MIRACLE CELLS?: Can algae serve as the fuel and food of the future? J. Craig Venter hopes to make it so.
Image: suavehouse113 on Flickr
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Microbes will be the (human) food- and fuel-makers of the future, if J. Craig Venter has his way. The man responsible for one of the original sequences of the human genome as well as the team that brought you the first living cell running on human-made DNA now hopes to harness algae to make everything humanity needs. All it takes is a little genomic engineering.
"Nothing new has to be invented. We just have to combine [genes] in a way that nature has not done before. We're speeding up evolution by billions of years," Venter told an energy conference on October 18 at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C. "It's hard to imagine a part of humanity not substantially impacted."
Venter turned his attention to the genetic manipulation of algae after a two-year cruise to sample DNA in the ocean. The goal was to harvest the building blocks of the future for a biology that has been converted from the bases A, C, G and T into 1's and 0's—a digitized biology. He found that most of the millions of genes collected came from algae, one of the tinier organisms on the planet but one that already has an outsized planetary impact, providing more than a third of the oxygen we breathe.
Venter is looking to boost that impact further. His reengineered photosynthetic cells would take in carbon dioxide and sunlight and spew out hydrocarbons ready for the ExxonMobil refinery (the oil giant that has provided Venter's company Synthetic Genomics with $300 million in funding to date). In the process, the algae will turn a problem—CO2 causing climate change—and transform it into a solution—renewable fuels and slowed global warming. "Trying to capture CO2 and bury it is just dumb; it's going to be the renewable feedstock for the future," he said.
His commercial enterprise, Synthetic Genomics, has now also formed a new company with Mexican investment firm Plenus dubbed Agradis. Given algae's multibillion-year track record with photosynthesis and genetic experimentation Agradis's purpose is to turn that genetic cornucopia into improvements in agricultural crops, whether corn or canola—as well as use algae as a model for testing various new genetic combinations. A similar partnership between Monsanto and algae company Sapphire Energy will "use our algae platform that we developed to mine for genes that can transfer into their core agricultural products," explained Tim Zenk, Sapphire's vice president for corporate affairs in a prior interview with Scientific American. "When you do genetic screening in algae, you get hundreds of millions of traits in the screen and that accelerates the chances of finding something that can be transferred."
If that's not enough, Venter sees a role for synthetic biology in food beyond crops and livestock—specifically the growing hunger for meat around the world. "It takes 10 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef, 15 liters of water to get one kilogram of beef, and those cows produce a lot of methane," another potent greenhouse gas, Venter observed. "Why not get rid of the cows?" The replacement: meat grown in a test tube from microbes thanks to synthetic biology.
It's not likely you'll be buying microbial meat in the immediate future, but it's also clear that biology should not be overlooked as a font of solutions for that future. "The problem with existing biology is you change only one or two genes at a time," he noted of today's genetic engineering. "We're building a robot to make a million chromosomes a day and be self-learning. … The only limitation is our knowledge of biology."
Scientific American spoke with Venter about his hopes for algae and synthetic biology.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
Why algae?
Looking at the yield of different agricultural crops, none of them is very impressive compared with what needs to be done [to replace oil]. Then you look at the potential output from algae, and it's one to two orders of magnitude better than the best agricultural system. If we were trying to make liquid transportation fuels to replace all transportation fuels in the U.S. and you try and do that from corn it would take a facility three times the size of the continental U.S. If you try to do it from algae, it's a facility roughly the size of the state of Maryland. One is doable and the other's just absurd, but we don't have an algae lobby.
It's been tried before, going all the way back to the turn of the last century. It's not a new notion to use algae to try to do something. But nobody's achieved the necessary level of production. Everybody is looking for a naturally occurring algae that is going to be a miracle cell to save the world and, after a century of looking, people still haven't found it. We hope we're different. The [genetic] tools give us a new approach: being able to rewrite the genetic code and get cells to do what we want them to do.
What are the big hurdles?
Everybody trying to grow stuff has all the same challenges. On the growth side, what we're doing with the [Synthetic Genomics] Exxon program, we're actually testing every technology on the growth side. Then there's the cell biology side, the manufacturing side. How do you manufacture on the scale of multiple–square-mile facilities and billions of gallons of liquid hydrocarbons that can go into ExxonMobil refineries? Half the money of the $600 million on the table is going to major engineering tests and concepts.
It's just the size, the expense—billion-dollar–plus facilities. Getting algae that are really robust and can withstand true industrial conditions on a commercial basis. You can't afford to shut down a plant for contamination. Most algae growers have to do that at a fairly frequent pace.
On the cell biology and strain development side of things, we have a large, greenhouse test facility in La Jolla [Calif.] We don't claim to have instant answers. We are talking a systematic scientific approach to trying all the past technologies and new ones with new twists. The thing that will make the difference is the engineered cell, cells that can produce 10 to 100 [times] as much. The same genetic engineering and genome engineering we have, we can make cells that are resistant to viruses.
The scientific breakthrough that we made early—that attracted Exxon—we engineered [a] cell to pump hydrocarbons out of the cell. Algae is a farming problem: growing, harvesting, extracting. It's a work in progress, and we're working hard.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
40 Comments
Add CommentMaybe your writers are too young to remember this, but your older science fiction fans have heard this one already. Millions of sad people trudging around on an overpopulated world, munching on green biscuits made of algae. (Spoiler Alert) But it turns out that Soylent Green (1973) isn't actually made from algae, it's made from people... SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! And as in 1973, our answer is the same. We don't want a future with 20 Billion people on the planet eating biscuits made of algae nor people; the one path to a good future is population control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess Mr Venter, besides his wonderful quest for discovery, wants to capitalize on the fact that the artificial organism can be patented as a technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis causes however, great danger. Live organism can breed and mutate for eternity, so can cause more mischief than conventional technology. If Venter's algae get out of control and became a pest impossible to extinguish completely, say pollute water supply, kill fish or whatever? Who pays for cleanup? A company which will go bankrupt and dump the bill on taxpayer? Do we have another case of privatising benefits and nationalising risk?
Wow. An organism that actually consumes carbon dioxide to product food! Amazing. I suggest we call it a plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeautiful
sounds and
a delicate care
in the heart of
a soft wind,
with a tender
profile and a
warm atmosphere.
Francesco Sinibaldi
This is a failed technology the refuses to die. Every 5 years there is a new round of startups, funding and failure. Fix the real problem. Population expansion. It's significantly more efficient and leaves the planet habitable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter the algae is engineered , the population will crash
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@janera @jarvan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are serious about population control, then Japan, China, India, the US, Canada and most of Europe (From the Atlantic back to Russia) which have currently declining populations already nearly balance the slow growth happening in SE Asia, Latin America and the Islamic world. the remaining growth is happening in Africa. Wars and disease are not longer limiting the population growth in sub-saharan Africa.
We are at 7 Billion right now, and the UN expects it to peak at 9 Billion in about 25 years.
The US looks to have some trouble there, as we have been importing people from Europe, Mexico and India since the late 1970s when the US population started to decline. With Europe and India losing population, and Mexico having a drastic slowing in 'excess population', the US will have to find other places to get the extra people we need to sustain our industrial infrastructure.
Don't look to the Islamic world, Europe is already using them.
Don't look to Southeast Asia and the Phillipines, Japan and Korea are already using them.
What will happen when Africa gets mined out of it's 'excess population' is going to be a really serious situation.
A separate thought:
This technology (algae farming) has been predicted by Science Fiction for many decades. It's not the deliberate nightmare of 'Soylent Green' from the movie. That was just a twisted version of recycling. No, most people will want to get their food from farms, just like now. With an expected peak population of 9 Billion people, they can. This magazine reviewed work last month that current farmland, if used efficiently could feed and clothe 15 Billion people. We know that all the land will never be all farmed effeciently, so we may have to settle for only sharing enough food and clothing for 10 Billion people with 9 billion.
Where Algae will be very useful is in space. Algae are the most efficient plants known. They produce a good bit of protein and carbohydrates. The also produce a good amount of oxygen doing it. Even if we don't wind up eating algae, our cattle or whatever will.
Plus, the oils make good feedstock for plastics and things like that.
Many of you may not realize that you're already eating algae on a daily basis. Those fortified ingredients in your rice, pasta and bread? Much of that is derived from algae.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEngineering algae can solve a whole lot of our problems. We already know what happens when the inputs stop that create the algae. The algae dies and animals eat it. Being scared of this is just silly.
Algae also has a lot of uses as fiber, in the making of fabric. It can be used to manufacture natural flavors and scents. It can remove a whole lot of carbon from our atmosphere and return nutrients to deserts in the oceans. Algae is humanity's best friend.
I would feel a whole lot better about this if Venter weren't collecting millions from Exxon, and oh yes, if Exxon hadn't begun drilling for oil (the real oil, not the hocus-pocus algae oil) in the beleaguered Gulf of Mexico.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I applaud all efforts to find viable alternative energies -- and ones the public and the US government will embrace -- it's hard to trust Exxon's intentions.
BP scrapped a perfectly good hydrogen refueling station in Singapore in favor of biofuels. What's to say that Exxon won't scrap this plan the minute some analyst "proves" it's un-doable? And as for Venter, if BP paid him the same amount to do research would he take it?
What I am interested in is the hard work Venter did in the oceans and I wish, perhaps, a cleaner revenue source were funding his research. Exxon would need to say no to dirty fuel and deepwater drilling to gain a smidgeon of my trust; even so, I have faith in Venter as a light of our generation, whose research may bear promise for companies I trust.
"We're speeding up evolution by billions of years," ..... "It's hard to imagine a part of humanity not substantially impacted."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah and with partners like Exxon, Monsanto and da da da daaa Mexican finance* .. we're all looking forward to it.
*I have to declare an interest here i live in Mexico.
Oh and this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"!Why not get rid of the cows?"
I can see this philosophy being widely applied by these guys..
<blockquote><b>How will you get nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, to stimulate algae growth?</b>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need three major ingredients: CO2, sunlight and seawater, aside from having the facility and refinery to convert all those things. We're looking at sites around the world that have the major ingredients. It helps if it's near a major refinery because that limits shipping distances. Moving billions of gallons of hydrocarbons around is expensive. But refineries are also a good source of concentrated CO2.</blockquote>
Completely dodging the question. You very much need phosphorus and nitrogen otherwise nothing will grow. But how those are going to be provided on the scale needed is never mentioned, Because they can't be and this is the fatal flaw with all biofuel schemes, one that is making them not just wishful thinking but something potentially very destructive if attempted on very large scale.
The question is why he avoided the answer. There are two possibilities:
1. He is aware of that "small" problem
2. He genuinely isn't
I don't know which one is worse...
I sure wish Venter had talked, or the interviewer had gotten him to talk, about why he thinks hydrocarbs from algae makes more sense than electricity from solar. They would have different uses of course, but there is some overlap. For example, a major consumer of hydrocarbons is conventionally fueled vehicles. Alcohol from algae could fuel those vehicles, but at least some of those vehicles could also run on electricity from PV (which would have a lower carbon footprint, possibly a negative one, as opposed to being merely carbon neutral like algae.) Also, he claims algal biofuel requires less space than plant-based biofuel, but what about the cost of the factory? Algae requires water, containers, some way to draw off the alcohol, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that Nostradamus wrote that cows will be destroyed due to a human poisoning.Jan 2013 is a date I am checking.Just a third of the human race....nothing serious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae could feed and fuel the world. So could current technology IF there were the political will to it. We already have all the resources and technology we need. If Venter really wanted an easy way to feed the world he could just modify the genetics of human skin cells to produce chloroplasts along side our melanocytes (pigmentation cells that tan our skin). Then we could get all the energy our bodies need just from siting in the Sun. This would give the phrase "going green' a whole new meaning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae may not be the best route to fuel from sunlight. At best they will convert at about 10% efficiency. Currently pv cells , sold commercially, acheive about 18% and are likely to double that in the future. Electroysing water to hydrogen and oxygen is at least 66% efficient. So, though hydrogen has problems as a fuel, it could make a useful feedstock to treat organic wastes and rubbish to produce hydrocarbon fuels. I'm not a chemist, but I would think that would be a useful line of research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose we have to learn to put up with a certain amount of ideological garbage on this site. Especially now the clueless protesters are being moved on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRefering to post 10.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10. lauriewiegler
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"a cleaner revenue source were funding his research. Exxon would need to say no to dirty fuel and deepwater drilling to gain a smidgeon of my trust"
Cleaner in what way? It's not as though Exxon was running addictive drugs(well, ok, I guess we are rather "addicted" to oil). Still, it's not Exxons fault that oil is a necessary ingredient to run our civilization. They just do the discovery, extraction, distillation and delivery of oil products. That's their job and they are very good at it. As far as dirty fuel is concerned, ALL petrochemical fuel is "dirty", in the sense that all of it is a complex hydrocarbon which must be combined with oxygen and produces CO2 as a waste product. Three quarters of the earth is covered by oceans. It's likely that three quarters of the worlds oil reserves are also covered by ocean. If we're to continue our technological civilization, we will have to go to where ever the oil is and extract it. I note that Exxon/Mobile has about the best safety record of any of the big five producers. It isn't perfect(nothing is) and could probably be improved upon but for my money, Exxon/Mobile is a pretty good company. I'm glad to see they're investing in this tech.
BP scrapped the H2 station because they are one of the first oil companies to realize that H2 vehicles are a dead end. If you get H2 by electrolysis, you will be using more than 2.5x as much electricity to go 100 miles than you would with an Electric vehicle:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEV: 85% plug-to-wheels efficiency = 85 / 100 energy units used to move vehicle
H2: electrolysis (80%) * compression & storage (90%) * fuel cell efficiency (50%) * DC to AC (95%) * EV powertrain (95%) = 33 / 100 energy units used to move vehicle
Using natural gas as a feedstock yields the same energy efficiency and is comparable to an electric vehicle charged by a natural gas power plant (unless it's a Combined-Cycle plant, then the EV uses 42 units of energy out of 100 vs the H2 vehicle's 33). However, why wouldn't you just build natural gas cars instead? They would have about the same range and refueling them would be MUCH easier than building H2 refueling stations. You could actually park your car in a standard garage instead of worrying about invisible hydrogen fires burning down your house. Most importantly, there are natural gas vehicles for sale for around $26K:
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/
Meanwhile, we get vague promises from Toyota that they can get the price on a fuel cell car around $50K by 2015:
http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/01/14/toyota-fuel-cell-sedan-on-track-for-2015/
H2 vehicles were always a subsidy magnet and a blatant attempt at green-washing Big Oil's corporate image. The ONLY advantage that H@ vehicles had was that they can be refueled in under 10 minutes, but since a H2 electrolysis station is about 10x more costly than a gas station to serve the same amount of vehicles, why would anybody open an H2 station unless it was just a publicity stunt? H2 may work for aircraft and certain long-haul trucking, but it won't work for personal transportation.
The key words here are "sitting in the sun". There is a reason we differentiate between animals and plants,,,animals move around, running on the concentrated fuel they imbibe by eating plants. Plants stay in one place, running on the diffuse energy they receive from the sun. In 3.5 billion years of evolution, I expect if it was possible for plants to be mobile critters,,,they already would be,,,and we'd call them animals,,,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Still, it's not Exxons fault that oil is a necessary ingredient to run our civilization."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, all the lobbying, campaign contributions and general disruption of our political system at the hands of Exxon and all the other huge energy conglomerates has NOTHING to do with the difficulty the U.S. has had in kicking it's fossil fuel addiction, right? The fact that preferential subsidies and policies of the government that uniquely benefit dirty energy have no effect either, am I correct? The fact that dirty energy is able to use our atmosphere, water and land as their open sewer FOR FREE doesn't distort the price signal for their products one bit either, right?
Seriously, the successful effort by the auto & oil companies to dismantle America's public transit had NOTHING to do with how we are still dependent on oil, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines
"BP scrapped the H2 station because they are one of the first oil companies to realize that H2 vehicles are a dead end. If you get H2 by electrolysis, you will be using more than 2.5x as much electricity to go 100 miles than you would with an Electric vehicle:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amazing thing is not that they scrapped it but that anyone bothered with hydrogen in the first place. It is obvious to everyone who knows just a little bit about thermodynamics that hydrogen is a dead end because it is net energy sink so the fact that so many people thought it is a "solution" (and many still think so) is truly horrifying because it exemplifies how deep and widespread ignorance about really basic things is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre comment #7 from "Yet Another Bob":
He said "Japan, China, India, the US, Canada and most of Europe...have currently declining populations already nearly balance [sic] the slow growth happening in SE Asia, Latin America and the Islamic world."
This is almost complete nonsense. Japan, China, India, the US, Canada and over half of Europe have increasing populations—just decreasing rates of increase. And if the growth happening in SE Asia, Latin America and the Islamic backwaters is slow, what’s fast?
The total world population is increasing, births minus deaths, by over 140 people every minute of every day. It took the human race 100 years to grow from 1 billion to 2 billion people (1830 to 1930); less than half of that to double again, in 1975, to 4 billion; and roughly the same length of time to double again, to 8 billion, by 2025.
So the rate of growth is slowing, all right. But the growth is continuing apace, and it's outstripping our ability to give all those people food and water.
Overpopulation deniers like "Yet another Bob" indulge in armwaving at this point, claiming we can feed every now (1 billion humans are starving) through redistribution and technology.
Overpopulation realists say technology can't contravene the laws of physics--and we're way past the point of sustainability, such that it would take 1.4 Earths to keep today's population at its current standard of living indefinitely.
Besides, unless you’re a doctrinaire Roman Catholic, what’s wonderful about cramming 7 billion humans into this planet’s livable regions? If you look at it realistically, Earth can accommodate maybe half that number of humans sustainably. 3 ½ billion people. That was the world’s population in 1970. I don’t recall anyone then saying it was tragic that we didn’t have twice as many people.
We don't have to solve this problem. Nature will do it for us. But you won't like how Nature does it. I guarantee it.
www.blogzu.blogspot.com
Ehkzu: Excellent post. I agree with everything you posted. Over-population of planet earth by humans is the ROOT of all other problems. Starvation of humans and de-forestation and pollution of air and water and global warming and wars and the extinction of many species etc etc are ALL driven by the fact there are too many damn humans on planet earth. All this is why I decided long ago to NOT have any children. I am doing planet earth a small favor by NOT spewing forth any human children and adding to the dangerous and bloated human population on planet earth. I am ashamed to be a human.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL If only we could eat sunlight, the world would be free from hunger. Alas we can only eat plants that "feed" on sunlight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae holds promise as a fuel of the future. But I would first exploit present technologies to replace gasoline cars. The most low-tech is the bicycle. A very simple yet highly efficient machine. Its power-to-weight ratio is higher than a diesel locomotive or a Sherman tank.
Next the electric car. A modest 20-kw lithium ion battery on a lightweight subcompact sedan body can go 400 km or more on a single charge. Then you have alternative fuels like biodiesel from used cooking oil and animal fats, and methane extracted from sewage and municipal wastes. This is the same as compressed natural gas being used by buses.
World hunger is caused by poverty. It's true the world is producing enough food to feed all 7 billion people. In fact food consumption per capita worldwide has been increasing in the last 40 yrs. In 1960s it was 2,300 calories per capita. Now it's over 2,700 calories per capita. On average humans only need 2,000 calories a day. Over that you become overweight. Below that you are undernourished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"it would take 1.4 Earths to keep today's population at its current standard of living indefinitely"
If it refers to food, then 1/3 of the world population or about 2 billion people will die soon. This is a Malthusian prophesy I hope will not come true.
BTW I favor population control.
@several commenters
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed, algae for food are staple floating in sci-fi stories ;-) since decades. But they didn't become mainstream. It would be interesting to read the blog post why.
I guess, that algae don't have nutrients in right proportions for general human consumption, and that cultures of desired algae easily become overgrown by other water organisms.
I came here to post exactly this. Kudos for beating me to it. Just how much longer do we have before the "SOYLENT GREEN" actually is people. :(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about vitamin B12? Don't those algae produce vitamin B12 analogs that will compete with the functional vitamin forms for humans making you more susceptible to suffer from megalocytic anemia and other health issues?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are talking about storing the Suns energy. The amount reaching the ground varies according to latitude and cloud cover. The question is "can more of it be stored with algae than any other means". I believe that floral photo synthesis is not very efficient ( about 5% ) whereas the latest panels are approaching 15%. So it boils down to economics. Is it better to produce more algae at 5% than panels at 15%?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae to Fiber!! I thought that Algae could be engineered to make fibers that require minimum processing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine tanks that take human wast, grow single celled algae that produce longe cellulose strands. Then net them out for paper, and cloth.
"Algae to Fiber!!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis highlights the danger of putting engineers in charge of anything. They latch onto an ideal like this and push ahead without thinking about the implications or the alternatives. Alternatives? Sure, how about a plant that can grow fibers without genetic engineering? Maybe we could call it "Cotton."
But after you release your genetically modified algae we might well find casualties such as the death of the world's entire population of whales, with their baleens clogged with mysterious algae fibers.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle as we have already seen with genetically modified soy beans. Engineered products that were never approved for human consumption have found their way around the planet. In 1997, for instance, 8% of all soybeans cultivated for the commercial market in the United States were genetically modified. In 2010, the figure was 93%. These modifications weren't to make a tastier or more nutritious soybean. Rather it was to make the plant tolerant of tons of the chemical herbicide "Roundup" being poured onto it.
(National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report, June 30, 2010)
Cultivated algae absorb 15 times more energy than they produce!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are past the point of population control. The only country to really take it on was China, and we were their biggest critics (because baby girls being the ones to mostly suffer the consequences). The best thing to do at this point is switch away from the meat based diet. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that this will happen - people are just too stubborn. We are stuck with hoping for a technological breakthrough. Gene Roddenberry was right. He said technology would be the salvation of humanity. The algae solution for food will also alleviate massive amounts of suffering among farm animals. There's a lot of good in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. But a more efficient plant!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour honesty is refreshing. So you're basically saying that genetic engineering to grow the supply side is not the answer but rather eugenic engineering to decrease demand is the best solution. Forgive me for not wanting to hop on that particular bandwagon with you. I'm sure you understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVenter didn't dodge the question. He said they believed that recycling was economical. Last I checked there isn't much phosphorous, potassium, or nitrogen in hydrocarbon fuel molecules so after you squeeze or otherwise extract the fuel out of the biomass you recycle what's left over which necessarily includes the NPK fertilizers and water. If municipal wastewater is the source that's already rich in nutrients to start with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So the rate of growth is slowing, all right. But the growth is continuing apace, and it's outstripping our ability to give all those people food and water."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there's not enough food or water then the population declines accordingly. Problem solved. Thanks for playing.
"All this is why I decided long ago to NOT have any children."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you!
"I am doing planet earth a small favor by NOT spewing forth any human children and adding to the dangerous and bloated human population on planet earth."
Don't sell yourself short. I consider it a huge favor.
"I am ashamed to be a human."
I agree. I'm ashamed that you're a human too!