Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 02:13:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1612 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Sorry about this first bit, but I want to get it squared away.
> Through the comment:
>
> > Lighten up Chris; I was being facetious.
>
> It sounds like you think I'm being less than congenial.
>
> Through the comments:
>
> > Oh, brother. I always marvel at the cleverness of that answer.
>
> > You've demonstrated that you don't care to
> > confront this in any consistent framework, so I guess I'll let you go.
>
> It seems to me that you're not being fully congenial. But in other bits you
> seem to be completely reasonable and willing to discuss interesting stuff.
> Maybe you're just frustrated with me, and edgyness is slipping through.
I admit that I was a little more sharp-tongued than the situation justified,
and if so I certainly apologize. I was reacting to "Bzzzt. Wrong answer" more
than anything else, which has always struck me as an attempt to belittle the
opposing participant in a debate.
> If that's it, that's fine, but I would appreciate knowing. But if you are
> going to become abusive (and I'm not suggesting that I think that) I'd rather
> just stop.
Well, that's not my intent, and thank you for calling me on it. I'll work to
keep a more level level of discourse henceforth!
> > But the rock is not changing anything in its internal makeup to respond to
> > the sun, other than simply getting warmer. The plant's body is reacting to a
> > specific stimulus and responding in a reflexive manner, in much the same way
> > that a animal subjected to pain will flinch or cry out.
>
> True, but the animal will _decide_ to avoid that stimulus in the future.
> Ant-burdened trees do not attempt to figure out new chemicals to secrete.
> They just lucked into that strategy and it worked for species replication.
One might likewise assert that the animal lucked into the ability to avoid a
stimulus, whereas a plant is generally rooted to the spot. Is volition the
criterion for what can and can't be eaten? That is, is a deer which can
recognize and flee from danger is ineligible for consumption, but a stalk of
corn is okay?
> > > > Given these facts, how can one distinguish between animals'
> > > > sentience and that of plants;
> > >
> > > Well, we can clearly state that plants don't _know_ anything about their
> > > surroundings. They don't feel pain. They don't have purpose or drive. They
> > > autonomically react to chemical etc. stimuli.
> > Crying out in pain is a similarly autonomic response in an animal, as is the
> > hormonal response to estrus.
>
> Yes, but those autonomic responses are all the plant has. Not so for the
> animals.
BF Skinner might, after a fashion, assert otherwise (as might PK Dick, to
take a far-out tack!) A difference of degree, then? What about a sessile
animal, unable to react in any outward way to stimulus?
> > If that's you're sentience-escape-clause,
>
> How did I imply that sentience is my north star for what to eat?
It seemed that you were using sentience as the yea-or-nay of what we can eat,
insofar as animals, being sentient, are off-limits, while plants--which you
contend to be insentient--are fair game. Perhaps this wasn't your central
argument, or perhaps I've misunderstood...?
> > I'd say it applies at least as well to animals as to plants.
>
> Given my statement that the animals have more than autonomic responses, I
> think that I can pretty safely disagree.
But not all animals; how about insects? If we could grind up a zillion
drosophila and harvest the protein, would we, by your paradigm, be morally able
to eat it? Somewhere else on this thread it was asserted that fruit flies
don't feel pain--if not, and since their responses (as many insects') are
autonomic, then is there any moral wrong commited in consuming them? That
might be worth considering--the ants in an acre of topsoil outweigh the soil,
so they'd provide a nearly limitless source of nutrition to those willing to
consume them.
> > In addition, if we breed animals with no brains or pain receptors, are we
> > then free to slay them for food, since they won't feel pain or know anything
> > about their environments?
>
> Yes. Absolutely.
Whoa! I didn't expect you to say that. I'll have to think about where to go
from there...
> > Using your criterion, I'd imagine you'd be comfortable
> > consuming a brain-dead human who felt no pain and knew nothing of his
> > environment.
>
> I am comfortable with that being done. I would choose not to participate, but
> not out of moral qualms.
The aesthetic of fried human doesn't appeal to me, either. Soylent Green!
> > I'm actually greatly intrigued by the notion of vat-grown food, as well as
> > its implications for organ production for transplantation.
>
> Me too. That's just super cool, and the technology required would lead to all
> kinds of innovation. My fear, however, is that we've already harnessed the
> best way to produce meat and there is little economic incentive to produce it
> in vats.
Yeah; I suppose an off-world colony would be a more likely consumer. I'd
love to think I could dropping by the outpatient clinic for an off-the-vat
kidney when mine wear out, though.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
149 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
