Horrific and Cruel or Science and Necessary Evolution?
- Thread starter TrixiBuG
- Start date
In the same way it was decided it was unethical to reduce the 'suffering of mentally I'll patients by lobotomising them in the 50's
You can't bypass ethical responsibilities by cutting out a brain and then declaring "look, no feelings !"
Breeding to reach the same results is equally unethical, if less dramatic.
The easiet comparison would be over breeding cattle to carry more meat than their legs can support, so they keep them in stalls to reduce breakage.
Well the differences so far have been pretty inconsequential, does it really matter if I believe a slightly different version of history ? The earth is still round, evolution is pretty self evident. Maybe you should reconsider that one group of people should be dismissed so easily just because it's such a popular pastime of others
This may be true for people without the ability to reason, but those with half a braincell of more might take the time to assess the situation and realise that what they put in their mouth is just a collection of atoms arranged based on a DNA sequence. How this collection is created is not of any consequence in reality.
Well I'm not religious in the slightest, and I still find it a disturbing abuse of technology and science. I'd rather go vegetarian. As for consequences, who knows? The consumption of "Synthetic" life forms could end up having detrimental effects to health. Plenty of other purely synthetic/chemical foods are already doing just that.
Meh, I understand it's just a "bit of meat" but the thought of a genetically modified chicken with no brain and 27 legs to satisfy human demands just makes me want to puke.
Last edited:
He's doing a fantastic job of embarrassing a bible basher.
In the same way it was decided it was unethical to reduce the 'suffering of mentally I'll patients by lobotomising them in the 50's
You can't bypass ethical responsibilities by cutting out a brain and then declaring "look, no feelings !"
Breeding to reach the same results is equally unethical, if less dramatic.
The easiet comparison would be over breeding cattle to carry more meat than their legs can support, so they keep them in stalls to reduce breakage.
Well the differences so far have been pretty inconsequential, does it really matter if I believe a slightly different version of history ? The earth is still round, evolution is pretty self evident. Maybe you should reconsider that one group of people should be dismissed so easily just because it's such a popular pastime of others
That's not really a good comparison at all, because in one sense you've bred a cow to weigh more than it can handle, causing it to suffer!! Where as the proposition here is to breed a chicken that cannot sense anything to cause it suffering??
I don't want to get into an argument on severely handicapped people as they are not produced for purpose, and you wouldn't appreciate my views.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,860
- Location
- Auckland
BTW I think I should add: If they want to make women with 3 boobies then that's fine!
TOTAL RECALL WAS A DOCUMENTARY AHEAD OF ITS TIME !!!
I think another important point is that in the future, people wouldn't know any different and would just know this as "protein", whereas some members of the older generations will have empathised with animals and will have seen the whole thing as un-natural. So yeah, what I think now really doesn't matter to someone born in 50 years time.
Essentially though it's not synthetic, as its being produced by lets say 75% of an organism you could call a chicken. I don't know the science of it causing detrimental effect, and I understand this is a concern, my arguement was saying its more ethical than caging chickens or even organically breeding them.
If we could mass produce food that tasted good, had great texture, and was good for you via a machine, a organic bag or organism that could not suffer then I see this as a huge step forward.
We might even be able to appreciate animals more and let them grow in numbers (like fish) rather than raping their natural habits in the never ending effort to murder them.
Last edited:
The only embarrassed person here is surely yourself ? Leaping onto passing bandwagons because it's cool I guess.
None of the actual points I've made have a bearing on religion, any differences in mere opinion I've openly conceded as an inconsequential difference to the points made by either person.
I've never bashed a Bible in my life, maybe you are confusing me with one of those evangelical types... unlike you I'm not overly interested in other people's personal beliefs, but if you feel if completely clouds my posts that's up to you. Personally I'd like to think people would bother to read a post before deciding what it said
I don't dismiss what you say just because you are a boy.Magnolia.
Not really wanting to make this part of the debate because you can see others silly reactions to the R word, but Genesis 1:26 is where I'm coming from
The only embarrassed person here is surely yourself ? Leaping onto passing bandwagons because it's cool I guess.
None of the actual points I've made have a bearing on religion, any differences in mere opinion I've openly conceded as an inconsequential difference to the points made by either person.
I've never bashed a Bible in my life, maybe you are confusing me with one of those evangelical types... unlike you I'm not overly interested in other people's personal beliefs, but if you feel if completely clouds my posts that's up to you. Personally I'd like to think people would bother to read a post before deciding what it said
I've read what you said, and I agree with what ChroniC said in response to you.
Quite simple really, why would I repeat what he has already said.
Out of curiosity, if a human was created to taste like chicken, but with no feelings/sense of pain would it still be morally ok to you?
I'm unsure as to why the bible bashing comments have arisen, but in my opinion your responses have been very intelligently argued and overwhelmingly reasonable. Try to ignore those stereotyping you unnecessarily.The only embarrassed person here is surely yourself ? Leaping onto passing bandwagons because it's cool I guess.
None of the actual points I've made have a bearing on religion, any differences in mere opinion I've openly conceded as an inconsequential difference to the points made by either person.
I've never bashed a Bible in my life, maybe you are confusing me with one of those evangelical types... unlike you I'm not overly interested in other people's personal beliefs, but if you feel if completely clouds my posts that's up to you. Personally I'd like to think people would bother to read a post before deciding what it said
Magnolia.
Not really wanting to make this part of the debate because you can see others silly reactions to the R word, but Genesis 1:26 is where I'm coming from
Last edited:
What? You said merely minutes ago you believed we were put on earth to look after animals, that sounds a lot like your beliefs are clouding your judgement on what constitutes the production of protein, via either a thinking animal or a bag of cells with no thoughts!The only embarrassed person here is surely yourself ? Leaping onto passing bandwagons because it's cool I guess.
None of the actual points I've made have a bearing on religion, any differences in mere opinion I've openly conceded as an inconsequential difference to the points made by either person.
I've never bashed a Bible in my life, maybe you are confusing me with one of those evangelical types... unlike you I'm not overly interested in other people's personal beliefs, but if you feel if completely clouds my posts that's up to you. Personally I'd like to think people would bother to read a post before deciding what it said
Magnolia.
Not really wanting to make this part of the debate because you can see others silly reactions to the R word, but Genesis 1:26 is where I'm coming from
So a big bag of cells in the shape of a human that tastes of chicken that never know's it exists, senses or thinks a single though, has no connection to a person or individual, is not born but grown. Yep I would not have a problem with that. (It's weird obviously because I have a inherent sense of compassion for things that look like a human and I see not point in trying to force that connection with my food) but if you logically break it down to just the same proposed with these chickens.
Last edited:
So... a religious position? Well good for you, each to their own, but you must appreciate why most people will not agree with it, nor could anyone who has put any real thought into the matter consider your position to be a realistic and sustainable one for the modern world now and in the future. Sadly the whole world can't be like Little House on the Prairie
.That's just nonsense. The entire point of engineering something that yields meat for human consumption, but that isn't an animal that can feel pain/fear/discomfort is ethical meat production. You've got your logic all twisted.
Yet it's you who is happy to breed, sorry husband, an animal soley for the purposes of consumption, then slaughter it and eat it, and you who is levelling accusations of disrespect towards animals to those advocating engineering and consumption of 'meat sacks' that can suffer no more than a potato? Again, you've got your logic backwards.
The most convincing you've been is when you compared it to engineering a fearless human to be a soldier, which few would consider ethical. Almost thought provoking, but it's hardly a valid comparison. A more accurate comparison would be engineering of essentially nothing more than a sack of human bones and meat. These would not make good soldiers.
I wouldn't mind that.
Just think of it as a large piece of meat grown for consumption, the form it takes is inconsequential.
It wasn't a comparison, just an indication of where breeding can be unethical if it's aims are overtly selfish.
This is taking an animal and breeding it to produce a resource, but in doing that removing all traces of what can be called an animal. That final step is unnecessary to the aim of meat production, and entirely selfish in that we can't be bothered to treat it as a living creature so we remove the obstacles to treating it like a vegatable.
I think others have compared this to caged conditions and presenting that as an alternative, when really it's not. Caged production is equally unethical because it perpetuates suffering. All animals die and even for humans that death is sometimes unpleasant, but there is little justification for making animals lives unnecessarily unnatural or uncomfortable.
We farm animals for their food, we therefore have a responsibility to make that life as bearable as possible given that we can't replicate a free ranging resource exactly. It's not exactly a lot to provide in that we consume far more meat than we need anyway.
You're still missing the point.
It's going to essentially be a potato made of meat. Where is the issue here?
Morals don't really come into it. In fact it could provide a better quality of life for actual remaining chickens so they can be used for eggs and so forth.