1) Just to summon up what's been said already, and to bring back some
discussion to a point where it split up into a discussion on vegetarianism,
and a rational vs emotional discussion.: (remember i 'adjusted' my views a
little, for the purpose of creating some thoughts...)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(someone)
>>I was also thinking about the idea of farming humans to eat.
>>In a goal-attainment
>>sense, farming humans for food is not "wrong". But why does it feel wrong?
(then someone wrote:)
>I wonder if this is how cannibal psychopaths feel? We use emotions to
>sympathize with other animals which is our sense of "others". Its probably
>closely linked to self-awareness. If you are absolute logic and zero
>emotion, cannibalism wouldn't be a problem which brings up the interesting
>question if emotion and consciousness are inseparable.
"Roderick A. Carder-Russell" wrote:
> But, do feelings and emotions not have a logical and reasonable
>basis? Are they not designed to direct us towards goals? Procreation?
>Self-preservation? Attainment of wealth? I maintain that emotions ARE
>designed logically, just designed generally on an unconscious level hence
>we are sometimes unable to see the reasoning behind them.
someone wrote:
>> This got me thinking about vegetarianism and what reasons, if any, there are
>> for not eating animals, other than for health reasons. Most specifically, I
>> was looking for any "ethical" reasons for not eating animals. Is it "wrong"
>> to eat animals?
anders sandberg wrote:
>It of course depends on your ethical system; animals do eat animals, and
>animal meat is part of our original diet. We can choose to be vegitarian
>or not, but there is no "natural" reason for it.
**Point one: I'd like to add to this by stating that canibalism is very
'natural' and common among animals ...so maybe we are not animals...
then anders wrote:
>2 Meat is inefficient to produce, and thus wastes too much valuable
>resources (this suggests that lower forms of life like insects and fish
>would be acceptable since they can be bred more efficiently). This view
>may or may not be relevant on Earth right now, but it would be very
>reasonable in an O'Neill colony or smiliar small biosphere.
**point two: an efficient approach for dealing with already available
resources would therefore suggest, we first eat all available animals, and
then start farming more resource efficient food. (wether on an overpopulated
earth or on a colony planet...)
>3 Eating meat reduces the complexity of the world somewhat, so "higher"
>animals should be avoided (are there plants more complex than animals?).
>This is really a sub-version of 1, where the meme is "complexity is good".
**so what is it ? 'complexity is good' or 'efficiency is good'. 'higher'
animals are our direct competitors in the food chain. The only reason we can
decide to keep them alive, is in a situation where humans don't need to eat
them. You've just stated they use a lot of resources...
>A modest proposal? :-) I think it is a bad idea on purely medical grounds
>- - if you eat the meat of humans you can get human diseases from it, while
>the meat of other species usually is safe.
**Which ofcourse is because we CHECK our animals we breed for consumption,
for those transmittable diseases, whereas we don't check humans...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then the following was said in a strange discussion about Ants:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: Ants
>>} vanquished an ant infestation,
>>What's your trick? I've beaten back a few with soapy water, the Finger
>>of Doom, and patience.
>Damien asked about how I get rid of ants. I spray Raid along the crevice
>where the wall meets the floor. It stinks. Ants still come in when it
>rains. I read, I forget where, that ants will not cross a line of flour. I
>haven't tested that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Now i don't know if some of you may be aware of the recent discovery that
Ants have a 'necropolis' and show signs of sentience... To further encourage
thought, i have replaced the word ANT, by the word HUMAN in a rewriting of
the previous discussion.
****************************************************************************
******
>Subject: Humans
>>} vanquished a Human infestation,
>>What's your trick? I've beaten back a few with soapy water, the Finger
>>of Doom, and patience.
>Damien asked about how I get rid of humans. I spray Raid along the crevice
>where the wall meets the floor. It stinks. humans still come in when it
>rains. I read, I forget where, that humans will not cross a line of flour. I
>haven't tested that.
****************************************************************************
*********
Now after you've stopped laughing, think for a few minutes and read on..
Here's where i'm heading:
1) Ants could be 'sentient' yet Anders (among many others) suggest we start
eating them (insects) as they make up 40% of all the animals on earth, are
very rich in proteine etc.
2) Now on the other hand 'farming' humans for consumption seems to result in
some ethical problems, as we ourselves are human. How will this change when
we become posthuman ? Are some of you suggesting we treat humans as a
different species ? And if so, should we not start expanding our ethical
view to 'other species' including the same values in dealing with other
species that show signs of sentience ? Something which may become important
in excactly how we will regard sentience in the future, as our visions of
that are still very anthropomorphous.
J. de Lyser
saviour of the Ants, machines, and aliens !
surreal@glo.be