My problem with a solution like synthetic meat would that, well... it's not really much of a solution, is it? It would be just one more benefit provided by science to a group of individuals who have zero appreciation for the methods of science.
It doesn't improve the standards at a factory farm or make the food any safer to eat; the meat (har har) of the technology simply goes towards further enabling those that operate such establishments by giving them another excuse to throw out ("Well, these animals don't even feel pain!"). I mean, I would definitely be more comfortable eating meat that I knew came from an effectively brain-dead animal that couldn't suffer, but I also don't think we should pretend that such biotechnology actually addresses the issue at hand (...in some ways, I can imagine it being detrimental. If the animals don't feel pain, for example, then the workers and owners can probably argue for much lower standards in their abattoirs)
If the animal is brain-dead, then why does it matter what conditions it's kept in?
Yeah if the animal doesn't actually have a functional awareness then I'm not really sure what the problem is.
My problem with a solution like synthetic meat would that, well... it's not really much of a solution, is it? It would be just one more benefit provided by science to a group of individuals who have zero appreciation for the methods of science.
It doesn't improve the standards at a factory farm or make the food any safer to eat; the meat (har har) of the technology simply goes towards further enabling those that operate such establishments by giving them another excuse to throw out ("Well, these animals don't even feel pain!"). I mean, I would definitely be more comfortable eating meat that I knew came from an effectively brain-dead animal that couldn't suffer, but I also don't think we should pretend that such biotechnology actually addresses the issue at hand (...in some ways, I can imagine it being detrimental. If the animals don't feel pain, for example, then the workers and owners can probably argue for much lower standards in their abattoirs)
If the animal is brain-dead, then why does it matter what conditions it's kept in?
You guys seem to be missing the picture of synthetic meat. GM meat is meat from a modified animal, for example a cow made to not feel pain like in the link I mentioned. Synthetic meat is totally different; it is never a real animal.
You take a hunk of meat, pump nutrients and oxygen, and it grows into bigger meat. Think yogurt cultures.
While the whole "no killing, no suffering" thing is nice, the big advantages this has are economic, which is why it's a technology that is likely to take off. The advantages are legion. No non-meat products, like bones, nervous systems, organs, etc.. No need to deal with an actual animal that tries to move, breath, poop, etc.. Total control of meat type; you could make a whole 'cow' out of filet mignon. Total control of meat contents; you can control nutrient levels, salt level, fat level, etc.. No need for growth hormones or antibacterials (if the culture gets contaminated, you can't use it anyways). The ability to produce anywhere, reducing transportation costs. Dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions. And the list goes on. The disadvantages are that it's really fucking hard to pull off vat cloned style meat.
Animals genetically modified to not feel pain are vastly different from in vitro meat. On a moral level, lab grown meat is the same as eating yogurt, and even superior to vegetarianism given harvesting practices.
I don't believe for one second that you can grow actual meat like that.
Meat is not a molecule. It's composed of many different components, that interact to give it it's taste/texture/aroma and so on. It's a process that required an animal doing it's thing in "nature" up to the point where you kill it.
Sure you might be able to grow some kind of organic substance. And when you close your eyes and nose and don't really chew it, the stuff might be able to pass for meat.
But we've already got tofu...
edit: oh we don't start from scratch? time to do some reading.
Ok read the wikipedia article, i remain sceptical.
But I'm not necessarily ever okay with slaughtering animals, even if it's done painlessly. It really depends on the sort of mental life we take the animal to have, and I'd really rather play these things safe.
My problem with a solution like synthetic meat would that, well... it's not really much of a solution, is it? It would be just one more benefit provided by science to a group of individuals who have zero appreciation for the methods of science.
It doesn't improve the standards at a factory farm or make the food any safer to eat; the meat (har har) of the technology simply goes towards further enabling those that operate such establishments by giving them another excuse to throw out ("Well, these animals don't even feel pain!"). I mean, I would definitely be more comfortable eating meat that I knew came from an effectively brain-dead animal that couldn't suffer, but I also don't think we should pretend that such biotechnology actually addresses the issue at hand (...in some ways, I can imagine it being detrimental. If the animals don't feel pain, for example, then the workers and owners can probably argue for much lower standards in their abattoirs)
First, I think you're arguing against the thing I and zerg rush proposed: actually modified/bred meat such that animals feel no pain on either a reflexive or mental level. That is separate from synthetic meat, which is never part of an animal.
Second, if the animal is essentially brain-dead, the only way I'm going to care about the conditions is if they adversely affect myself, such as if they are more conducive to diseased meat or something. I have no idea what, substantively, you're arguing against though. What conditions are "bad" from the perspective of a brain-dead animal?
Is that a transmissible disease? I was under the impression that it stemmed from an issue with the feed and that it's only really "transmissible" if one cow eats another.
Is that a transmissible disease? I was under the impression that it stemmed from an issue with the feed and that it's only really "transmissible" if one cow eats another.
Person to person transmission doesn't happen unless you're a cannibal
Is that a transmissible disease? I was under the impression that it stemmed from an issue with the feed and that it's only really "transmissible" if one cow eats another.
I meant transmissable in terms of cow->human. The big issue is it's a 40 year gestation time.
Is that a transmissible disease? I was under the impression that it stemmed from an issue with the feed and that it's only really "transmissible" if one cow eats another.
I meant transmissable in terms of cow->human. The big issue is it's a 40 year gestation time.
Ah, gotcha.
@nexus, yeah, but I think it works the same for cows. They get it as a result of feed with (the wrong bits of?) ground cow in it.
Is that a transmissible disease? I was under the impression that it stemmed from an issue with the feed and that it's only really "transmissible" if one cow eats another.
I meant transmissable in terms of cow->human. The big issue is it's a 40 year gestation time.
Ah, gotcha.
@nexus, yeah, but I think it works the same for cows. They get it as a result of feed with (the wrong bits of?) ground cow in it.
As a result I'm pretty sure most places in the US have stopped using bone meal as feed
My problem with a solution like synthetic meat would that, well... it's not really much of a solution, is it? It would be just one more benefit provided by science to a group of individuals who have zero appreciation for the methods of science.
It doesn't improve the standards at a factory farm or make the food any safer to eat; the meat (har har) of the technology simply goes towards further enabling those that operate such establishments by giving them another excuse to throw out ("Well, these animals don't even feel pain!"). I mean, I would definitely be more comfortable eating meat that I knew came from an effectively brain-dead animal that couldn't suffer, but I also don't think we should pretend that such biotechnology actually addresses the issue at hand (...in some ways, I can imagine it being detrimental. If the animals don't feel pain, for example, then the workers and owners can probably argue for much lower standards in their abattoirs)
If the animal is brain-dead, then why does it matter what conditions it's kept in?
Yeah if the animal doesn't actually have a functional awareness then I'm not really sure what the problem is.
Suppose we could create a new species functionally identical to humans, but without awareness. Suppose that we can also do it without having to experiment on humans (or primates or whatever), so it's basically bam, meat puppets. Moral or immoral to breed them for food?
Aside from the inherent moral ick factor, I can't think of a good reason why it would be wrong, though it still seems creepy as fuck.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Creepy as fuck yes, but I'd have no rational objections to it outside of "probably serves as a good motivator to psychopaths" which isn't a rational objection in the first place.
My problem with a solution like synthetic meat would that, well... it's not really much of a solution, is it? It would be just one more benefit provided by science to a group of individuals who have zero appreciation for the methods of science.
It doesn't improve the standards at a factory farm or make the food any safer to eat; the meat (har har) of the technology simply goes towards further enabling those that operate such establishments by giving them another excuse to throw out ("Well, these animals don't even feel pain!"). I mean, I would definitely be more comfortable eating meat that I knew came from an effectively brain-dead animal that couldn't suffer, but I also don't think we should pretend that such biotechnology actually addresses the issue at hand (...in some ways, I can imagine it being detrimental. If the animals don't feel pain, for example, then the workers and owners can probably argue for much lower standards in their abattoirs)
If the animal is brain-dead, then why does it matter what conditions it's kept in?
Yeah if the animal doesn't actually have a functional awareness then I'm not really sure what the problem is.
Suppose we could create a new species functionally identical to humans, but without awareness. Suppose that we can also do it without having to experiment on humans (or primates or whatever), so it's basically bam, meat puppets. Moral or immoral to breed them for food?
Aside from the inherent moral ick factor, I can't think of a good reason why it would be wrong, though it still seems creepy as fuck.
My problem with a solution like synthetic meat would that, well... it's not really much of a solution, is it? It would be just one more benefit provided by science to a group of individuals who have zero appreciation for the methods of science.
It doesn't improve the standards at a factory farm or make the food any safer to eat; the meat (har har) of the technology simply goes towards further enabling those that operate such establishments by giving them another excuse to throw out ("Well, these animals don't even feel pain!"). I mean, I would definitely be more comfortable eating meat that I knew came from an effectively brain-dead animal that couldn't suffer, but I also don't think we should pretend that such biotechnology actually addresses the issue at hand (...in some ways, I can imagine it being detrimental. If the animals don't feel pain, for example, then the workers and owners can probably argue for much lower standards in their abattoirs)
If the animal is brain-dead, then why does it matter what conditions it's kept in?
Yeah if the animal doesn't actually have a functional awareness then I'm not really sure what the problem is.
Suppose we could create a new species functionally identical to humans, but without awareness. Suppose that we can also do it without having to experiment on humans (or primates or whatever), so it's basically bam, meat puppets. Moral or immoral to breed them for food?
Aside from the inherent moral ick factor, I can't think of a good reason why it would be wrong, though it still seems creepy as fuck.
They'd be plants.
Seriously. It's like discovering a way to grow steaks on a tree and then bitching about the poor living conditions afforded to cows at the steak orchard.
My problem with a solution like synthetic meat would that, well... it's not really much of a solution, is it? It would be just one more benefit provided by science to a group of individuals who have zero appreciation for the methods of science.
It doesn't improve the standards at a factory farm or make the food any safer to eat; the meat (har har) of the technology simply goes towards further enabling those that operate such establishments by giving them another excuse to throw out ("Well, these animals don't even feel pain!"). I mean, I would definitely be more comfortable eating meat that I knew came from an effectively brain-dead animal that couldn't suffer, but I also don't think we should pretend that such biotechnology actually addresses the issue at hand (...in some ways, I can imagine it being detrimental. If the animals don't feel pain, for example, then the workers and owners can probably argue for much lower standards in their abattoirs)
If the animal is brain-dead, then why does it matter what conditions it's kept in?
Yeah if the animal doesn't actually have a functional awareness then I'm not really sure what the problem is.
Suppose we could create a new species functionally identical to humans, but without awareness. Suppose that we can also do it without having to experiment on humans (or primates or whatever), so it's basically bam, meat puppets. Moral or immoral to breed them for food?
Aside from the inherent moral ick factor, I can't think of a good reason why it would be wrong, though it still seems creepy as fuck.
They'd be plants.
Seriously. It's like discovering a way to grow steaks on a tree and then bitching about the poor living conditions afforded to cows at the steak orchard.
It would be a poor idea for health reasons. The cannibalism taboo is like the incest taboo - it's genetic level understanding of what we took years to learn through science. The more like you food is, the better of a vector it is. It's why almost no one gets sick from sushi - most diseases of food animals aren't human transmissible. Of course, science that could do this could probably defeat that problem.
As far as the general notion of food industrialization, I think a huge question that isn't getting asked is the degree to which food industrialization is gaming of the system.
It doesn't seem like raising pigs, for example, in a concentrated feeding operation, should really be cheaper than raising them in a sty. The systemic weaknesses in industrial farming seem to be in the category of abuse of the public domain - the public trusts of air and water and wildlife, costs that do not have to be paid by the operators, or, in the short term, the consumers of these operations.
The question should be "Why is it cheaper to farm this way" - that's where you start to get into the scary answers.
I hope it hasn't already been covered, but I'd question the central assumption that dolphins really are the "second smartest" creature on the planet. I noticed in the OP this was something "some scientists" said.
I would argue that several primates and even other cetaceans are "smarter" than dolphins - gorillas are damn near "smart" enough to pass as low-end humans, for example, and the ability to use hording/trapping/hunting behavior often cited as proof of their intelligence is something we see in colonies of insects that have the "cognition" of, well, switches - they're essentially just electronic components that react a certain way in the presence of certain conditions, yet they mimic cognition well. None of which is an argument that dolphins should be treated terribly, of course.
I would argue that several primates and even other cetaceans are "smarter" than dolphins - gorillas are damn near "smart" enough to pass as low-end humans, for example, and the ability to use hording/trapping/hunting behavior often cited as proof of their intelligence is something we see in colonies of insects that have the "cognition" of, well, switches - they're essentially just electronic components that react a certain way in the presence of certain conditions, yet they mimic cognition well. None of which is an argument that dolphins should be treated terribly, of course.
So perhaps a single ant isn't intelligent, but a colony of ants is. Just as a single human brain cell isn't "intelligent", but the entire brain taken as a whole is.
Or rather, it's at least conceivable that an entire colony of unintelligent critters could possess something akin to intelligence.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I would argue that several primates and even other cetaceans are "smarter" than dolphins - gorillas are damn near "smart" enough to pass as low-end humans, for example, and the ability to use hording/trapping/hunting behavior often cited as proof of their intelligence is something we see in colonies of insects that have the "cognition" of, well, switches - they're essentially just electronic components that react a certain way in the presence of certain conditions, yet they mimic cognition well. None of which is an argument that dolphins should be treated terribly, of course.
So perhaps a single ant isn't intelligent, but a colony of ants is. Just as a single human brain cell isn't "intelligent", but the entire brain taken as a whole is.
Or rather, it's at least conceivable that an entire colony of unintelligent critters could possess something akin to intelligence.
It's also conceivable that they're hardwired for behavior that shares qualities with the behavior of the intelligent. In fact, it almost seems more likely in evolutionary terms. And the consequences of wrongly declaring something a person or needful of protection are huge, as are the consequences of ascribing something rights it doesn't need or merit. Not to mention, if they are sentient and very alien, they might express an interest in things very contrary to our vision for things - your right to be an alien collective ends when you want to lay eggs in my skin.
And that also doesn't mean that the beings themselves have individual rights. If we accept an intelligent hivemind as having rights, that just means that we can't significantly harm the group as a whole. If the hivemind minds losing individuals we should take that into consideration, but it isn't actually murder unless the entire mind is destroyed.
But, joth, wiping out the buggers is our only option!
Houn on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 2010
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that colonies of ants should have legal rights, even if they have demonstrable intelligence as a collective. I also wouldn't argue that a legitimate AI should necessarily have legal rights.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
And that also doesn't mean that the beings themselves have individual rights. If we accept an intelligent hivemind as having rights, that just means that we can't significantly harm the group as a whole. If the hivemind minds losing individuals we should take that into consideration, but it isn't actually murder unless the entire mind is destroyed.
The point I was making is that sentience isn't benevolence. Something alien doesn't have "rights" in our society until it agrees to extend them to us and participate in that society. A number of serial killers are just as "smart" as me, but we afford them only the treatment that doesn't debase ourselves, and we know they are human.
The point I was making is that sentience isn't benevolence. Something alien doesn't have "rights" in our society until it agrees to extend them to us and participate in that society. A number of serial killers are just as "smart" as me, but we afford them only the treatment that doesn't debase ourselves, and we know they are human.
Some humans are too mentally disabled, or too young, to understand the concepts of rights or social participation. Many humans simply don't have a political philosophy education in any way, shape, or form, and so they have no concept of a social contract. Some hermits living in Alaska choose to entirely withdraw from social participation. In any case, all of these humans have rights.
What you're saying sounds pretty close to: "pigs never signed the declaration of independence, ergo they have no rights." That's silly.
The problem with cereal killers is that they are dangerous and bad, not that they are different.
MrMister on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
The problem with cereal killers is that they are dangerous and bad, not that they are different.
It was truly a dark day when the Trix Rabbit was discovered stabbed to death with "Trix Is For Kids" scrawled on the wall in his own blood.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And that also doesn't mean that the beings themselves have individual rights. If we accept an intelligent hivemind as having rights, that just means that we can't significantly harm the group as a whole. If the hivemind minds losing individuals we should take that into consideration, but it isn't actually murder unless the entire mind is destroyed.
The point I was making is that sentience isn't benevolence. Something alien doesn't have "rights" in our society until it agrees to extend them to us and participate in that society.
I'm not sure if there are persons, or what a person is. I'm pretty sure that if there are persons, I'm a person. Beyond that, the whole notion makes me slightly uncomfortable.
Haven't they recently made some lab grown meat. I think it had the consistency of "wet pork," due to the muscle not getting any use. I'm excited to see where this goes.
Here's perhaps an interesting question, and might relate to personhood.
So, it seems like this revolves around intelligence as a measure of personhood. What about doing the Brave New World thing and retarding mental growth. What if we genetically engineer cows and pigs so that they are really dumb, and feel no pain. Are they basically plants at that point and not even concieveable as persons?
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
So, it seems like this revolves around intelligence as a measure of personhood. What about doing the Brave New World thing and retarding mental growth. What if we genetically engineer cows and pigs so that they are really dumb, and feel no pain. Are they basically plants at that point and not even concieveable as persons?
To expand upon this hypothetical (and because I just got the book in my Secret Santa and it's awesome ), consider the Emergents 'Focused' people in A Deepness in the Sky. They are mentally engineered to by hyper-intelligent in one specific area that the Emergents want, to the point they have perpetual OCD. I'm wondering if these would be 'persons' anymore, as they do not respond to any stimuli outside of their specific Focused path. But if one measures it simply by intelligence, they're extremely intelligent.
And that also doesn't mean that the beings themselves have individual rights. If we accept an intelligent hivemind as having rights, that just means that we can't significantly harm the group as a whole. If the hivemind minds losing individuals we should take that into consideration, but it isn't actually murder unless the entire mind is destroyed.
The point I was making is that sentience isn't benevolence. Something alien doesn't have "rights" in our society until it agrees to extend them to us and participate in that society.
"And no rights were violated."
I can't wait till some intellectually superior race just swings on by and tells us that we have to play by their rules or effectively be hunted at whim and treated as less than them.
It'll be such a cluster fuck.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
The point I was making is that sentience isn't benevolence. Something alien doesn't have "rights" in our society until it agrees to extend them to us and participate in that society. A number of serial killers are just as "smart" as me, but we afford them only the treatment that doesn't debase ourselves, and we know they are human.
Some humans are too mentally disabled, or too young, to understand the concepts of rights or social participation. Many humans simply don't have a political philosophy education in any way, shape, or form, and so they have no concept of a social contract. Some hermits living in Alaska choose to entirely withdraw from social participation. In any case, all of these humans have rights.
What you're saying sounds pretty close to: "pigs never signed the declaration of independence, ergo they have no rights." That's silly.
The problem with cereal killers is that they are dangerous and bad, not that they are different.
Something totally alien from you, with no empathy for or with you and no likelyhood of ever developing it isn't the same as inter-species oppression. The model doesn't hold. When you say "pigs never signed the declaration of independence, ergo they have no rights" you're trying to build a strawman but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "Pigs, in general, do not and cannot have every privilege and right humans do, from a human point of view, and that's the way it is"
If you don't believe me, have someone drop a piglet and a baby in a pool of quicksand and we'll see which one you save. Yes, we shouldn't be cruel to pigs, but that doesn't mean they're people. Or, to turn your tactics around, just because they have some rights doesn't mean they get to sign the declaration of Independence.
We preserve the rights of convicts and the disabled and work to improve the lot of other people, in general, as a society, because of our empathy, essentially. The fact that we don't do it because of their level of cognition is my point. IE, we treat a healthy criminal with a high IQ worse then we do a developmentally disabled man, who I would hope we treat better than an animal we intend to eat, and we treat all of the above differently than we do "normal" people.
Your conflating "humane treatment" with "rights" - we treat all the examples cited humanely if we can but we do not afford them every right of society. The Alaskan hermit I'd say is a poor example because socializing != social participation - he may not love people, but he still participates by not harming anyone, by paying taxes, assumptive by doing some sort of work or having done so in the past to purchase his hermitage, by generally obeying human law.
Rights have classically come hand in hand with responsibility - the freest societies also have many participatory responsibilities. If someone doesn't live up to those responsibilities, they begin to lose rights, up to and including those we hold to be inalienable.
If we start extending personhood to the wrong things, we have to decide how far to go. Someone very astutely pointed out that many sentient animals have mating and territorial practices that are inhumane. We obviously aren't prepared to western social norms on dolphins or wolves or chimps, nor are they prepared to participate in the human legal system.
So the smartest of creatures still seem well on the bad side of a definite line between "person" and "animal"
Their cognition alone doesn't infuse them with rights akin to equally-, or even certain less-, cognitive creatures. They have to demonstrate other qualities to become "persons."
And that also doesn't mean that the beings themselves have individual rights. If we accept an intelligent hivemind as having rights, that just means that we can't significantly harm the group as a whole. If the hivemind minds losing individuals we should take that into consideration, but it isn't actually murder unless the entire mind is destroyed.
The point I was making is that sentience isn't benevolence. Something alien doesn't have "rights" in our society until it agrees to extend them to us and participate in that society.
"And no rights were violated."
I can't wait till some intellectually superior race just swings on by and tells us that we have to play by their rules or effectively be hunted at whim and treated as less than them.
Silly aliens, don't they realize that we're inherently more morally worthwhile because we're human and they're not? If we revised our means of judging personhood to incorporate intelligent aliens, we might end up excluding some humans, and that would be wrong.
I think if you want to be reasonable and non-bigoted, you have to start expanding the circle of moral worth (or whatever) to encompass things it's inconvenient to encompass and start excluding certain humans.
Good rule of thumb: if communication is possible, and reasoning with said non-human entity is possible, you have to treat them well. If communication is impossible, or reasoning with them is not, you don't have to treat them well (particularly if they are having a negative effect on humanity).
Good rule of thumb: if communication is possible, and reasoning with said non-human entity is possible, you have to treat them well. If communication is impossible, or reasoning with them is not, you don't have to treat them well (particularly if they are having a negative effect on humanity).
To paraphrase Bentham: the question is not can they talk?, it's can they suffer? Animals can clearly suffer. That they can't talk doesn't excuse that suffering as innocuous.
Good rule of thumb: if communication is possible, and reasoning with said non-human entity is possible, you have to treat them well. If communication is impossible, or reasoning with them is not, you don't have to treat them well (particularly if they are having a negative effect on humanity).
To paraphrase Bentham: the question is not can they talk?, it's can they suffer? Animals can clearly suffer. That they can't talk doesn't excuse that suffering as innocuous.
To combine these two ideas, if it can suffer then you have to treat it "well", to be defined at some point for each creature, and if you can reason with it then it's probably a good idea to give it a higher status.
Good rule of thumb: if communication is possible, and reasoning with said non-human entity is possible, you have to treat them well. If communication is impossible, or reasoning with them is not, you don't have to treat them well (particularly if they are having a negative effect on humanity).
To paraphrase Bentham: the question is not can they talk?, it's can they suffer? Animals can clearly suffer. That they can't talk doesn't excuse that suffering as innocuous.
How do you define suffering? For some definition of 'suffer' every complex system in existence can 'suffer'. Do we draw the line at things which are aware of their own suffering? Things which are capable of feeling pain? Things which are capable of death? Things which become less when they lose a part of themselves? Things which change states upon interaction? Why is any definition of 'suffer' better than any other except in that it is closer to what we experience as suffering?
Posts
Yeah if the animal doesn't actually have a functional awareness then I'm not really sure what the problem is.
You guys seem to be missing the picture of synthetic meat. GM meat is meat from a modified animal, for example a cow made to not feel pain like in the link I mentioned. Synthetic meat is totally different; it is never a real animal.
You take a hunk of meat, pump nutrients and oxygen, and it grows into bigger meat. Think yogurt cultures.
While the whole "no killing, no suffering" thing is nice, the big advantages this has are economic, which is why it's a technology that is likely to take off. The advantages are legion. No non-meat products, like bones, nervous systems, organs, etc.. No need to deal with an actual animal that tries to move, breath, poop, etc.. Total control of meat type; you could make a whole 'cow' out of filet mignon. Total control of meat contents; you can control nutrient levels, salt level, fat level, etc.. No need for growth hormones or antibacterials (if the culture gets contaminated, you can't use it anyways). The ability to produce anywhere, reducing transportation costs. Dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions. And the list goes on. The disadvantages are that it's really fucking hard to pull off vat cloned style meat.
Animals genetically modified to not feel pain are vastly different from in vitro meat. On a moral level, lab grown meat is the same as eating yogurt, and even superior to vegetarianism given harvesting practices.
Meat is not a molecule. It's composed of many different components, that interact to give it it's taste/texture/aroma and so on. It's a process that required an animal doing it's thing in "nature" up to the point where you kill it.
Sure you might be able to grow some kind of organic substance. And when you close your eyes and nose and don't really chew it, the stuff might be able to pass for meat.
But we've already got tofu...
edit: oh we don't start from scratch? time to do some reading.
Ok read the wikipedia article, i remain sceptical.
First, I think you're arguing against the thing I and zerg rush proposed: actually modified/bred meat such that animals feel no pain on either a reflexive or mental level. That is separate from synthetic meat, which is never part of an animal.
Second, if the animal is essentially brain-dead, the only way I'm going to care about the conditions is if they adversely affect myself, such as if they are more conducive to diseased meat or something. I have no idea what, substantively, you're arguing against though. What conditions are "bad" from the perspective of a brain-dead animal?
Is that a transmissible disease? I was under the impression that it stemmed from an issue with the feed and that it's only really "transmissible" if one cow eats another.
Person to person transmission doesn't happen unless you're a cannibal
I meant transmissable in terms of cow->human. The big issue is it's a 40 year gestation time.
Ah, gotcha.
@nexus, yeah, but I think it works the same for cows. They get it as a result of feed with (the wrong bits of?) ground cow in it.
As a result I'm pretty sure most places in the US have stopped using bone meal as feed
Suppose we could create a new species functionally identical to humans, but without awareness. Suppose that we can also do it without having to experiment on humans (or primates or whatever), so it's basically bam, meat puppets. Moral or immoral to breed them for food?
Aside from the inherent moral ick factor, I can't think of a good reason why it would be wrong, though it still seems creepy as fuck.
They'd be plants.
Seriously. It's like discovering a way to grow steaks on a tree and then bitching about the poor living conditions afforded to cows at the steak orchard.
...holy shit
It would be a poor idea for health reasons. The cannibalism taboo is like the incest taboo - it's genetic level understanding of what we took years to learn through science. The more like you food is, the better of a vector it is. It's why almost no one gets sick from sushi - most diseases of food animals aren't human transmissible. Of course, science that could do this could probably defeat that problem.
As far as the general notion of food industrialization, I think a huge question that isn't getting asked is the degree to which food industrialization is gaming of the system.
It doesn't seem like raising pigs, for example, in a concentrated feeding operation, should really be cheaper than raising them in a sty. The systemic weaknesses in industrial farming seem to be in the category of abuse of the public domain - the public trusts of air and water and wildlife, costs that do not have to be paid by the operators, or, in the short term, the consumers of these operations.
The question should be "Why is it cheaper to farm this way" - that's where you start to get into the scary answers.
I hope it hasn't already been covered, but I'd question the central assumption that dolphins really are the "second smartest" creature on the planet. I noticed in the OP this was something "some scientists" said.
I would argue that several primates and even other cetaceans are "smarter" than dolphins - gorillas are damn near "smart" enough to pass as low-end humans, for example, and the ability to use hording/trapping/hunting behavior often cited as proof of their intelligence is something we see in colonies of insects that have the "cognition" of, well, switches - they're essentially just electronic components that react a certain way in the presence of certain conditions, yet they mimic cognition well. None of which is an argument that dolphins should be treated terribly, of course.
I host a podcast about movies.
So perhaps a single ant isn't intelligent, but a colony of ants is. Just as a single human brain cell isn't "intelligent", but the entire brain taken as a whole is.
Or rather, it's at least conceivable that an entire colony of unintelligent critters could possess something akin to intelligence.
It's also conceivable that they're hardwired for behavior that shares qualities with the behavior of the intelligent. In fact, it almost seems more likely in evolutionary terms. And the consequences of wrongly declaring something a person or needful of protection are huge, as are the consequences of ascribing something rights it doesn't need or merit. Not to mention, if they are sentient and very alien, they might express an interest in things very contrary to our vision for things - your right to be an alien collective ends when you want to lay eggs in my skin.
I host a podcast about movies.
The point I was making is that sentience isn't benevolence. Something alien doesn't have "rights" in our society until it agrees to extend them to us and participate in that society. A number of serial killers are just as "smart" as me, but we afford them only the treatment that doesn't debase ourselves, and we know they are human.
I host a podcast about movies.
Some humans are too mentally disabled, or too young, to understand the concepts of rights or social participation. Many humans simply don't have a political philosophy education in any way, shape, or form, and so they have no concept of a social contract. Some hermits living in Alaska choose to entirely withdraw from social participation. In any case, all of these humans have rights.
What you're saying sounds pretty close to: "pigs never signed the declaration of independence, ergo they have no rights." That's silly.
The problem with cereal killers is that they are dangerous and bad, not that they are different.
It was truly a dark day when the Trix Rabbit was discovered stabbed to death with "Trix Is For Kids" scrawled on the wall in his own blood.
"And no rights were violated."
Haven't they recently made some lab grown meat. I think it had the consistency of "wet pork," due to the muscle not getting any use. I'm excited to see where this goes.
Here's perhaps an interesting question, and might relate to personhood.
So, it seems like this revolves around intelligence as a measure of personhood. What about doing the Brave New World thing and retarding mental growth. What if we genetically engineer cows and pigs so that they are really dumb, and feel no pain. Are they basically plants at that point and not even concieveable as persons?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
To expand upon this hypothetical (and because I just got the book in my Secret Santa and it's awesome
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I can't wait till some intellectually superior race just swings on by and tells us that we have to play by their rules or effectively be hunted at whim and treated as less than them.
It'll be such a cluster fuck.
Something totally alien from you, with no empathy for or with you and no likelyhood of ever developing it isn't the same as inter-species oppression. The model doesn't hold. When you say "pigs never signed the declaration of independence, ergo they have no rights" you're trying to build a strawman but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "Pigs, in general, do not and cannot have every privilege and right humans do, from a human point of view, and that's the way it is"
If you don't believe me, have someone drop a piglet and a baby in a pool of quicksand and we'll see which one you save. Yes, we shouldn't be cruel to pigs, but that doesn't mean they're people. Or, to turn your tactics around, just because they have some rights doesn't mean they get to sign the declaration of Independence.
We preserve the rights of convicts and the disabled and work to improve the lot of other people, in general, as a society, because of our empathy, essentially. The fact that we don't do it because of their level of cognition is my point. IE, we treat a healthy criminal with a high IQ worse then we do a developmentally disabled man, who I would hope we treat better than an animal we intend to eat, and we treat all of the above differently than we do "normal" people.
Your conflating "humane treatment" with "rights" - we treat all the examples cited humanely if we can but we do not afford them every right of society. The Alaskan hermit I'd say is a poor example because socializing != social participation - he may not love people, but he still participates by not harming anyone, by paying taxes, assumptive by doing some sort of work or having done so in the past to purchase his hermitage, by generally obeying human law.
Rights have classically come hand in hand with responsibility - the freest societies also have many participatory responsibilities. If someone doesn't live up to those responsibilities, they begin to lose rights, up to and including those we hold to be inalienable.
If we start extending personhood to the wrong things, we have to decide how far to go. Someone very astutely pointed out that many sentient animals have mating and territorial practices that are inhumane. We obviously aren't prepared to western social norms on dolphins or wolves or chimps, nor are they prepared to participate in the human legal system.
So the smartest of creatures still seem well on the bad side of a definite line between "person" and "animal"
Their cognition alone doesn't infuse them with rights akin to equally-, or even certain less-, cognitive creatures. They have to demonstrate other qualities to become "persons."
I host a podcast about movies.
To paraphrase Bentham: the question is not can they talk?, it's can they suffer? Animals can clearly suffer. That they can't talk doesn't excuse that suffering as innocuous.
To combine these two ideas, if it can suffer then you have to treat it "well", to be defined at some point for each creature, and if you can reason with it then it's probably a good idea to give it a higher status.
How do you define suffering? For some definition of 'suffer' every complex system in existence can 'suffer'. Do we draw the line at things which are aware of their own suffering? Things which are capable of feeling pain? Things which are capable of death? Things which become less when they lose a part of themselves? Things which change states upon interaction? Why is any definition of 'suffer' better than any other except in that it is closer to what we experience as suffering?