Ethical Cannibalism?

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I'm now imagining Kim Kardashian's cloned rump being used to satiate the appetite of the deluded masses much like Chicken Little in The Space Merchants.

Nurse, I need brain soap.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm now imagining Kim Kardashian's cloned rump being used to satiate the appetite of the deluded masses

.

And nobody would ever go hungry again.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Note to self: invest in pharma that make indigestion products.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Note to self: Cancel my time machine ticket to the future. I really don't want to find out what these guys are up to.

 

[Kemaiku]

Just don't dye it green.

 

[publiusr]

Some seem to think tardigrades (not tardisgrades) get a lot of DNA from other sources
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?159247

We as humans are pretty much colony creatures as it stands.

Frankly, folks get too spooked about physicality.
I have no loved one--so if I were to pass away--it makes no difference to me whether I wind up on Lecter's table, in a dog food plant/glue factory, or (best yet) my organs harvested and the rest of my body donated to science.

The worst thing is to be buried in a valuable metal container taking up space on land that could be used for other things.

There was a wonderful book called "Who's Afraid of Human Cloning" from a author not far from me who takes an positive approach: http://www.humancloning.org/pence.htm

I would think if one could eat meat tailored to your own system--that might be the best.

 

[USS Triumphant]

With math, things are simpler, but with ethics - now you're applying subjective values to conditions. And that's fine, have ethics - but don't let's convince ourselves we are defining any absolutes here.

But you *can* have absolutes in a subset, even if they aren't absolute in the whole - I can't have all the numbers, but I can have all of the odd whole numbers between 12 and 27. Within the framework of what human beings can and cannot physically do at this time, there are logical universal ethics that can be absolute. The most obvious one being that it is unethical to kill a human, because you don't want that done to you and you can't undo that action, unless the weight of the unethical-ness of that action is outweighed by other ethical concerns.

I'd be happy with cloned beef, lamb, chicken, fish etc. though. More than happy in fact - as a vegetarian of 30 years standing, a real steak sounds good !

As for the ethics of taking a cell sample from an animal without its consent - oh get a f*cking life ! It's not like we were, for exampe, cutting it's throat...

If all you need to have a steak is an ethical resolution, then consider that humans are an inherently selfish and invasive species, so when we don't have a use for animals (such as to kill for meat, gather resources like wool or milk from, or to keep as pets) then we have shown that we will not leave space for their habitats. By eating a steak, you may have contributed to the death of one animal - but you are helping to preserve their species as a whole.

As for your second point, I agree that there is a strong argument to be made for the idea that - so long as we don't slaughter them to eat - the care that we give to animals we maintain for wool, milk, eggs, etc, would make it for than fair to harmlessly extract a few meat cells as payment. However, that *isn't* the same as actually getting the donor's permission, and that IS something we require in medical ethics, so some people DO see an issue with that. Meat cloned from humans, dolphins, other primates, etc, that can communicate assent would eliminate that problem.

 

[Avro Arrow]

If this is a serious thread...

Oh, gods, no. Not interested in consuming other humans, cloned or otherwise. The very notion makes me ill. How could you ask such a thing?!

If this is a joke thread...

If, after the bombs fell, and I happened to be one of the "lucky" few surviving on the remnants of our once-great civilization in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, and I have run out of Sugar Bombs and Fancy Lads Snack Cakes, and someone offers me a meal of strange meat, well... who am I to question its provenance? Beats the hell out of bloatfly.

 

[RoJoHen]

I would totally eat cloned livestock meat, but I am not interested in eating cloned human.

 

[USS Triumphant]

If this is a serious thread...

Oh, gods, no. Not interested in consuming other humans, cloned or otherwise. The very notion makes me ill. How could you ask such a thing?!

I assure you it is a serious thread, but if it makes you feel better, I'm not advocating it - just gauging responses to the idea. Because it seems like something that might be on the horizon.

Good Fallout reference.

I would totally eat cloned livestock meat, but I am not interested in eating cloned human.

"Not even with some fava beans and a nice chianti? "

 

[Triskelion]

With math, things are simpler, but with ethics - now you're applying subjective values to conditions. And that's fine, have ethics - but don't let's convince ourselves we are defining any absolutes here.

But you *can* have absolutes in a subset, even if they aren't absolute in the whole - I can't have all the numbers, but I can have all of the odd whole numbers between 12 and 27. Within the framework of what human beings can and cannot physically do at this time, there are logical universal ethics that can be absolute. The most obvious one being that it is unethical to kill a human, because you don't want that done to you and you can't undo that action, unless the weight of the unethical-ness of that action is outweighed by other ethical concerns.

This logic, while good (and erudite), is incomplete.


Math can be verified and replicated (though still contingent on symbology). Ethics - you are attempting to verify via its antithesis based on your personal definition of "unethicalness", which you admit is variable. How shall we agree to "weigh" the ethical concerns? And here is where your opinion is presented as self-evident fact - but actually fails the test of verifiability. Now what? Social pressure and imposed values? Fine, but let's call it what it is.... Value Imposition with good intentions. If an argument is sound, then it needn't rely on misrepresentation of opinion as fact. It defeats its own purpose. I'm not saying it is dishonest, I am saying it is biased, which is worse than ignorance, since it is complacent with misinterpretation as irrefutable scientific fact, ipso facto, Q.E.D.

It is supremely difficult weighing outside one's own value system, but that's exactly what science demands in thought, if not in deed. If an argument is based on opinion and not fact - now how shall it be weighed? Probably not with the same bias from everyone.

(Nor does this mean we can ignore the risks or avoid the consequences of Scientific Abandon).

My ethics may seem as irrefutable facts to me - but they are not facts, and others are not ignorant for weighing them accordingly - by their own merits, not a presumed universal standard.

 

[Avro Arrow]

If this is a serious thread...

Oh, gods, no. Not interested in consuming other humans, cloned or otherwise. The very notion makes me ill. How could you ask such a thing?!

I assure you it is a serious thread, but if it makes you feel better, I'm not advocating it - just gauging responses to the idea. Because it seems like something that might be on the horizon.

Really? Unless some unethical food producer was going to do it Soylent Green-style and not tell us what exactly it was we were eating, I can't imagine this ever becoming culturally acceptable.

To answer your follow-up, question, though... I have no specific aversion to the thought of eating cloned meat of animals that we already consume. In fact, I kinda hope it becomes a thing before tuna goes extinct.

No specific desire to eat primates or dolphins, though.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Really?

Well.... maybe 51% that, and 49% because I wanted to weird people out talking about it. I'm Discordian, and I embrace Creative Chaos. So you put something people don't necessarily think about everyday and that runs somewhat contrary to their usual programming, like ethical cannibalism, out in front of them, and it can really alter their whole, like, flow, man. Open up new possibilities.

Or maybe I'm just screwin' with ya.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

That depends entirely on how it tastes, my good man.

Can we splice in some cow genes with my own? I might make a great steak of sorts.

 

[HIjol]

Eating any form of cloned meat would be ethical, human or not, since nobody is harmed-- although there would likely be some debate about cell ownership. In fact, it will probably become the norm, eventually (well, not human, but typical food animals).

The repugnance toward cannibalism is genetic, though, and runs as deep as any other survival instinct, so it probably won't ever go mainstream. Undoubtedly there will be a fetish underground for it, though-- since there already is.

I like your thinking, RJD&B, but it occurs to me that the word "nobody" in the first sentence of your Post is key, and would need to be settled. Would not a clone have an identity and an existence of its (?) own?

If this is a serious thread...

Oh, gods, no. Not interested in consuming other humans, cloned or otherwise. The very notion makes me ill. How could you ask such a thing?!

If this is a joke thread...

If, after the bombs fell, and I happened to be one of the "lucky" few surviving on the remnants of our once-great civilization in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, and I have run out of Sugar Bombs and Fancy Lads Snack Cakes, and someone offers me a meal of strange meat, well... who am I to question its provenance? Beats the hell out of bloatfly.

I think the brand, "Fancy Lad" could be used by the inevitable Post-Apocalyptic Street Car Vendors for high-end, Kobe-like "meat".

Fancy Lad Jerky
Fancy Lad Prime Cuts
Fancy Lad Meat Soup with Rich Broth

With math, things are simpler, but with ethics - now you're applying subjective values to conditions. And that's fine, have ethics - but don't let's convince ourselves we are defining any absolutes here.

But you *can* have absolutes in a subset, even if they aren't absolute in the whole - I can't have all the numbers, but I can have all of the odd whole numbers between 12 and 27. Within the framework of what human beings can and cannot physically do at this time, there are logical universal ethics that can be absolute. The most obvious one being that it is unethical to kill a human, because you don't want that done to you and you can't undo that action, unless the weight of the unethical-ness of that action is outweighed by other ethical concerns.

This logic, while good (and erudite), is incomplete.


Math can be verified and replicated (though still contingent on symbology). Ethics - you are attempting to verify via its antithesis based on your personal definition of "unethicalness", which you admit is variable. How shall we agree to "weigh" the ethical concerns? And here is where your opinion is presented as self-evident fact - but actually fails the test of verifiability. Now what? Social pressure and imposed values? Fine, but let's call it what it is.... Value Imposition with good intentions. If an argument is sound, then it needn't rely on misrepresentation of opinion as fact. It defeats its own purpose. I'm not saying it is dishonest, I am saying it is biased, which is worse than ignorance, since it is complacent with misinterpretation as irrefutable scientific fact, ipso facto, Q.E.D.

It is supremely difficult weighing outside one's own value system, but that's exactly what science demands in thought, if not in deed. If an argument is based on opinion and not fact - now how shall it be weighed? Probably not with the same bias from everyone.

(Nor does this mean we can ignore the risks or avoid the consequences of Scientific Abandon).

My ethics may seem as irrefutable facts to me - but they are not facts, and others are not ignorant for weighing them accordingly - by their own merits, not a presumed universal standard.

I am reading with interest your conversation with Triumphant, Icthulhu, and as I am a visual creature, I like to try to put things within a visual context. Please correct me, either of you, but if I were to draw a Venn Diagram of your discussion here, would I be correct in having Two Universes of "Everything", and subsets of "Everything"? My meaning being, it sounds as if "all" is included in what you are both saying. All versions of ethics and "humanity", all numbers, all truths, and falsehoods. I am finding it all very interesting, indeed!

That depends entirely on how it tastes, my good man.

Can we splice in some cow genes with my own? I might make a great steak of sorts.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!!! Wouldn't that be Retrograde Bestiality? Post-Mortem Co-Mingling? BovineSapien Test Tube...something???

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

A related and more probable dilemma is the question of creating clones of yourself to provide you with spare organs. Would it be ethical to bring such a clone into existence and then harvest it even if you could engineer it not to be conscious? There's no such apparent dilemma with storing stem cells for use in replicating individual organs. Presumably the balance tips when the collection of cloned organs enters the realm of being self sustaining, has a fully developed nervous system, or tries to kill and replace you.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Eating any form of cloned meat would be ethical, human or not, since nobody is harmed-- although there would likely be some debate about cell ownership. In fact, it will probably become the norm, eventually (well, not human, but typical food animals).

The repugnance toward cannibalism is genetic, though, and runs as deep as any other survival instinct, so it probably won't ever go mainstream. Undoubtedly there will be a fetish underground for it, though-- since there already is.

I like your thinking, RJD&B, but it occurs to me that the word "nobody" in the first sentence of your Post is key, and would need to be settled. Would not a clone have an identity and an existence of its (?) own?

Well, I made an assumption here that just a big hunk of meat is being cloned, not that they are cloning an animal or person and then slaughtering it. Somewhat like the "meatbeast" in that Haviland Tuf story by George RR Martin.

A related and more probable dilemma is the question of creating clones of yourself to provide you with spare organs. Would it be ethical to bring such a clone into existence and then harvest it even if you could engineer it not to be conscious?

Same thing here. The trick would be to just clone the individual organ needed-- or use a 3D printer to mold the cells.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Presumably the balance tips when the collection of cloned organs enters the realm of being self sustaining, has a fully developed nervous system, or tries to kill and replace you.

Or until the head of a high born family is dissatisfied with the marital options for their great-great-grandchild and heir, and "wakes up" one of the clones to have their grandkid marry it. (Not my idea - it's how a war began on Krypton in one of those mini-series that showed Krypton before its destruction, back in the late 80s.)

I like your thinking, RJD&B, but it occurs to me that the word "nobody" in the first sentence of your Post is key, and would need to be settled. Would not a clone have an identity and an existence of its (?) own?

Well, I made an assumption here that just a big hunk of meat is being cloned, not that they are cloning an animal or person and then slaughtering it.

You have my intended meaning in the OP correct - no need to grow a whole organism.

@HIjol: No need to diagram my conversation with Icthulhu. His original post in this thread consisted of what sounded to me like deep DEEP naval gazing and a desire to show off vocabulary, and so despite my desire to just say TL;DR, instead I studied it for a moment and formulated something that I thought might half-way sound like an "intelligent" response to it. Icthulhu then called that "erudite" , which told me all I needed to know. I won't be following up on that part of our conversation here.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Presumably the balance tips when the collection of cloned organs enters the realm of being self sustaining, has a fully developed nervous system, or tries to kill and replace you.

Or until the head of a high born family is dissatisfied with the marital options for their great-great-grandchild and heir, and "wakes up" one of the clones to have their grandkid marry it. (Not my idea - it's how a war began on Krypton in one of those mini-series that showed Krypton before its destruction, back in the late 80s.)

As they say on Krypton: "There's nothing new under Rao."

 

[Triskelion]

Presumably the balance tips when the collection of cloned organs enters the realm of being self sustaining, has a fully developed nervous system, or tries to kill and replace you.

Or until the head of a high born family is dissatisfied with the marital options for their great-great-grandchild and heir, and "wakes up" one of the clones to have their grandkid marry it. (Not my idea - it's how a war began on Krypton in one of those mini-series that showed Krypton before its destruction, back in the late 80s.)

I like your thinking, RJD&B, but it occurs to me that the word "nobody" in the first sentence of your Post is key, and would need to be settled. Would not a clone have an identity and an existence of its (?) own?

Well, I made an assumption here that just a big hunk of meat is being cloned, not that they are cloning an animal or person and then slaughtering it.

You have my intended meaning in the OP correct - no need to grow a whole organism.

@HIjol: No need to diagram my conversation with Icthulhu. His original post in this thread consisted of what sounded to me like deep DEEP naval gazing and a desire to show off vocabulary, and so despite my desire to just say TL;DR, instead I studied it for a moment and formulated something that I thought might half-way sound like an "intelligent" response to it. Icthulhu then called that "erudite" , which told me all I needed to know. I won't be following up on that part of our conversation here.

Ok, Triumphant, I was willing to allow your logical argument-from-authority fallacy the benefit of the doubt, and even demonstrate my respect for your thoughtful perspective; but you've compounded it with an ad hominem fallacy/straw man caricature of your counterpart.

My argument was never intended as personal, and if I gave that impression, I apologize. Nor should you be embarrassed by my judgment, because as I said, I think your argument is a good one, just not fully mature, to be frank. (And I know you appreciate frank speech).

In my mind, you or anyone else is fully free to ignore the benefit of my experience to your heart's content. Best to you. But yeah, discriminating people as "worthy" is an argument from Authority - a logical fallacy - and a capitulation - regardless of anything the other guy says or how he says it.

It was my mistake, I thought you were here for a discussion, not a demonstration of a cute idea. Mea culpa.