Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:12:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1865 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > Sorry about this first bit, but I want to get it squared away.
> (>)...
> keep a more level level of discourse henceforth!
Cool, thanks.
> > 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?
My primary criterion is pain. There is a bunch of more aesthetic than logical
stuff coloring what I think is OK to eat, but pain is the big thing. And do
you mean that the animal lucked into mobility or thought? Either way, I
suppose you're right, but see my bit about free will (If I wrote it
understandably) for my thoughts on whether it makes any sense to assume that
intelligence is stochastic. (I think we must.)
> > > > 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!)
Again, I don't think it makes sense to assume that, even if it makes good SF.
> A difference of degree, then? What about a sessile
> animal, unable to react in any outward way to stimulus?
If an animal so closely resembles a plant that under reasonable scrutiny by a
second year biology major, then it is OK to eat. (Wait, don't take that as a
challenge ;-)
> > > 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...?
Not central. It seemed(s) to be Larry's and I was addressing that, largely so
that we would mean the same thing. OTOH, the vernacular sense of sentient is a
sufficient condition for me not to eat something -- and that would include
plants if there were any.
> > > 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?
Yes. Assuming that I was correct in the assertion that they feel no pain. (I
would want to research that a bit more.) But I'd tend to stay away from
fruit-fly paste out of aesthetic reasons until I was hungry enough to begin
letting morals go anyway. <blech!>
> > > 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...
I wonder why you didn't you expect that? It is pretty clearly the natural
conclusion from my stance. I think, anyway.
> > > 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.
Absolutely. And I'd gladly come in for tissue culture to start them off
growing my replacement bits. Actually, I'd clone my body whole, and remove the
brain "in utero" keeping it alive via machines, in order to have the parts as
replacements.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
