Welcome to Gaia! ::

We're getting pretty god damn advanced in science, and we've got all these cool things to show for it. The fact that, something like 5000% more people can eat actual meat daily than a couple centuries ago is somewhat proof of that.

And now, just like the cloning debate, comes all sorts of really hard analytical questions that we probably never thought we would be arguing about. This time, instead of cloning, it's our meat.

Now...meat is...pretty god damn wasteful. I mean, even after you get over the moral ramifications that every piece of meat you ate had to be killed, there's all sorts of geopolitical and environmental concerns caused by the production of meat. Animals, depending on the meat you are buying, have to be raised, and in this time they use up a ridiculous amount of resources. Each pig eats something like 800 pounds of food in it's lifetime. It has to be quality food too, like you can't just feed pigs anything you want anymore because they're going to be too filled with toxins to eat. In the end you get an animal that's like, 300 pounds.

So basically, every pig you feed from birth to slaughter is decreasing the food supply by more than half. It's probably more efficient than this, seeing as how manure is used to plant the next crop, but altogether you can probably see how this process is way less efficient than just feeding people the food used to raise the pig.

In vitro meat is meat raised in a test tube. It's just flesh that is chemically identical to different types of meat without the animal attached. It probably has the eventual consequence that we won't need to slaughter animals as soon as we make sure it's safe for consumption and we get over the fact it's not real animal.

Yes, we'll eventually be able to grow edible flesh from any animal without the moral ramifications of slaughter, or the environmental ramifications of raising them.

Of course, this means we can also make human flesh. There would be no moral ramification of destruction of human life, and there would also not be any medical concern because human flesh will be able to be grown clean of any toxins or disease that could harm other humans. So is it morally responsible to allow people to consume in-vitro human flesh?
Soselo's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

Only if they consented to it in life.
Jacque De Molay
Only if they consented to it in life.
Topics are typically more than just their title.
Soselo's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

LuxuriousVacation
Jacque De Molay
Only if they consented to it in life.
Topics are typically more than just their title.
I agree with you and it was my mistake for hastily answering the titucular question. However, it is also your mistake for not specifying whether or not that question was rhetorical.

If that wasn't a mistake, I am safe to believe that you were trying to bait and manipulate susceptible people like me you psychopath!
That suggests that some form of absolute moral consensus exists. Such a thing is not the case.
craigs's avatar

Informer


That's disgusting, no.
Fermionic
That suggests that some form of absolute moral consensus exists. Such a thing is not the case.
Moral questions are not supposed to be easy to answer.
Soselo's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

Fermionic
That suggests that some form of absolute moral consensus exists. Such a thing is not the case.
There does exist a majority moral consensus.
No, eating human flesh is not acceptable. It is acceptable for dead humans to enter the life cycle of decay, to become worm food, and then that decayed byproduct to contribute to fertilizer and soil, which may then be used for plants, which may bear fruit and flowers that directly or indirectly feed humans, such as fruit itself, or nectar converted to Honey, or Venison from the Deer that eat the leaves of these plants, but human beings should not skip the life cycle and eat themselves, it is bad for the environment and robs other living things from participating in the life cycle itself. Human ashes from cremation can be used in the same way as worm food.
LuxuriousVacation
Fermionic
That suggests that some form of absolute moral consensus exists. Such a thing is not the case.
Moral questions are not supposed to be easy to answer.


That seems a generally vapid thing to say. Through whose intent are they designed to be challenging?
Michael Noire
No, eating human flesh is not acceptable. It is acceptable for dead humans to enter the life cycle of decay, to become worm food, and then that decayed byproduct to contribute to fertilizer and soil, which may then be used for plants, which may bear fruit and flowers that directly or indirectly feed humans, such as fruit itself, or nectar converted to Honey, or Venison from the Deer that eat the leaves of these plants, but human beings should not skip the life cycle and eat themselves, it is bad for the environment and robs other living things from participating in the life cycle itself. Human ashes from cremation can be used in the same way as worm food.
I'm a strong advocate of decriminalization for humans re-entering the energy cycle early in special cases, so I disagree with your position.

Perhaps people could apply for some sort of human meal license?
Fermionic
LuxuriousVacation
Fermionic
That suggests that some form of absolute moral consensus exists. Such a thing is not the case.
Moral questions are not supposed to be easy to answer.


That seems a generally vapid thing to say. Through whose intent are they designed to be challenging?
It's no less vapid than your original post, to be quite honest.

Moral questions aren't supposed to be easy to answer because you're correct, there is no absolute moral consensus. Of course this is the extended discussion, and we're not supposed to be discussing such general topic as that.
Jacque De Molay
Fermionic
That suggests that some form of absolute moral consensus exists. Such a thing is not the case.
There does exist a majority moral consensus.


This is a statement of dubious truth, and counts for very little in this particular example.
LuxuriousVacation
Fermionic
LuxuriousVacation
Fermionic
That suggests that some form of absolute moral consensus exists. Such a thing is not the case.
Moral questions are not supposed to be easy to answer.


That seems a generally vapid thing to say. Through whose intent are they designed to be challenging?
It's no less vapid than your original post, to be quite honest.

Moral questions aren't supposed to be easy to answer because you're correct, there is no absolute moral consensus. Of course this is the extended discussion, and we're not supposed to be discussing such general topic as that.


My first post was not vapid. Your question was whether or not it would be morally acceptable to consume human flesh. The notion you posit is meaningless, as moral acceptability isn't an invariant thing. You responded with a statement saying that moral questions aren't easy to answer, implying but not explaining how I was wrong. You didn't even define what a "moral question" is. A question concerning morality? A question in accordance with that which is morally acceptable? A question busying itself with the perception of morality in our society? There's very little you provided by "moral questions aren't supposed to be easy to answer". That, and your questionable use of "supposed", as if they are designed in such a manner by some manipulating force.
Fermionic
LuxuriousVacation
Fermionic
LuxuriousVacation
Fermionic
That suggests that some form of absolute moral consensus exists. Such a thing is not the case.
Moral questions are not supposed to be easy to answer.


That seems a generally vapid thing to say. Through whose intent are they designed to be challenging?
It's no less vapid than your original post, to be quite honest.

Moral questions aren't supposed to be easy to answer because you're correct, there is no absolute moral consensus. Of course this is the extended discussion, and we're not supposed to be discussing such general topic as that.


My first post was not vapid. Your question was whether or not it would be morally acceptable to consume human flesh. The notion you posit is meaningless, as moral acceptability isn't an invariant thing. You responded with a statement saying that moral questions aren't easy to answer, implying but not explaining how I was wrong. You didn't even define what a "moral question" is. A question concerning morality? A question in accordance with that which is morally acceptable? A question busying itself with the perception of morality in our society? There's very little you provided by "moral questions aren't supposed to be easy to answer". That, and your questionable use of "supposed", as if they are designed in such a manner by some manipulating force.
It's impossible to form a question, no matter how specifically you state it, that all people will answer in the same way.

Yeah, sure, the way I worded the question can be interpreted in different ways. Get over it, that's how most questions are. By clicking on the topic and being finicky and refusing to answer the question because you don't want to fill in the blanks yourself and contribute, you are being, by definition, vapid.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games