produced something beautiful. There are also still echoes of hundreds/thousands of years of culture that placed a high value on them before science could replicate them.

But ultimately I think this is all orthogonal to the strawberry situation. The reasons someone does or does not want to eat a truly perfect strawberry replica will be very different from the reasons someone values a diamond.

[bix6]

Lab grown diamonds start with a diamond seed which comes from the earth (you can use a synthetic seed later on).

[IAmBroom]

Which is irrelevant to the question.