February 25, 2005 at 7:40 pm #428FaytParticipant
Let me pose a hypotheical situation to you. If a human had some sort of leaflike skin that had the whole shabang like chlorophil and everything else would that person be able to survive without eating?
February 25, 2005 at 8:04 pm #19860
Because plants also need nutritional input. Not Only CO2, but also a lot of minerals and azot, and water. So it could obviously change human diet, and make it a lot simpler (but probably not as tasty as it is now : 8) ), but human would still need to eat, to replace what plant roots are collecting.
February 25, 2005 at 8:34 pm #19863
You can live off sugar/fats for quite a while. I heard the record for not eating was one year. The problem is you would lack elements such as magnesium which is needed to make the chlorophyll.
February 25, 2005 at 9:55 pm #19866quote :
I have nothing to back me up on this, but I really doubt it.
First because human are not able to produce from scratch all they need, ie vitamins, amino acids, and so on
Second because excretion of salts from sweat and urine are important, and even though could be compensated with a normal diet, salts depletion can become a problem when sweating too much.
Hence I still believe GM human/animals producing chlorophyll will still be far from being able to survive from light and water.
February 25, 2005 at 10:57 pm #19869thank.darwinParticipantquote mithrilhack:
Mithrilhack, the longest someone might be able to go without food is around 30 days… You need food to produce ATP and you need ATP to carry out every day reactions. And why would you need to make chlorophyll? You can’t live off of sugar for awhile because you use so much of it to build up ADP.
February 26, 2005 at 4:30 am #19872
Canalon, you’re probably right about the salts thing, it was perhaps not tap water.
But the record for not eating is far longer than 30 days. David Blaine the magician went 44 days. Guiness declines to record it though. Another guy wants to go for 49 days….
http://english.people.com.cn/200403/08/ … 6852.shtml
February 26, 2005 at 5:31 am #19874biostudent84Participant
The average is 30 days for food.
Maybe you meant going without water? I know that one is about a year you can go.
February 26, 2005 at 4:29 pm #19885
Um, are you sure?
February 26, 2005 at 6:45 pm #19894quote :
Without water the death is a matter of days. Dying of thirst is much faster than of hunger. But as I said even with water, inorganic salts, and sugar as the only carbon source, death will probably be fast. We are no bacteria that can grow on inimal medium, ther are too many important molecule we can not make for ourselves.
March 5, 2005 at 5:47 pm #20065
I think change in diet is not enough . we have to change much more in order to be
able to feed on own .See , the changes required would also be on the molecular level .
If we eat the inorganic molecules directly in order to fulfil mineral requirements for photosynthesis , I think, it would not be much of use as we are not adapted for eat.
So, we should take them in the form we can accept them, we can eat foodst of he plants and animal origin to fulfil this need as we can accept them , but as the mineral concentration in them may be lesser we should the one with proper concentration , concentrate it further[ purify] without changing the form in which the mineral is present so that it remains acceptable.
Also, some 1/2/3 yrs before NASA noticed an old man from India who lived for more than one year without food! He used to stare sun for hours practicing some mysterious
acts. They took him for research there … but I could find no further news .. so, how true was the story i don’t know.
Hey Fayt , what a consequence , today I watched a movie containing the same IDa, there was an alien who could photosynthesize and like a battery getting down , he would get down in the dark after some time. So, I think , if we become completely dependet on photosynthesis it would be dangerous , isn’t it?
March 6, 2005 at 12:52 am #20073
We can do what plants do, eat reserves at night
March 8, 2005 at 5:04 am #20204
please explain a bit more I could not understand…
March 8, 2005 at 5:12 am #20205
well you said it would be dangerous to depend on photosynthesis if it got dark, but plants store lots of starches and eat off that reserve. Humans can lug around balls of fat too.
March 8, 2005 at 8:42 pm #20223MrMisteryParticipant
This question is really strange, I never thought of this. I suppose we could make our own food through photosyntethis but we would still be dependent on water(maybe we could grow a root 😀 😀 ) and minerals. Furthermore, a plant can syntethise just about anything. Out of 20 aminoacides, we can only syntethise 12-the other 8 we need from food(if you want i can name them too 🙄 🙄 )
By the way, a plant can only survive for about 48 hours without sunlight. I did an experiment a few weeks ago and in order for the plant to consume all the starch it had accumulated it had to be let in a dark place for 48h. The kingdome Animalia has evolved so well because we can live in dark places for a long time(you can’t take sunlight in a backpack, but you can take food)
March 9, 2005 at 1:06 am #20241
Being able to photosynthesize doesn’t mean we lose all ability to digest food. I’m thinking of it more as a supplement.
March 9, 2005 at 6:52 am #20247biostudent84Participantquote biostudent84:
Err, I got that backwards, sorry. Checked my books. The average HEALTHY person can go 30 days w/o water and 360 days w/o food.
March 9, 2005 at 10:11 am #20252
By the way, a plant can only survive for about 48 hours without sunlight.
This would depend upon the ammount of stored food which would deffer from plant to plant,but this would not make considerable defference in terms of days, I think .
So, as I said I am also thinking of this as a suplement! But I wonder which part of our body should we expose in order to photosynthesize???
keeping only our limbs exposed in daytime , would provide an adequate food suplement , this is better from some other pt. of view, Do U agree??? 😉
March 9, 2005 at 10:17 am #20253
Most of us work under shelters do , we have to expose much of our body and tke sun bath daily for some specefic time, but in some countries it may lead to skin cancer, so
there this will not work!!! There they may use some anticancer creams which don’t affect the photosynthesis adversely, or best way take sunbath under ultraviolet proof glasses – I think , there is some thing that absorbs those harmful radiation, M I correct???
March 9, 2005 at 12:30 pm #20257WilmerParticipant
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this already but…
The minerals found in tap water if well enought to cover the needs of an ordinary plant.
Plants doesn’t really spend alot of energy moving around, a walking plant would need lots of leaves or it would starve to death.
March 10, 2005 at 9:29 am #20300
Oh I didn’t notice this, probably because I am looking at this as a suplent which will help reduse the severity of food shortage in future, [ imaginary today , but it may be possible tomorrow].
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.