Re: Bring me your... cloned???

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

----- 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.

[Guest guest]

----- 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?

[Guest guest]

----- 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.

[Guest guest]

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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>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).

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>

> 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.

[Guest guest]

--- 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?

[Guest guest]

----- 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.

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> 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????

[Guest guest]

--- 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.

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

--- 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?

[Guest guest]

-

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?

-

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> > 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

[Guest guest]

--- 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.