IPoW #5 - There's room for all god's creatures...

[MistressMaggie]

PUSSY!

Yeah. Just had to say that. Anyway, of course, cannibalism, to avoid starvation - but I think only on an emergency basis. (ie. I would work very hard to find other food sources for the longer-term).

I just had an interesting discussion last week about the vat-grown-meat thing, and we're actually pretty damn close to being able to do this on a small scale. On an industrial scale, we're probably still 20-30 years away. But there are so many potential benefits, it's got to be worth considering:

1. every cut could be perfect - the best filet mignon you ever had.
2. it could be engineered to be low cholesterol, low fat, etc.
3. we probably would not have to grow grains to feed animals (though we would probably have to supply sugar as a raw feedstock input).
4. we could replace the meat production with current livestock-raising practices, and eliminate diseases like anthrax, foot-in-mouth, BSE, and also. . . .
5. eliminate the use of growth hormones (such that they would be present in milk - of course the meat would need to be treated with engineered growth hormone; but there would be no excess, because it's a vat, not an animal).
6. eliminate the massive production of methane gas (cow-farts) which, per unit of volume is some 200 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2 - and lingers in the atmosphere much longer.
7. silence the creepy vegans and their "animal cruelty" accusations. Is it cruel to slaughter an animal? Do they feel pain? does their pain matter? If their pain does not matter, does a human's pain matter? What about a slab of meat, grown in a sterile vat, with no nerve fibers, no differentiated brain tissue, does that feel pain? No? Then shut the fuck up and go eat some lentils.
8. Industrially, it could become very cheap to produce; initially, it will probably be very expensive as the industry ramps up - but as demand scales, and it becomes obvious that it's both cheaper to produce, and better quality than an actual animal, people will be building plants to do this like crazy.

And one more thing; most of us, in the "1st world" eat a quantity of food that is actually absurdly more than is required to sustain a healthy life. Of course, this is what our appetites are demanding. There aren't any good scientific theories on why this is so (why our brains ask for so much more food than our bodies need). There are a lot of good-sounding theories, in search of funding for good research. Part of it may be psychological. (because I CAN eat that much - so there). Part of it may be environmental (evil Monsanto addictive chemicals put in your food, to make you want more?) -

There are two things that may happen fairly soon that could change this: Peak Oil and Global Warming. Global Warming, if it's truly happening, may make a lot of currently farmable land, unfarmable. Peak Oil will drive the price of petroleum up to a level where the transport of food, and the production of artificial nitrogen fertilizer (about 98% of which we get from fossil fuels, to extract nitrogen from the atmosphere) - could make food so expensive, that a lot of people who are currently well-fed, will be very happy on the day the Soylent Green shipments arrive. If these things come to pass; very few people are going to be concerned about the ethics or the nutritional value of what they eat. Because if you've ever gone hungry, you know; when people are hungry, they'll eat just about anything.

...why does this sound more like you want to rid the world of cows than come up with an alternative to slaughtering them?

[Indigo Violent]

I tend to think that the less an animal is like us, the less we're justified in ascribing our traits to it, and this includes pain. I'll say that vertebrates probably feel pain fairly similarly to the way we do, but there are probably some differences when we're talking about things very different from us like fish and frogs; and I definitely don't think fish and frogs feel emotions like ours. I think things like happiness, sadness, loneliness, fulfillment, etc, are definitely warm-blooded and probably exclusively mammalian traits, and again, the less any given mammal is like us, the less those feelings resemble ours.
So I don't have qualms about killing chickens or cows, because I don't think barnyard animals sit around thinking about how much they love being alive and how much they don't want to die. The very concept of death, and even the concept of self, is something that I don't believe they grasp, so in that respect I don't see that killing them and eating them is a moral problem because we're not taking anything away from them.
I don't think we should kill and eat apes, though. Not very long ago, we (humans, chimps, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, etc) were all the same species. So that thought is a little squicky to me.

...why does this sound more like you want to rid the world of cows than come up with an alternative to slaughtering them?

Well...would ridding the world of cows, or at least substantially lowering their population, be a terrible thing?

[Lulujayne]

Well...would ridding the world of cows, or at least substantially lowering their population, be a terrible thing?

As a born again Hindu, not only do I find that statement insensitive, but I also find it grossly offensive.

PISTOLS AT DAWN!

[Honor]

And one more thing; most of us, in the "1st world" eat a quantity of food that is actually absurdly more than is required to sustain a healthy life.

From the charts I linked above: (So the numbers are essentially ten years old, but still...)

US Average: 3620 kcal/day
"Industrial nations" avg: 3340 kcal/day
World average: 2710 kcal/day
Sub-Saharan Africa avg: 2150 kcal/day
Somalia avg: 1580 kcal/day

Of course, this is what our appetites are demanding. There aren't any good scientific theories on why this is so (why our brains ask for so much more food than our bodies need). There are a lot of good-sounding theories, in search of funding for good research. Part of it may be psychological. (because I CAN eat that much - so there). Part of it may be environmental (evil Monsanto addictive chemicals put in your food, to make you want more?)

I'm going with evolutionary psychology* on this one.

We over-eat because we're evolutionarily programmed to eat as much as we can, and particularly certain high-yield foods, like sugars and fats.

While our minds understand that there are supermarkets and fast-food joints all over the city, and a fully stocked 'fridge in the kitchen, our brains think we're still on the Serengeti desperately wondering where we'll find our next meal... So, it sends us messages like "Bitch, when food - particularly sugars and fats - is plentiful, you eat it!!!"

Of course, the only way our brain has of sending us such messages is by means of chemical indicators that cause happiness, fear, anxiety, a sense of well being, or the likes...

When you're actually hungry and you even -think- about going to the fridge or ordering a pizza, your brain gives you a tiny drug reward, and you start to feel happy... Actually move to acquire the food, and you get more... You start to feel anticipation and well being... And - again, if you're really hungry - when you put the first few bites in your mouth, the feeling is near orgasmic... (not an accidental choice of illustration... the same brain uses the same drugs to entice you to and reward you for mating behaviour).

The problem comes when we're feeling a little down, or merely bored, later on and our mind remembers the drugs our brain gave us before... And how good it felt. The subconscious mind says "I want that feeling!" and the conscious mind says "I want pizza!". Sadly, you don't get the drug reward nearly as strong... But, as a consolation prize, you do get the calories.



* At least this is what I understand it's being called in academia... I recently purchased a book on this subject because it focuses on a general theory I've been thinking, talking, and writing about for years & years, as an alternative/rebuttal to the Standard Social Sciences Model... See my posts in "what is love" thread for a small example, but the basic gist is "we're evolved animals like all the rest... So it's reasonable to assume that love, hunger, loss, anger, greed, sexuality, etc. are all based in part at least on evolved behavioral instincts we don't typically recognize at face value in our conscious minds.

When I started dating a university psych major about 15 years ago, I was shocked to discover that the vast majority of the field thought this was ridiculous, and that all human behavior was environmentally based... Essentially, that we were different from all the other animals in this regard. I helped her write a thesis on "nature vs nurture" partially because of my theories.

It gives me a warm feeling inside when people base PhD's on ideas I started forming independently perhaps 25 years ago. XD

[Honor]

Edited to add a question to Honor.

i can understand that you wouldn't want to eat your dog, or your cat, or your horse, nor would i, but would you eat dogs, cats, or horses to which you had not formed a bond? Would even these be considered part of the team?

While it's not entirely 'rational', I feel that sense of "clan" and benevolence and community with most all domesticated dogs, cats, horses, etc... Much like a feel a sense of "clan" and benevolence toward most all true submissives.

Tens of thousands of years ago, social contracts were signed, and now all domesticated dogs are part of my "extended pack"... I could not comfortably eat them... It would be a betrayal.

Cats I feel somewhat less of this sense of community fealty with, but still very close. Horses fall somewhere between cats and dogs...

All of the above, as well as higher primates & cetaceans, I feel they are the right combination of smart, beautiful, and/or socialized with humans that... I couldn't comfortably kill and eat them either.

I might kill "strangers" of any of the above species for food in a dire emergency... But it would be a very uncomfortable thing for me.


Humans... Well, some of the above... Some empathy... But also, I've been lead to believe the taste nasty, and the thought makes me feel queasy... Not the killing, but certainly the eating. I'd kill a "bad" person for my dogs or cats to eat... But I'd have to be awfully hungry to partake myself.

[Churba]

I disagree! *Runs like hell*

[Honor]

I disagree! *Runs like hell*

Wait... So, you're saying I would kill and eat them?

[Churba]

Wait... So, you're saying I would kill and eat them?

I'm not into arguing with you, and frankly, I won't since I just appeared to make a joke about arguing with honor. All I can offer is my opinion, no facts, but let's just say if someone was between me and starving to death, then they won't be standing between for an age.

Other than that, I eat what I need to, leave the rest alone. If I shoot a kangaroo, I eat that 'roo. I don't cull the heard. Why would a shoot a Kangaroo instead of a human? Ease, mostly. Nobody brings the police along if you shoot a Kangaroo, nor often wonders where its gone once it stops coming back to the Mob. But if, say, in a circumstance where the consequences were reversed, well *Shrugs* Humans are made of meat, too.

Though - I'd sure as hell stay away from certain parts, for example, I won't eat brains of anything, or even anything above the shoulders. Prions scare the shit out of me, you know?

[Prettydragoon]

"A vegan diet is healthier than the average American diet."

But Sol is a much cooler star than Vega, so they need various supplements in their diet when they are living here.

[Honor]

::smiles:: Just trying to play along.

General agreement, though... I'm not going to shy from ending someone else's story to prevent my own from ending.

I keep the skills sharp enough that I can hunt, fight, track, survive, etc. if need be... Some kind of weird "shit might just all fall apart" apprehension left over from the cold war, I think.

I enjoy playing the higher quality hunting video games, and I enjoy target shooting... But I won't shoot animals for any purpose other than defense, mercy, or for food.

[Fnyunj]

While it's not entirely 'rational', I feel that sense of "clan" and benevolence and community with most all .....

You're not going to repeat the hardcore vegan argument. . . "Survival of the cutest?"

... I could not comfortably eat them... It would be a betrayal.

I used to raise chickens (really, only one brood), and I used to cuddle and pet them (filthy, disgusting animals, really), and when I eat them, sometimes I consider them as when they were alive. And yeah, it's not always "comfortable" - why should I feel comfortable? Another living thing died so that I could eat.

And what's the difference between a Chicken and a Potato? Isn't a Potato a living thing? Why does the biological difference between these two things matter?

I don't really need to feel comfortable. I can live with that. I try to remind myself of that when I'm eating. Burgers. Bacon. (Pigs are actually very intelligent animals, probably closer to humans in many ways than any other animal we eat).

Maybe it is left over from the cold war (or maybe it's what I'm afraid Bush is going to do to our civilization) - but someday, I may need to eat a dog to survive. Or a human being. And no, I won't be comfortable doing it. But I won't starve. (or maybe I will, just later). (and I totally get what you're saying about the social contract with dogs, as submissives and all - but if there's no civilization, there's no social contract, and it's them or me - when dogs get hungry enough, they will not hesitate either). Maybe I feel like I want to be mentally prepared, in case that eventuality ever comes.

Humans? Like Churba, I'd avoid the CNS tissues; but then again, you're hungry enough, you'll eat anything. And brain is probably some of the best tissue for survival's sake, because it's got a high fat content. Not sure I could do that. Hope I never have to find out. When I'm well fed, I'm normally a very picky eater. I'm just realistic about the fact that I'm an animal, and what lengths I'd likely go to to survive.

[Nithos]

I'm ok with expanding the menu in dire circumstances, but I suspect their are reasons most people are fond of what they're fond of beyond just being socialized that way. The sort of animals that popularly grace our platters are usually the tastiest ones, the herbivores over the scavengers over the predators. The ones who are most like us to the point of even extending a clan status to are the ones that act and eat much like us, the social omnivores and carnivores again. We like certain types of animals, those like us, as friends, and we like certain other types, those like lunch, on the plate. Not that we don't get use out of those friendships in ways beyond companionship like today; a dog's more useful as a guard, shepherd, hunter, and sometimes ratter than an entree, and a few cats, ferrets, or other animals that feed on vermin keep the competition down.

I almost have more problem with eating companion animals than I do people, since I could throw in the caveat with a person that eating an unwilling person would be unacceptable, while cats and dogs can't give explicit consent to being eaten. In either case, a starving person has their own life to consider, and I don't care much about what they do to save it. Then again, I like goats as animals, they're smart and stubborn and remind me of some of my favorite people in that manner, but I wouldn't mind giving one a nibble, either. I don't really have a coherent opinion in other words, and have little reason to be posting besides the fact I can and haven't in awhile.

And vat grown meat doesn't bother me except for one minor concern, which is just a general distrust of unwatched businesses when it comes to new things and my food. Considering what a mess mega-farming can be, and how cruel and damaging those giant farms have been, and what slaughtering facilities are and were like, I can't help but suspect that if the wrong people appoint a fox to watch the henhouse of regulation, the worst of frankenfood will be the standard rather than the benign boon it could be. "Grown in China" is not something I'd like to see on a steak... it would probably have a nice layer of shiny lead based paint.

And one more thing; most of us, in the "1st world" eat a quantity of food that is actually absurdly more than is required to sustain a healthy life. Of course, this is what our appetites are demanding. There aren't any good scientific theories on why this is so (why our brains ask for so much more food than our bodies need)

I think there are a lot of good enough reasons to bet a few bucks on them. I might even go as high as a testicle. Preferably the left one, I jerk off with that hand, so I want to leave the other for my right to fondle. But forgive the digression, I was briefly possessed by a passing poltrigeist that vaguely resembled George Carlin.

I know Honor already responded, and it was essentially what I'd like to say, but I'd like to say it for the sake of saying it myself. Our brains motivate us to eat the richest things we can find because thats how our ancestors remained motivated enough to stay alive. If they hadn't, well, they wouldn't be our ancestors, they'd be skinny corpses. Our brains prioritize food, from the richest on down because if we didn't, we'd die like stupid fucks. At least, if we lived the lives our bodies and brains adapted for. We eat too much of those things because it wasn't harmful to overindulge in sweets and meats when we could, because we couldn't often enough to kill ourselves, so no regulatory system ever developed. On top of that, a number of our ancestors only lived long enough to fuck our great-to-the-nth-degree granddaddies and grandmommies because they lived through a harsh period by gorging before it on the rich treats they found shortly before it all went away. Good reason to do so, no good reason not to in a normal circumstance. However, our lives are highly abnormal. Now the scarcity issue is nearly invisible when we choose our diets, and it takes an act of will or a life of being socialized to value a healthy diet over our natural impulses to gorge to not suffer the consequences. On top of all of that, we have influences beyond that encouraging us to eat. Advertising works, for one. I've heard it proposed, though I don't know that it's proven, that high fructose corn syrup (the primary sweetener in all things mass produced anymore) in large quantities (and is there any other quantity in the American diet?) screws with your ability to feel full during a meal, thus promoting the consumption of more stuff that also doesn't make you feel full.

Forgive a very brief comment on religion, but while I'm very cynical about the value of religion today, I'm not one who thinks it exists and has only ever existed to make a power structure to prop up the assholes in society. They're more of an opportunistic infection. So it seems reasonable one of the reasons religion has from time to time served a useful adaptive function on a societal level, thus getting passed on as a concept good for your health, is that people telling you what to do sometimes tell you to do a good, but counterintuitive thing. If Mr. Religious Leader over there convinces you to not consume something because God said not to, and that something is likely to spread disease among the non believers, the next generation is probably going to be a little more heavily religious, if only through attrition. And then you kill their kids. I really need a <just being a smartass> and </just being a smartass> tag. Same with not raising water intensive animals in the desert. That's no justification for using that blunt tool of social benefit when the fine scalpel of not-being-a-fucking-idiot (aka science) is at your disposal, but it's still better for beating in a nail than your forehead is (yes, I know, if a mixed metaphor doesn't sing, it should be derailed).

Ahh... needless ranting. Forgive me, but it's fun. And matters of anthropology give me a brain-boner. It really is the best tool we've yet developed to figure out how not to be a fuckwit. Or at least my favorite.

[Boring 7]

In opposite order:

Human tastes like pork, cannibals, flesh-eating robots, and our dietary habits all agree. I do not have a link for that last one, but I think everyone knows pigs eat about the same (if less cooked and sanitized) crap we humans do.

So remember, we're all just bacon. *smacks lips meaningfully*

Vegans: Actually, I have met about 50 people who were so irrationally hateful towards vegans compared to zero (yes, ZERO) irrational or hateful vegans/vegetarians. The vegetarian diet really *is* healthier than even a "healthy" protien diet as long as you eat more than just lettuce (you actually have to pay attention to your vitamins and minerals ya know) and vegan bodybuilders are quite numerous.

Ultimately, like any marginalized group that other people try to "convert to normalcy" and who are defined (rather unfortunately) by their "strange habit", the most noticable and vocal ones are assholes because they have gotten involved in a lot of fights with people who wanted them to change.

Doesn't mean they are necessarily evil, ya know. . .

[Indigo Violent]

I don't want vegans to change...I just want them to leave me alone. It's nice that you've met only the polite and friendly kind, but about half the vegans I've run into like to make a big thing out of it, scrambling for the moral high ground over my scrambled eggs.

[Ce6]

While the idea of vat-grown meat sounds like a good solution, one of the problems I've heard about it is the taste. I cannot recall the source, but I saw something on it a year or so back (either a TV show or web page somewhere). Muscle cells are fairly easy to grow, but for best flavor and texture you need a good mix of fat and connective tissue interspersed among the protein. So now you need a properly proportioned variety of meat-making cells in the petrie dish, and you have to exercise them somehow if you really want an artificial fillet mignon.
"Meat roll-ups" just don't sound quite so appetizing as a real steak.

My favorite quote on the whole vegan idea: "If god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat."

As for the "social contract" critters out there, while they're not very high up on my "things to eat" list, I wouldn't rule them out. But part of that might be my general weak participation in social contracts. Humans would be more of a Donner Party situation for me to give it serious consideration. But just remember: if it comes down to me and someone else on a desert island, and they die first, it's going to take me a couple extra days before I starve to death.

Also, I'm a little disappointed nobody noticed my literary allusion earlier. Perhaps I was a bit too Swift in my commenting.