Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The pig that wants to be eaten

Re:This Thread
Intresting thread, although technology could make this dilemma soon possibly obselete...
New Scientist, last year I seem to recall, did a piece on growing celluar substrates in a device called a Bioreactor.
Basically, you "skip the middleman", so to speak & grow the meat directly, from cell cultures...
This of course raises the question of "Is Autocannibalism morally viable..?" as you could just as easily grow Human Flesh, for example, from cell cultures just as easily as Pig, Beef, Chicken etc...
 
paolo999 said:
And that one has some philosophical challenges in it - cheeky for a children's book! Or maybe very appropriate :)

Not really, since the whole of the narnia chronicles are basically a recruiting pamphlet for christianity aimed at impressionable children.

Philip Pullman said:
It is monumentally disparaging of girls and women. It is blatantly racist. One girl was sent to hell because she was getting interested in clothes and boys.
 
Seeing as I prefer to buy organic meat, I somehow don't think I'd be in that situation.. and I certainly don't want anything thats genetically modified!

A chicken that is essentially a vegetable??? Bleugh.
 
I reckon the ethical way to eat meat is hunting - not using science to create freak animals that want to be eaten.
 
yeah but for the majority of us dont get to hunt regularly .So only rich people get to eat meat if hunting is the only way to get it .
 
I'd say the pig shouldn't be eaten because it has been brainwashed/designed into this fake state of mind. Instead, it should be deprogrammed. I'd have no problem with eating the chicken, if I was a vegetarian.

cyberfairy said:
the most unlikely dilemma in the world...but i'm sure you feel so much better for even thinking it possible...enjoy your sausages...

It's not actually an unlikely dillema - at least the chicken part. This could well happen soon. Anyway this is the philosophy forum! Go back to suburban and talk about curtains if that's what interests you.. :p


What's sudoku?

butterfly child said:
A chicken that is essentially a vegetable??? Bleugh

So you'd prefer to eat something that suffered for your satisfaction?

I reckon the ethical way to eat meat is hunting - not using science to create freak animals that want to be eaten.

I don't see why that's ethical - because it's "natural"? Sounds like conservatism to me. If you can find food without hunting, it's better. (Not that I care - I eat meat anyway.) THe only ethical thing to do would be scavenging, like a vulture.

GFiendish - nothing wrong with autocannibalism - I eat my nails...
 
888 - Thanks for the post, you understand the 'game' here, i.e. philosophical discussion.

Bluestreak said he/she was arguing a case and I bolted because I thought they weren't. So to pick back up on all that. For anyone who finds the topic distasteful, please turn away. I don't think anyone here chops up kids...


"Would we eat our children if they said they wanted to be eaten"

This introduces some more factors for me. My first question was/is - is this something they would still wish in adulthood?

If not, then we can find some simple answers - something that a child says it wants, no matter how much it wants it, does not mean it's good to deliver i.e. it is natural to protect children from their errors.

So now to the even more off idea of children wanting to be eaten and that nromally still being their view in adulthood if they get that far. This seems absurd, so I want to introduce some more aspects just make this seem hypothetically possible, soley to further the debate.

Here's a random set of circumstances I've dreamt up...

The dominant species of planet tharg is almost identical to you and I, but incredibly reproductive. The only other difference is that the children of the thargs instinctively want to be eaten and the child thargs will hold this goal throughout their lives. If it wasn't for the fact that many, but not all, adult thargs ate children, the population explosion would mean misery and possible extinction for the inhabitants of the planet.

Are the adult, child eating thargs, justified or moral in their behaviour?

What about the non child eating thargs? Are they unwitting crusaders for a morality that tharg doesn't know, or enemies of the ongoing survival of tharg?
 
I don't think one can consent to be murdered; humans can't. It would be fair to expect of this animal that it first killed itself before considering the further dilemma.
 
Yet as the plate was place before him, Max felt a twinge of nausea. Was this just a reflex reaction, caused by a lifetime of vegetarianism? Or was it the physical sign of justfiable distress? Collecting himself, he picked up his knife and fork...

threw them across the room.

It didn't matter that the pig wanted to be eaten or that the chicken had been 'decerebrated', the fact was that "these" were originally animals.

Even the concept of obscenity being perpetrated on living beings for the sole purpose of human consumption repulsed him.

How could he have even considered this meal, let alone cook it?
 
888 said:
Obscenity? What's that? Some kind of superstitious notion?

Obscenity:

Something that is offensive or repulsive to the senses: “What had once been a gentle hill covered with lush grass turned into a brown obscenity of bare earth and smoke” (Tom Clancy).

definition from dictionary.com
 
The question is not would it be huimane to eat an animal that want's to be eaten, but would it be humane to breed a sentient creature to say that in the first place? IMV if you can do that growing great big slabs of silveside in a vat, a la The Culture, would be completely acceptable.

This of course raises the question of "Is Autocannibalism morally viable..?" as you could just as easily grow Human Flesh, for example, from cell cultures just as easily as Pig, Beef, Chicken etc...

In the Culture short story State of the Art, right at the end (spolier coming) the crew of the GCU sit down to a final course of vat grown human flesh cloned from leaders like Idi Amin, Nixon, Pol Pot etc, and for the ultra-cilivilsed Culture citizens it's all a huge, if slightly tasteless, ironic joke (esp in Amin's case)...
 
DrJazzz said:
I don't think one can consent to be murdered; humans can't. It would be fair to expect of this animal that it first killed itself before considering the further dilemma.

Course you can - that guy in Germany consented to being mutuilated then killed and eaten. If you can consent to being mutilated in S&M for example, why can't you consent to being killed? Anyone who calls for the right to euthanasia is asking to be given the right to consent to being murdered (where murder is defined as a pre-planned or determined action)
 
spring-peeper said:
Yet as the plate was place before him, Max felt a twinge of nausea. Was this just a reflex reaction, caused by a lifetime of vegetarianism? Or was it the physical sign of justfiable distress? Collecting himself, he picked up his knife and fork...

threw them across the room.

It didn't matter that the pig wanted to be eaten or that the chicken had been 'decerebrated', the fact was that "these" were originally animals.

Even the concept of obscenity being perpetrated on living beings for the sole purpose of human consumption repulsed him.

How could he have even considered this meal, let alone cook it?
Wouldn't this logic lead to "Max" starving to death? The silly twat :rolleyes:
 
DJ Squelch said:
In the near future they will be able to grow meat in laboratories using techniques similar to tissue culturing. As someone who doesn't eat red meat I've wondered if i'd try it.

Front page of The Guardian today anyone? They've been stealing from U75 again. :p


http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,1548451,00.html

When meat is not murder

Would you eat steak if it had been grown in a petri dish?

It is the ultimate conundrum for vegetarians who think that meat is murder: a revolution in processed food that will see fresh meat grown from animal cells without a single cow, sheep or pig being killed.
Researchers have published details in a biotechnology journal describing a new technique which they hailed as the answer to the world's food shortage. Lumps of meat would be cultured in laboratory vats rather than carved from livestock reared on a farm.
Scientists have adapted the cutting-edge medical technique of tissue engineering, where individual cells are multiplied into whole tissues, and applied them to food production. "With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply," said Jason Matheny, an agricultural scientist at the University of Maryland.
According to researchers, meat grown in laboratories would be more environmentally friendly and could be tailored to be healthier than farm-reared meat by controlling its nutrient content and screening it for food-borne diseases.

Vegetarians might also be tempted because the cells needed to grow chunks of meat can be taken without harming the donor animal.

Experiments for Nasa, the US space agency, have already shown that morsels of edible fish can be grown in petri dishes, though no one has yet eaten the food.

Mr Matheny and his colleagues have taken the prospect of "cultured meat" a step further by working out how to produce it on an industrial scale. They envisage muscle cells growing on huge sheets that would be regularly stretched to exercise the cells as they grow. Once enough cells had grown, they would be scraped off and shaped into processed meat products such as chicken nuggets.

"If you didn't stretch them, you would be eating mush," said Mr Matheny.

The idea of doing away with traditional livestock and growing steaks from scratch dates back at least 70 years. In a horizon-scanning essay from 1932, Winston Churchill said: "Fifty years hence we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium."

Several decades too late, Churchill's vision finally looks set to become a reality.

Lab-raised steaks will be off the menu for some time though. Scientists believe that while tissue engineering is advanced enough to grow bland, homogeneous meat, tasty and textured cuts will have to wait.

"Right now, it would be possible to produce something like spam at an incredibly high cost, but the know-how to grow something that has structure, such as a steak, is a long way off," said Mr Matheny.

Kerry Bennett, of the Vegetarian Society, said: "This is certainly an interesting development, and one that is bound to prompt many different responses from individual vegetarians - largely depending on why those individuals have chosen vegetarianism.

"The Vegetarian Society is concerned that while this has the potential to decrease the number of meat-producing animals in factory farms, there are still a number of question marks regarding the origins of the cells and the method of harvesting.

"It won't appeal to someone who gave up meat because they think it's morally wrong to eat flesh or someone who doesn't want to eat anything unnatural," Ms Bennett added.

"Personally I wouldn't want to, but I suppose if they're going to make chicken nuggets with it, then it's probably not going to taste much different."

Told you so.

edit to add -BBC are on it to -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4148164.stm
 
spring-peeper said:
Obscenity:

Something that is offensive or repulsive to the senses: “What had once been a gentle hill covered with lush grass turned into a brown obscenity of bare earth and smoke” (Tom Clancy).

definition from dictionary.com

That really doesn't help. How is killing a whole, live animal less obscene than eating a bit of muscle that was never part of a creature?
 
Back
Top Bottom