Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Two posts ______ In a message dated 11/1/03 10:34:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, liberty@... writes: > I know, you say that quite often, and I agree to a certain > extent. However a muscle cell in a piece of meat, or a > cell in a vegetable, doesn't carry much more nutrients, or > _chemicals_ for the sake of this discussion, in itself than > are actually being used in some process or other. Animals > and plants store excess nutrients seperately in body fat, This isn't true-- the smooth endoplasmic reticulum of skeletal muscle cells is a repository for calcium. The Ca does get used at points but only during contraction or otherwise it is simply a storage repository much like bone is a storage repository of Ca and Mg salts. Clearly if the muscle is not being used, that undercuts the purpose and perhaps therefore the existance of the Ca storage. _______ Ok, I just read this thread and have a couple comments. 1) While it's conceivable that at some point in the vastly distant future this could be mastered, while at the level of learning to grow muscle tissue, it's worth considering that the nutrition of a muscle tissue is not dependent on the simply carry of some nutrition system to the muscle, but is rather dependent on the entire organism, including the central nervous system, and including the functionality of the tissue which is generally caused by consciousness. For example, muscle has to be USED. A person or cow who gets no exercise is not going to be healthy, and in general, meat from a unhealthy animal is not particularly healthy to eat. Muscle cells incorporate protein, and muscle matrix incorporates collagen, etc, in response to the demand placed on the body by exercise. If no demand is placed upon the tissues, they have no reason to store the nutrients and proteins in their cells and matrix. Furthermore, this incorporation is regulated by other components of different systems of the body including the nervous and endocrine system, not to mention the removal of wastes regulated by yet other systems. It seems possible that an efficient waste removal system might be developed, but it seems less plausible that at least at the beginning stages a system of regulating nutrient incorporation by replacing endocrine hormones can be realized. 2) Who expects the public to go for this??? 3) The idea of using this as some sort of " humane " alternative to butchering animals strikes me as somewhat similar to vegetarianism. It ignores the fact that there wouldn't be any cows to speak of if people didn't raise them. How is a cow that does not exist living a better life than one who lives on pasture until the time of slaughter? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 In a message dated 11/2/03 3:13:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, bberg@... writes: > Right, but this is largely a question of knowing what to aim for, rather > than one of being able to hit the mark. We're perfectly capable of > sorting by chirality--it's just that for a while no one knew that it > mattered. Isn't sorting a matter of mostly missing the mark and isolating the hits rather than hitting the mark accurately? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 In a message dated 11/2/03 4:01:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, bberg@... writes: > Not everyone would, but vegetarians and fair-weather animal-rights types > would go for it. Some might try it for the novelty. It would certainly > help if it were cheaper or nutritionally superior, too. Also, they could > do other things to improve it, like altering the flavor. I suspect you're way off on the potential appeal to vegetarians. Sure, they don't want to eat meat, but these types tend to also be the " natural " type of folk who would be opposed or even intimidated by this sort of thing. > > >3) The idea of using this as some sort of " humane " alternative to > butchering > >animals strikes me as somewhat similar to vegetarianism. It ignores > the fact > >that there wouldn't be any cows to speak of if people didn't raise > them. How > >is a cow that does not exist living a better life than one who lives > on > >pasture until the time of slaughter? > > You could use the same argument to justify raising humans for meat. Not really. Sensible humans know that if they justify eating humans they are themselves fair game. But more importantly, it should be quite obvious to anyone that humans will proliferate without being farmed, since to my knowledge there are no current farms raising human for meat and yet, to my knowledge, we are a quite numerous species. On the other hand, cows would not exist were it not for human agency, and many or most farm animals would not survive in the wild too well if at all. Thus, farming cows for meat gives cows a life who otherwise wouldn't live. While I can't prove that this is a benefit for the cow, it can't possibly be humane to withdraw this possible benefit, as with no cow there is no object of the humanity and therefore no humanity can be exercised. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 In a message dated 11/2/03 5:45:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, liberty@... writes: > But is there anymore calcium in a viable cell of an animal > that's on what you would consider optimal feed and that of > one that isn't? I have no idea. I suspect it may have to do with muscle stimulation and perhaps hormones. > >Clearly if the muscle is not being used, that undercuts the > >purpose and perhaps therefore the existance of the Ca storage. > > Are you saying that an underexercized muscle cell _doesn't_ > contain as much calcium, or just that it has no _reason_ to > contain so much calcium if it's not going to be execercized? The latter, which I am saying may lead to the former. That usually happens-- for example, if the main reason for storing protein in muscle cells is for muscle use and the muscles don't get used, the body will generally bread down the muscle and use it for something else. > > The latter's a confusing non-sequitur, How is it a non-sequitor? I can see you arguing that to conclude the former from the latter is a non-sequitor but I dont' see how there can be any gap in the logic when there was no logical reasoning within each unit, but only between each unit. and the former is merely > another factor for consideration for those who would attempt > such " culturing " of meat, not something rendering it impossible. > The meat could easily be made to twitch in the tanks (I hope > I'm not giving anybody any more horrors with this image! (- I don't know anything about it. did say that this is being looked into. I'm just pointing out that if the muscle is dormant it won't be able to optimize its nutrition. > Not by consciousness, but at best by electro-chemical impulses > from the nervous system, These are, in regard to skeletal muscle, dictated by consciousness. and it's still no problem. Simply add > an analysis of what comes to the muscle tissue via the nerves, > to that of what comes to it via the blood stream. " Simply " ? > >2) Who expects the public to go for this??? > > I'm a libertarian remember? I don't give a damn what the > public goes for. If you are a libertarian you should have some basic familiarity with market dynamics-- enough at least to know that if no one buys the shit for the next few decades the R & D isn't going to be profitable enough for folks to keep on working on answers to the questions we've been raising here. > >3) The idea of using this as some sort of " humane " alternative to > butchering > >animals strikes me as somewhat similar to vegetarianism. > > The _sole_ thing wrong with vegetarianism, or at least > actually _veganism_, is the fact that the evidence doesn't > support it as being optimal for human beings. The compassion > aspect of vegetarianism is noble and a virtue. The compassion is, but the logic that compassion leads to vegetarianism is a non-sequitor. The additional fault of vegetarianism is the utter leap of logic that to have compassion on an animal means not to kill it, which is a bona fide absurdity, case in point, overpopulation of deer. > >It ignores the fact that there wouldn't be any cows to speak > >of if people didn't raise them. > > Who's ignoring that? That fact may well be the best part of > the whole scenario. There are way too many cows in the world > now as it is. I lived on a ranch and saw first-hand the sort > of destruction cows do to the land. Also, this same faulty > logic could be used to support aversion to birth control like > that of some fundamentalist Christians. What? No it couldn't. If you think it could, we are having a major communication gap, because the logic I *meant* to convey could not be used in any such way. What I'm saying is there is no humanity exercised toward an object that never comes into existance since there is no object for the action. This is more analagous to saying we should not prevent the birth of humans for the sake of avoiding death, which is a perfectly logical statement, but NOT analogous to saying we should not control the timing and frequency of births in order to afford better lives to ourselves or our offspring. IOW your position , as I understand it, that it is exercising humanity or at least avoiding cruelty to not bring animals to life, is analogous to saying that birth control should be used to prevent death. > > >How is a cow that does not exist living a better life than one > >who lives on pasture until the time of slaughter? > > That's silly! The " non-existent " don't writhe in agony until > someone decides to bring thim into this world! Yes, but they aren't happy either? What basis of judgment to you have to pontificate about what state of mind a cow is in while on pasture? You're not > doing cows any favor by breeding them for slaughter. I didn't claim to be doing a cow any favor, I claimed that you aren't doing cows any favor by not breeding them for slaughter. By the > same logic a slave-owner of old could have forced his slaves > to have many more children than they would have normally chosen > to, and then claimed it was better that these children existed > as slaves than never at all! I suggest you look over some of the books I'm sure you've read that describe what slave life was like, and then think of a cow, then think of a slave, then think of a cow. If you can point out some similarities I'd be interested to hear them but I find it utterly mind-boggling that you can compare the life of a pastured cow that is essentially free to do whatever it wants to that of a slave. Granted, some cows are treated like slaves, but I'm speaking of ideal methods of husbandry. In _my_ value system, we are > morally responsible for those whom we domesticate. The only > proper use of a domestic cow for me, is as a source of milk. Well I think that's an admirable position. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 - >Sure, but how substantial? Extremely substantial. Look at the ecological disaster of confinement husbandry, and consider that growing flesh in tanks is much further removed from self-sustaining biodynamic agriculture than that. >Most of the minerals necessary for human >nutrition are abundant and inexpensive. Minerals are hardly the be-all and end-all of nutrition. >Food producers >haven't switched to factory farming just because they like making us >sick. Which is more efficient is a question that will be answered by >market forces. No, they've switched to factory farming because factory farming allows capital to concentrate. That doesn't mean it's more efficient, just that it can make a few producers a lot bigger and richer. Nor do market forces support nutrition well at all. >Anyway, there's already an industry which artificially isolates >nutrients found in nature. The supplement industry hasn't been an >unprecedented environmental disaster--what makes you think that the >hydroponic meat industry will be? Supplements are just that -- supplements to food. And the supplement industry doesn't help the environment any compared to the situation we'd be in if we could get everything we need from food. As far as exploiting soil fertility and maximizing nutrition, there's no way for hydroponic meat to have more than a small fraction of the efficiency of biodynamic farming, because it's neither a self-sustaining system nor a loop. At every step, extra energy must be expended to extract raw materials, transport them, transform them into nutrients, and handle waste disposal. No matter how far technology advances, that gross inefficiency will remain because of the fundamental laws of physics. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 >As far as exploiting soil fertility and maximizing nutrition, there's no >way for hydroponic meat to have more than a small fraction of the >efficiency of biodynamic farming, because it's neither a self-sustaining >system nor a loop. At every step, extra energy must be expended to extract >raw materials, transport them, transform them into nutrients, and handle >waste disposal. No matter how far technology advances, that gross >inefficiency will remain because of the fundamental laws of physics. Vendanta Shiva has written extensively on how much more productive is than any of the 'efficient' systems developed by agribusiness. -Allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 In a message dated 11/2/03 6:39:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > Admirable on what basis? seems to be suggesting that no domestic > cows should be consumed for meat, and presumably that position extends, at > the very least, to the other ruminants, and ruminants seem to yield the > healthiest meat, so his position practically amounts to " the only moral > position is to not be healthy " . I just meant as a personal virtue it's admirable to sacrifice one's pleasure or health for the sake of others. But on second thought, I take that back, because that's essentially what I was doing when I was a vegetarian, and I regard that more of a stupid mistake than an admirable trait. Following this second thought, I think it's more admirable to recognize the complexities and face them. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 In re cloning, I respond that it's simply not natural for offspring to share the exact same genetic code as one of their parents. If we cloned a few of the most prized dairy cows, for instance, soon there might be farms on which the majority of the cattle are genetically identical. Things might be great until a disease comes along for which that particular genetic code has a weakness. Then, instead of losing one or a few head of cattle, the farmer has lost the majority of his herd. This is exactly why sexual reproduction (in contrast to asexual reproduction) evolved in the first place: to create genetic diversity. Yes, I realize that cloning and GMOs have very different implications. But since they both at root involved modification of genes, they both have far-reaching and potentially destructive implications. I never want to be a cyborg or a brain in a vat and I don't think it's something the human race should aspire to. Tom --- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " lucientj " <cassiusdio@g...> > > > > You all sound like you don't have problems with cloning and genetic > > engineering. I really do. It disgusts me. If the world gets to a point > > where we are forced to clone and genetically modify animals and plants > > to feed us all, then we have too many people. Cloning and any sort of > > " biotechnology " (nice PR euphemism) scare the manure out of me, and > > what's more, once such experiments have been unleashed, no natural > > organisms are safe--for all we know the organic whole wheat out there > > has traces of animal DNA in it from cross-pollination with commercial > > GMO wheat. This really bothers me. > > Do you know what cloning is? I'll grant for the sake of argument that > there may be some valid concerns regarding cross-pollination and whatnot > (ironically, or perhaps not, many of the people who are protesting GMOs > on these grounds were the same ones who pressured Monsanto into not > using the Terminator gene, which would have eliminated or greatly > reduced this danger). That said, I have no idea what cloning has to do > with any of the above. > > > (For the record, I'm pro-choice and mostly pro-stem-cell research.) > > Mostly? > > > And if we did get to the day where we could skip animals and create > > artifical meat somehow, I would not want to eat it, even if its > > nutriotional content was more " optimal " than a properly raised animal. > > From the way things look now, it's probably possible to accomplish this > without genetic engineering or cloning. > > > I'm shuddering just thinking about it. It's just one more step on the > > way to the human race turning into cyborgs or brains in vats. > > What's wrong with that? I can't wait to be a cyborg, the brain-in-a-vat > gig might have its advantages, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...> > As to the " record " of synthesis, we're still pretty bad at synthesizing > chemicals (though we haven't been doing it long) e.g. say we want to synthesize > some vitamin E we end up 7 out of 8 unusable stereoisomers whereas say grass that > a cow is eating wants to synthesize vitamin E it makes the one usable isomer. Right, but this is largely a question of knowing what to aim for, rather than one of being able to hit the mark. We're perfectly capable of sorting by chirality--it's just that for a while no one knew that it mattered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> > ----->not if we don't buy it and i'd be surprised if the funders weren't > actually agribusinesses and their gov't subsidies, which would mean that > *we* are funding it by force, not by choice. (uh oh, was that a libertarian > argument? LOL) You will be assimilated. Borg The Libertarian Collective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...> > For example, muscle has to be USED. A person or cow who gets no exercise is > not going to be healthy, and in general, meat from a unhealthy animal is not > particularly healthy to eat. Muscle cells incorporate protein, and muscle > matrix incorporates collagen, etc, in response to the demand placed on the body by > exercise. If no demand is placed upon the tissues, they have no reason to > store the nutrients and proteins in their cells and matrix. This is true in the context of an animal, but not necessarily in the lab, because they could find ways to simulate this sort of activity or otherwise achieve the desired effects. As I mentioned before, they're currently experimenting with ways to exercise the meat. > 2) Who expects the public to go for this??? Not everyone would, but vegetarians and fair-weather animal-rights types would go for it. Some might try it for the novelty. It would certainly help if it were cheaper or nutritionally superior, too. Also, they could do other things to improve it, like altering the flavor. > 3) The idea of using this as some sort of " humane " alternative to butchering > animals strikes me as somewhat similar to vegetarianism. It ignores the fact > that there wouldn't be any cows to speak of if people didn't raise them. How > is a cow that does not exist living a better life than one who lives on > pasture until the time of slaughter? You could use the same argument to justify raising humans for meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 First, I want to say how impressed I am at the intelligence exhibited on this forum. Thanks for your feedback, . I'm increasingly aware of how full my mind is of slippery-slope arguments and jumping to conclusions without fully identifying or addressing the premises. So all your points about cloning are well taken. My only response is that I agree, but I advocate extreme caution in our progress on this front. As mankind advances, we gain tremedous power--power to help, heal, kill (e.g. Paleolithic weapons versus atomic weapons), etc.--and with each forward step, we have to make sure that we're pointing in the right direction, toward progress and not destruction. If I trusted our and other goverments and their agencies, I wouldn't have a problem. But I guess it reduces to the simple fact that greedy people in power are short-sighted and self-serving, and rarely do things in the best long-term interest for mankind. That's the heart of my problem with GMOs and cloning today. I realize that I and my offspring will eventually have to accept and live with them, and probably will do so happily if things progress propitiously. And now, regarding the killing of animals, I'll try to give you a taste of your own (good) medicine, also known as " reason " . You, like many, believe that killing is wrong per se. Killing seems horrible to us, but this is founded on our emotional qualms with it. Your description of brutally killing and animal and " hacking " it to pieces is a case in point. It was meant to appeal to emotion, from which it sprung. If we use reason to reduce ethics *beyond* looking at individual organisms to looking at species and ecosystems and life on a large scale, it seems that reducing suffering and improving and lengthening lives involves some voluntary killing. The thing that vegetarians and vegans seem too obsessed with is the personal, proactive nature of killing. The act itself. My intentional action to behead a chicken is taken as fundamentally bad, without question. Just because I don't *have* to kill this particular chicken doesn't mean that I should not. Look at the grand scheme of things; I've fed and raised this chicken, let it have a happy, comfortable existence, let it reproduce and pass on its genes (these two things, happy life and the chance to reproduce, I see as the two pillars of respect for a fellow being)---and now I am going to end its life before it gets old, and it is going to nourish and help me and my family, just as the grains and insects that it killed nourished it. This applies to domesticated animals and wild animals that are subject to our intrusion on their native territory. In other words, all animals. Hunting deer (killing them with a painless bullet to the head) where they are overpopulated due to lack of natural predators is a good thing. Sure, pity the poor individual deer that dies, but it's better than the deer hitting a car, killing not only itself but the occupants of the car. You could reply that if humans hadn't overtaken so much of the natural habitat of deer this would never have happened. I would agree but practically there's not much we can do about that. I just realized in writing this that I essentially see the ethics of killing an animal versus killing a plant as the same. The only difference is the emotional attachment and kinship humans feel for animals. Animals are aware, but so are plants in their own simple way. A tree being strangled by placing large rocks around its base (some farmers do this) upsets me just as much as an animal being killed inhumanely. If you consider it rationally, there is no difference. One more thing: I could argue that humans have been killing animals for millenia, to which you could reply that long tradition does not equal moral rectitude. I could reply that humans aren't the only ones manipulating and killing to get ahead; animals, plants, even virii act cunningly to do so, as all life has since the beginning. If you want to draw the line at human action, you'd better give me a sound reason. The event of death, though scary to us, is not a bad thing. It is part of life. We shouldn't impose our fear of death on other animals; we should not attribute a desire to live as long as possible to the possible detriment of its entire species to an individual animal. I am far from done grappling with the ethics of killing. I certainly have not even arrived at the conclusion that killing is ever right. I'm leaning towards yes, as you can see from above, but I still am unsure. Sorry for the unorganized rambling! Tom > > > > You all sound like you don't have problems with cloning and > > genetic engineering. I really do. It disgusts me. > > No, I have no problem whatsoever with cloning and genetic > engineering in principle. That is not to say that I would > approve of each and every use to which these might be put. > Keep in mind that by some definitions of " natural " , anything > done by a human being is unnatural. Actually the term is > so meaningless as to be useless in almost any discussion. > > > If the world gets to a point where we are forced to clone and > > genetically modify animals and plants to feed us all, . . . > > I wasn't advocating cloning animal flesh for the sake of > feeding more people. _That_ whole issue involves a complex > formula involving available energy, land area, and available > substrate materials, and is one that I don't think will be > helped any in the long run by cloning. > > > . . . then we have too many people. > > I think we already have far too many people in the world > to provide everybody an optimal diet. > > > Cloning and any sort of " biotechnology " (nice PR euphemism) > > scare the manure out of me, . . . > > Everything we don't understand scares us initially, but > we don't have the right to hold back the rest of the world > because of our personal fears. > > > and what's more, once such experiments have been unleashed, no > > natural organisms are safe-- > > That's a slippery-slope argument, and a sort of thing > born out of fear, and one appealing to others' fear. > Few good decisions are ever made from a position of fear. > > > for all we know the organic whole wheat out there has traces of > > animal DNA in it from cross-pollination with commercial GMO wheat. > > This really bothers me. > > It bothers me too, but alot of things in our world bother > me, many of which involve no advanced technology at all, > and many of which have been around for millions of years. )-: > > > And if we did get to the day where we could skip animals and > > create artifical meat somehow, I would not want to eat it, even > > if its nutriotional content was more " optimal " than a properly > > raised animal. > > Yes, there's an aversion to even the idea of artificiality. > Though if you think it about it, most of the foods you do > happily consume now were brought to you by human artifice. > Even your beef cows are the result of millenia of human- > manipulated breeding. Why is artificial eating disturbing, > but not artificial conversation or learning (you're reading > a computer screen!)? > > > I'm shuddering just thinking about it. It's just one more step on > > the way to the human race turning into cyborgs or brains in vats. > > You've been watching too many episodes of the 'Twilight > Zone':-), and again, that is a slippery-slope argument. > A thing is only bad if it _itself_ is bad, not merely > because we can imagine a way in which it can eventually > _lead_ to something bad. If we allow any other definition, > then we really do step onto a slippery slope to the > eventual loss of all freedom. Furthermore, though I > don't like the idea of being a brain in a vat either, > aren't we all already exactly just that, brains in bone > " vats " ? I also augment my natural memory with my > computer drive, the natural reach of my voice with the > telephone, my eyesight with glasses, and my feet with > a car, so we're already well on our way to cyborg-hood. > My point is that you're stand is based entirely on how > you choose to look at things, rather than on the actual > reality. > > > Call me paranoid if you will. > > No, I won't call you paranoid, and I do understand your > feelings, but now is where we see if _you_ are willing > to understand others' feelings and viewpoint as well. > Because you see, I have every bit as big of a problem, > and as much disgust, with the slaughter of animals as > you do with cloning. In fact personally, I really have > a hard time understanding how someone can have a problem > with cloned meat, but none with the bashing in of a fellow > creature's head, then spilling its guts onto the ground, > hacking up the whole mess and eating it. What or whom > won't we kill if they have something that we really need? > I'm sure you draw a line somewhere, but wouldn't it be > nice if that line could be redrawn someday to an even > better distance from the ideal? The recent discussions > of sheeps heads and other such have really nauseated me. > I don't say anything because I do believe that eating > flesh is natural for homo-sapiens and probably necessary > for optimal health for most, if not all human-beings. > However that said, there is in no way, other than > coincidental, any congruity between what is natural and > what is moral or even just ideal. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 >1) While it's conceivable that at some point in the vastly distant future >this could be mastered, while at the level of learning to grow muscle tissue, >it's worth considering that the nutrition of a muscle tissue is not dependent on >the simply carry of some nutrition system to the muscle, but is rather >dependent on the entire organism, including the central nervous system, and including >the functionality of the tissue which is generally caused by consciousness I'm waiting for the " Star Trek " scenario where a super starship-technology with some undefined but infinite source of energy replicates food at an atomic level --- micronutrients included -- maybe even live bacteria included. Then I'll set it for " gizzards " and " kidney " and pie minus the gluten. Ha! Problem solved! -- Heidi (In the meantime, I think it's pretty efficient to grow animals on a small scale. The average suburban lawn could support about half a goat, or a dozen chickens, and if they had cows grazing So. California there wouldn't be such a fire hazard). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Tom wrote: >Hunting deer (killing them with a painless bullet to the head) where >they are overpopulated due to lack of natural predators is a good >thing. Sure, pity the poor individual deer that dies, but it's better >than the deer hitting a car, killing not only itself but the occupants >of the car. You could reply that if humans hadn't overtaken so much of >the natural habitat of deer this would never have happened. I would >agree but practically there's not much we can do about that. I tend to agree here. There is a bigger issue: the world as we know it is based on death. That is, if something is born, it will die. Usually - normally - animals meet their end by being eaten by some other animal, or more rarely by being attacked by some microorganism or parasite. Old age is rare. It's generally an ugly, bloody end, edited out on the Nature channel. The fact that we are social, empathetic beings is kind of a rarity, and it is problematic. Here we empathize with the deer, yet we live in a world where we really can't live decently without killing animals. Our ancestors pretty much had to kill predators too, because the predators killed them and their children otherwise. I think it is the VOLUNTARY actions though, that cause the ethical dilemmas. If a mountain lion kills a deer, that is " natural " . If a human does it, it is not? I don't know the answers to these things, but they are issues that have to be faced, esp. now that we have life support systems that can keep a body nominally alive for years after brain death. Most people don't want to even THINK about life/death issues, they want a Disney world where food just kind of appears with no cost, and people die peacefully at some good old age. A person I know recently (to the shock of relatives) created a Do Not Resuscitate document -- said person has always said they do NOT want to be revived and hooked up to machines, that they just want to die when they die, darn it. That person also raised farm animals and killed them, and I think has a pretty balanced idea of life and death as a result. It IS an ethical, spiritual, moral dilemma, but it is bigger than just us ... -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 > > This isn't true-- the smooth endoplasmic reticulum of skeletal muscle cells > is a repository for calcium. The Ca does get used at points but only during > contraction or otherwise it is simply a storage repository much like bone is a > storage repository of Ca and Mg salts. But is there anymore calcium in a viable cell of an animal that's on what you would consider optimal feed and that of one that isn't? > Clearly if the muscle is not being used, that undercuts the > purpose and perhaps therefore the existance of the Ca storage. Are you saying that an underexercized muscle cell _doesn't_ contain as much calcium, or just that it has no _reason_ to contain so much calcium if it's not going to be execercized? The latter's a confusing non-sequitur, and the former is merely another factor for consideration for those who would attempt such " culturing " of meat, not something rendering it impossible. The meat could easily be made to twitch in the tanks (I hope I'm not giving anybody any more horrors with this image! (- > Ok, I just read this thread and have a couple comments. > > 1) While it's conceivable that at some point in the vastly distant future > this could be mastered, while at the level of learning to grow muscle tissue, > it's worth considering that the nutrition of a muscle tissue is not dependent on > the simply carry of some nutrition system to the muscle, but is rather > dependent on the entire organism, including the central nervous system, and including > the functionality of the tissue which is generally caused by consciousness. Not by consciousness, but at best by electro-chemical impulses from the nervous system, and it's still no problem. Simply add an analysis of what comes to the muscle tissue via the nerves, to that of what comes to it via the blood stream. > For example, muscle has to be USED. A person or cow who gets no exercise is > not going to be healthy, and in general, meat from a unhealthy animal is not > particularly healthy to eat. Muscle cells incorporate protein, and muscle > matrix incorporates collagen, etc, in response to the demand placed on the body by > exercise. If no demand is placed upon the tissues, they have no reason to > store the nutrients and proteins in their cells and matrix. Either make the cultured muscle cells twitch, or falsify the sort of signals cells receive from the body that tell them they've been excersized. The latter sort of thing could also revolutionize body-building for humans! > 2) Who expects the public to go for this??? I'm a libertarian remember? I don't give a damn what the public goes for. > 3) The idea of using this as some sort of " humane " alternative to butchering > animals strikes me as somewhat similar to vegetarianism. The _sole_ thing wrong with vegetarianism, or at least actually _veganism_, is the fact that the evidence doesn't support it as being optimal for human beings. The compassion aspect of vegetarianism is noble and a virtue. > It ignores the fact that there wouldn't be any cows to speak > of if people didn't raise them. Who's ignoring that? That fact may well be the best part of the whole scenario. There are way too many cows in the world now as it is. I lived on a ranch and saw first-hand the sort of destruction cows do to the land. Also, this same faulty logic could be used to support aversion to birth control like that of some fundamentalist Christians. > How is a cow that does not exist living a better life than one > who lives on pasture until the time of slaughter? That's silly! The " non-existent " don't writhe in agony until someone decides to bring thim into this world! You're not doing cows any favor by breeding them for slaughter. By the same logic a slave-owner of old could have forced his slaves to have many more children than they would have normally chosen to, and then claimed it was better that these children existed as slaves than never at all! In _my_ value system, we are morally responsible for those whom we domesticate. The only proper use of a domestic cow for me, is as a source of milk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 --- In , " lucientj " <cassiusdio@g...> wrote: > > In re cloning, I respond that it's simply not natural for > offspring to share the exact same genetic code as one of their > parents. In science, nothing is " simply " so, and " natural " is such a subjective term as to have no value in any discussion as I pointed out before. I'm gay, and have been told more times than I care to recall, how " it's simply not natural " for two men to be together, but as I also pointed out before, what is natural is not always necessarily moral, and what is moral is not always necessarily natural. > If we cloned a few of the most prized dairy cows, for instance, soon there > might be farms on which the majority of the cattle are genetically > identical. Things might be great until a disease comes along for which > that particular genetic code has a weakness. Then, instead of losing > one or a few head of cattle, the farmer has lost the majority of his > herd. That's a legitimate concern, and is what we've heard caused the potato blight in Ireland. However that's solely a practical concern, not one impacting the issue of the morality of cloning. > This is exactly why sexual reproduction (in contrast to asexual > reproduction) evolved in the first place: to create genetic > diversity. Nothing evolved for a purpose. That's the whole message of evolution, that biological processes happen without design or purpose. In any case, why should any of us feel obligated to follow through on someone (or something?) else's purposes? We each have our own purposes for what we do. > Yes, I realize that cloning and GMOs have very different implications. > But since they both at root involved modification of genes, they both > have far-reaching and potentially destructive implications. So then be careful how you use them. > I never want to be a cyborg or a brain in a vat . . . Don't worry, you'll be compost long before that ever happens to anybody, but I'll remember you fondly in my vat. (-: > . . . and I don't think it's something the human race should > aspire to. The human race shouldn't have any _common_ aspiration. We're individuals and each have our _own_ aspirations. Don't try to keep me from mine, and I won't try to keep you from yours. Is it a deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: " Idol " <Idol@...> > >Sure, but how substantial? > > Extremely substantial. Look at the ecological disaster of confinement > husbandry, and consider that growing flesh in tanks is much further removed > from self-sustaining biodynamic agriculture than that. In terms of waste, I would say that it's probably an improvement over modern farming methods. The problems with confinement husbandry are due primarily to two factors. The first is dealing with the waste produced by the animals. The second is the vast amount of grain that needs to be grown to feed the animals. By growing only the meat, rather than supporting the entire animal, both of these can be reduced. > >Most of the minerals necessary for human > >nutrition are abundant and inexpensive. > > Minerals are hardly the be-all and end-all of nutrition. Yes, but they're the only ones that can't be synthesized. Are you talking about digging up huge truckloads of dirt from virgin farmland and sending them off to the meat factory? > >Food producers > >haven't switched to factory farming just because they like making us > >sick. Which is more efficient is a question that will be answered by > >market forces. > > No, they've switched to factory farming because factory farming allows > capital to concentrate. That doesn't mean it's more efficient, just that > it can make a few producers a lot bigger and richer. Nor do market forces > support nutrition well at all. We've been over this before. Market forces support what consumers demand. If consumers demand nutritious food, they will get it. How else can you explain the existence of health food stores (much of what they sell is not particularly healthful, but it's what consumers *think* is healthful and therefore demand). If they demand cheap food without regard to nutritional value, they'll get it. Whatever consumers demand, producers will make as cheaply as they possibly can. This is why we have what we have now--most people just want cheap food and don't realize that there's a difference nutritionally. > >Anyway, there's already an industry which artificially isolates > >nutrients found in nature. The supplement industry hasn't been an > >unprecedented environmental disaster--what makes you think that the > >hydroponic meat industry will be? > > Supplements are just that -- supplements to food. Many supplements contain 100% of the RDA of most nutrients. > And the supplement > industry doesn't help the environment any compared to the situation we'd be > in if we could get everything we need from food. Has it been an ecological disaster? > As far as exploiting soil fertility and maximizing nutrition, there's no > way for hydroponic meat to have more than a small fraction of the > efficiency of biodynamic farming, because it's neither a self-sustaining > system nor a loop. At every step, extra energy must be expended to extract > raw materials, transport them, transform them into nutrients, and handle > waste disposal. No matter how far technology advances, that gross > inefficiency will remain because of the fundamental laws of physics. Consider the following scenario: There's a large factory with solar panels on its roof. They provide energy to the factory. Sewage is piped in from underground, where it's fermented by various bacteria. Methane, a byproduct of the fermentation, is used to supplement the solar power, or perhaps sold for external use, if it's not needed internally. The fermented sewage is processed to create a medium for hydroponic meat. When too much waste accumulates in the medium, it's dumped in with the sewage, or perhaps processed in another way, and is eventually reused. This is a duplication of the processes that happen on a farm, but in some ways it's superior. For example, it's (probably) less labor-intensive, it uses less land, and it doesn't have to waste any energy to support the activity of animals or the production of inedible parts (although these are usually put to some use anyway). Furthermore, no energy needs to be expended to slaughter or butcher the animals, because there are none (although it may be more efficient to grow large chunks of meat and cut them up later). Again, the question of which is more efficient is easily answered by market forces. Whichever method produces what is demanded by consumers the most cheaply is the one that will be most widely adopted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Chris- Admirable on what basis? seems to be suggesting that no domestic cows should be consumed for meat, and presumably that position extends, at the very least, to the other ruminants, and ruminants seem to yield the healthiest meat, so his position practically amounts to " the only moral position is to not be healthy " . > In _my_ value system, we are > > morally responsible for those whom we domesticate. The only > > proper use of a domestic cow for me, is as a source of milk. > >Well I think that's an admirable position. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 > > > How is it a non-sequitor? I can see you arguing that to conclude > the former from the latter is a non-sequitor but I dont' see how > there can be any gap in the logic when there was no logical > reasoning within each unit, but only between each unit. Oh this one made me dizzy! What I thought you were saying is that meat might have the same amount of calcium in its cell walls even it is wasn't exercized, but then that same calcium would have no reason for being there (even though it was), and that it would be so sad if all that calcium sat around with nothing to do. That's what I considered a confusing non- sequitur. If you come back with something to this, my head's going to explode! :-) > I don't know anything about it. did say that this is > being looked into. -edit- Look, I'm just going to simplify this (hopefully) and give you that the whole process might be difficult, might be a long time in coming, and may never be embraced by any large number of people, or ever be profitable for anybody either. My only real point was that it's theoretically possible and not immoral. > The compassion is, but the logic that compassion leads to vegetarianism is a > non-sequitor. The additional fault of vegetarianism is the utter leap of > logic that to have compassion on an animal means not to kill it, which is a bona > fide absurdity, case in point, overpopulation of deer. If there's really a compassionate reason to kill an animal, I've not forbidden it. But if it should ever become possible to have meat without killing animals, then what would be so compassionate about still doing it? > What? No it couldn't. If you think it could, we are having a major > communication gap, because the logic I *meant* to convey could not be used in any such > way. > > What I'm saying is there is no humanity exercised toward an object that never > comes into existance since there is no object for the action. Exercizing humanity for the mere sake of exercizing humanity is not a moral requisite. It's when we _don't_ exercize humanity toward an object that deserves it, that it's a moral concern. If there were only one human-being in the world, it would not matter that he or she were not exercizing humanity toward anyone. We are not moral for our own sake, but for the sake of the potential victim of immorality. It is only when there are two or more beings and one does harm to the other, that any question of morality comes up. You're saying that a cow that fails to be born is a cow that we humans have failed to show kindness to. That makes no sense. > This is more > analagous to saying we should not prevent the birth of humans for the sake of > avoiding death, which is a perfectly logical statement, but NOT analogous to > saying we should not control the timing and frequency of births in order to > afford better lives to ourselves or our offspring. I'm saying that if it's wrong to not produce more cows, since no cow can be happy until it actually exists, then it's no less wrong to not have as many children as quickly as possible, so they can all start enjoying existence. > > >How is a cow that does not exist living a better life than one > > >who lives on pasture until the time of slaughter? > > > > That's silly! The " non-existent " don't writhe in agony until > > someone decides to bring thim into this world! > > Yes, but they aren't happy either? A rock's not happy either, but it's not _unhappy_. The non-existent don't suffer and they don't have an inherent right to be brought into existence. I don't know how better to get this across. Can anybody else help me out, I can't figure out any better way to say what I'm trying to say. > What basis of judgment to you have to pontificate about > what state of mind a cow is in while on pasture? I wasn't trying to pontificate, and I don't care what a cow's state of mind is. I'm not sure how we got to this. > I didn't claim to be doing a cow any favor, I claimed that you > aren't doing cows any favor by not breeding them for slaughter. What?!?!?!? Are you messing with my head to have fun? (-: > I suggest you look over some of the books I'm sure you've read that describe > what slave life was like, and then think of a cow, then think of a slave, then > think of a cow. If you can point out some similarities I'd be interested to > hear them but I find it utterly mind-boggling that you can compare the life of > a pastured cow that is essentially free to do whatever it wants to that of a > slave. I'm not making a direct comparison between a cow's life and a slave's life. That's not the basis of the comparison, but I don't think I can explain it any better now, so I guess I'll just have to drop it. > In _my_ value system, we are > > morally responsible for those whom we domesticate. The only > > proper use of a domestic cow for me, is as a source of milk. > > Well I think that's an admirable position. Thanks, I guess???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Chris- > > Admirable on what basis? seems to be suggesting that no > domestic cows should be consumed for meat, and presumably that > position extends, at the very least, to the other ruminants, > and ruminants seem to yield the healthiest meat, so his position > practically amounts to " the only moral position is to not be > healthy " . I'm suggesting that _I_ cannot do this, not that you should not. You will notice too that I don't go out into the wild and try to stop lions from eating zebras, or coyotes rabbits. The whole issue is very complex, and I don't think I have the right to tell others not to survive. I'm only saying that I don't understand those that are completely insensitive to the suffering of animals, or who would have us believe that animals can be property in the same way that an inanimate object can be. One could also eat only insects or shellfish, which have very limited mental capacity, or hunt with primitive weapons so that one only killed those same animals most likely to be killed by other predatory animals anyway, those that were weaker, slower, or otherwise less fit in whatever way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 - >One could also eat only insects or shellfish, which have very >limited mental capacity, Well, maybe " one " could, but I certainly couldn't. Ruminant meat appears to be essential for my health (such as it is). >or hunt with primitive weapons so that >one only killed those same animals most likely to be killed by >other predatory animals anyway, those that were weaker, slower, >or otherwise less fit in whatever way. Our brains are our weapons, so I'm afraid I can't regard this as anything other than foolish mind gaming. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > > Our brains are our weapons, so I'm afraid I can't regard this as > anything other than foolish mind gaming. Like I said, I fully realize that animals are killing and eating other animals all over the world everday. Why should I care if some of them happen to be two-legged? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 - I don't know, but then your position has some irregularities I don't understand, or some things which appear irregular to me, anyway. I'm certainly all in favor of humane animal husbandry -- confinement farming is an abomination for numerous reasons, that included -- but it seems very clear to me that humans evolved to require meat and that ruminant meat is an optimum and important meat for human health, so I don't buy any moral arguments against meat-eating. I think we'd agree that PETA's efforts to turn carnivorous animals herbivorous is also an abomination. >Why should I care if some of >them happen to be two-legged? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > Chris- > > > > Admirable on what basis? seems to be suggesting that no > > domestic cows should be consumed for meat, and presumably that > > position extends, at the very least, to the other ruminants, > > and ruminants seem to yield the healthiest meat, so his position > > practically amounts to " the only moral position is to not be > > healthy " . > > I'm suggesting that _I_ cannot do this, not that you should > not. You will notice too that I don't go out into the wild > and try to stop lions from eating zebras, or coyotes rabbits. > The whole issue is very complex, and I don't think I have the > right to tell others not to survive. I'm only saying that I > don't understand those that are completely insensitive to the > suffering of animals, or who would have us believe that animals > can be property in the same way that an inanimate object can be. > One could also eat only insects or shellfish, which have very > limited mental capacity, or hunt with primitive weapons so that > one only killed those same animals most likely to be killed by > other predatory animals anyway, those that were weaker, slower, > or otherwise less fit in whatever way. > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ , It shouldn't be too hard to understand. I can cite myself as an example of someone who is very insensitive to the suffering to animals. Not completely insensitive, but then again, I doubt there's anyone who is completely insensitive. Further, not only do I not object to the idea of animals as property, in the same sense we apply to inanimate objects, but I hasten to point out that it is a historical fact that they **are** property. You doubt whether they " can be " , yet it is obvious that they **are**. Let's separate facts from judgements. Now, as far as why this position shouldn't be hard for you to understand, note that there is no obvious moral distinction between eating wild and domesticated animals. A tiny number of people like yourself might propose some arcane and convoluted distinction, but why should we take this any more seriously than the laughably naive arguments of vegans against eating any animal foods? I don't have time to get into this topic, as it would be like opening dozens of massive vats of worms, but I just want it to be known that I have strong ideological objections to the whole spectrum of vegetarian morality. Your's is a fringe viewpoint that I don't take seriously at all. I just wanted to register this position, that's all. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > - > > I don't know, but then your position has some irregularities I > don't understand, or some things which appear irregular to me, > anyway. Of course there are irregularities. I'm talking about my personal feelings and values. I'm not expounding a " position " on which you or anybody else has to join me, or for that matter, even understand. I have the right to feel anyway I wish as long as I don't try to force it onto anybody else, and I am very uncomfortable with slaughter. I'm sorry if that is a buzz kill to anybody's else on the list gore fest, but my original post in reply to Tom was to no more than point out to him more ways than one to view cloning, and that I personally look forward to the possibility of " non-violent " meat for those who might want it. > -- but it seems very clear to me that humans evolved to > require meat . . . I thought that I already agreed with this point. > . . . and that ruminant meat is an optimum and important > meat for human health, so I don't buy any moral arguments against > meat-eating. You're confusing necessity and morality here. The two need never coincide. But in any case, nobody's asking you to buy any kind of arguments, moral or otherwise, those arguments are my own, with myself, and that morality is also my own. > I think we'd agree that PETA's efforts to turn > carnivorous animals herbivorous is also an abomination. PETA is a cult. I think is fairly obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.