Date sent: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:26:42 -0700 From: Damien Broderick <damien@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> Subject: Re: FAQ: SOCIETY AND POLITICS To: extropians@extropy.com Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> At 05:15 PM 7/25/98 +0000, Nick wrote:
>
> > husbandry. If we could design cattle without brains or with just the
> > brain stem, we would have a way of producing meat without maltreating
> > animals (the brainless bodies wouldn't count as animals). The human
> > yuck-feeling (probably temporary) would have to be weighed against
> > the permanent reduction in animal suffering.
>
> This component of the FAQ needs *excruciating* sensitivity. Almost
> everyone has a gag reflex at this suggestion. I wonder (dunno if it makes
> bio-botanical sense) if the suggestion might be better expressed as: if we
> could design plants and vegetables that include certain animal genes, we
> might be able to `grow steaks' in the same way we now grow tomatos or
> lettuces. [If that *doesn't* make sense for energetic reasons, we need to
> rephrase the brainless cows scenario more delicately.]
>
> > intergalactic space. Whoever was in charge of this project could
> > probably have done with a little bit more accountability!
>
> Careful! Whimsical homour is not read as such by believers - and there are
> always nitwits who would quote such a line as proof that >H believe in
> deity but pit themselves against Him/Her/It!
>
> > persons created per year. This does not mean that population could
> > not grow; only that the growth would have to be polynomial rather
> > than exponential.
>
> Many readers are non-mathematical. You need to explain this a bit, even if
> only by providding examples of the two progressions.
>
> Damien Broderick