To vegetarians and vegans: Would you eat Star Trek style replicated meat? Is it considered "vegan"?

[trekfan_1]

Perhaps a bit of a silly question and Ofcourse the replicator is fiction, but I'm curious to learn the prevailing opinion. "Replicated " meat obviously did not come from living animals. So it seems pretty straightforward. But hypothetically, would most/all/some vegans still object to eating a substance that tastes and is essentialy equal too ( at the molecular level) to a living animal? I'm not a vegan or vegetarian . When I asked A.I it surmised yes it would be technically "vegan " compliant but some may still object for emotional/personal reasons.

As a side note, if all you eat is replicated matter, what can kind of eater are you? Your technically not even eating veggie matter as *all* food is recreated at the molecular level . So terms like "vegetarian " or "carnivore " may be somewhat irrelevant in Star Trek's future. Would there be a new classification? Like following a "Artificial substanance diet? "

 

[CorporalCaptain]

As long as animal products (or by-products) aren't used to make the replication process itself happen, and so long as the rights of animals are respected up and down the replication supply chain.

To illustrate what I mean, if replicators use a component that is provided by a species of carnivores, those replicators would not be vegan. If the nitrium in a replicator was mined by Kzin on a Kzinti asteroid, it can't be a vegan replicator.*

* - Unless, of course, those Kzin subsist on vegan, replicated meat, which according to conventional Kzinti philosophy would go against what it means to be Kzin.**

** - Assuming Trek's Kzin are like Known Space Kzin to this degree.

 

[trekfan_1]

Ironically, I think technically your not even considered a "vegan" if all you eat is replicated food.. Because No real veggies used. You may even have people in Star Trek 's fictional future actually being "ant-vegetarian " activists- if your unnecessarily using or breeding living plants as a food source when replication is a ready to use alternative.

Put's a new spin/exception to Spock's quote in "Wolf in the Fold" when he said everyone "feeds on death".. "even vegetarians".

But if all you use is a replicator, your actually *not* feeding on death.

 

[NCC-73515]

Strict veganism also includes not buying or using non-edible animal products, like leather, so it's not just about food, but generally about avoiding all animal products

 

[Tosk]

if replicators use a component that is provided by a species of carnivores, those replicators would not be vegan.

Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but if that's the case then how can there be vegan options on Earth now, when there are omnivores all over the production line, so to speak?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but if that's the case then how can there be vegan options on Earth now, when there are omnivores all over the production line, so to speak?

That's a great question!

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Definition:

Since 1988, The Vegan Society gives two definitions of veganism:​

​

Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.​

— The Vegan Society, Definition of veganism, https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism​

​

The first definition by The Vegan Society is accepted among ethical and environmental vegans and the second definition by The Vegan Society is accepted among dietary vegans.[89]​

I would be applying the first definition under which the qualification "as far as is possible and practicable" would be operative.

Extending my hypotheticals, if the choice was to install either replicators manufactured by a Kzinti consortium or replicators assembled by a Vulcan cooperative, and the respective costs* were sufficiently similar, it would be practical to choose the Vulcan replicators in order to observe vegan principles, even if that meant receiving fewer replicators by a relatively small amount.

* - as it were [cough, cough]

 

[Tribblesonmars]

(vegetarian here) I'd probably not eat replicated meat because it just isn't that appealing to me to eat meat at all however I don't see anything wrong with it, so I might eat meat from a replicator occasionally, because no actual animals were harmed which is why I became veggie in the first place

 

[Lord Garth]

I wouldn't eat replicated meat because I feel that would be the beginning of a slippery slope. If I were living in the Star Trek Universe, I'd feel I'd have to cut it off somewhere. That's where I'd cut it off. Otherwise, the temptation to take it to the next step, once it's such a close approximation, would be too great.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I guess it bears saying that, replicated or not, it being simulated meat implies that at some point in history there was an animal exploited for food. The persisting data set to control replication would be derived the exploitation events. If one is being that strict, perhaps there's no such thing, perhaps "vegan replicated meat" would be self-contradictory. No matter how far removed from animal exploitation, it might still be tainted.

 

[Tribblesonmars]

I guess it bears saying that, replicated or not, it being simulated meat implies that at some point in history there was an animal exploited for food. The persisting data set to control replication would be derived the exploitation events. If one is being that strict, perhaps there's no such thing, perhaps "vegan replicated meat" would be self-contradictory. No matter how far removed from animal exploitation, it might still be tainted.

Surely that counts for meat substitutes nowadays as well? Stuff like Quorn or vegan sausages, which wouldn't have been created if it wasnt for meat existing in the first place. It's an interesting point though. How far would we go before it's 'too' similar to actual meat?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Practicality probably wins over: some exploitation may be worse than no exploitation, but less exploitation is better than more. So, meat substitutes that wean people from their exploitative ways so to speak can be seen as a good thing.

 

[trekfan_1]

I guess it bears saying that, replicated or not, it being simulated meat implies that at some point in history there was an animal exploited for food. The persisting data set to control replication would be derived the exploitation events. If one is being that strict, perhaps there's no such thing, perhaps "vegan replicated meat" would be self-contradictory. No matter how far removed from animal exploitation, it might still be tainted.

That's a really good point that I didn't think of. I guess that would be similar to using the replicator to simultate cannibalism . You wouldn't technically be a cannibal but many ( including myself) would find that act repulsive.

 

[Christopher]

If one avoided meat for health reasons, one would presumably avoid replicated meat too, since it would be an exact duplicate (to molecular resolution) of a real piece of meat. Although I suppose the pattern could be reprogrammed to make it healthier somehow.

If one were a strict vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons, one might still have an issue with replicated meat, because a replicated food item is basically a transporter duplicate of an original, real food item that was scanned and had its pattern stored for reproduction. So an animal would still have been killed to produce the replicator pattern, even if it was only one animal instead of thousands. Unless, of course, it was replicated from vat-grown meat produced from cells cultured from animals without killing them.

Then again, before they had replicators (24th century), they had protein resequencers (22nd) and food synthesizers (23rd), which worked by fabricating artificial foodstuffs from raw materials, rather than creating transporter duplicates of genuine items. Resequenced or synthesized meat thus wouldn't have any ethical concerns, though it probably wouldn't taste as authentic. (Some episodes have claimed that replicated food doesn't taste as good as the real thing, which doesn't make sense given that it's an exact molecule-for-molecule copy of the real thing. I tend to assume that it tastes every bit as good, but it always tastes the same, without the variety that food made from scratch would have, and that would be perceived as less good.)

Of course, some people might just prefer not to eat meat. When I gave up red meat, I came to realize I'd never really liked the taste of beef that much; I just ate it regularly because it was a cultural default. I prefer a good veggie burger. A while back, Morningstar Farms reformulated the recipe of their Original flavor chicken-substitute patties (which makes it a misnomer to keep calling them Original), and though it arguably tastes somewhat closer to chicken now, I like the taste considerably less than the old recipe (or than real chicken, somehow). I imagine people who've been vegetarians their whole lives, e.g. most Hindus or Vulcans, might simply not like meat even if there were no ethical considerations involved. (I really found it implausible in Strange New Worlds: "Charades" when Spock temporarily became fully human and suddenly loved bacon. Nearly a fifth of humans are vegetarian or vegan, and vegetarian is a choice for the naturally omnivorous Vulcans as much as it is for humans, so it was illogical to assume that would change.)

 

[trekfan_1]

because a replicated food item is basically a transporter duplicate of an original, real food item that was scanned and had its pattern stored for reproduction.

Really? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought replicated food was not an atom by atom recreation of a specific animal or plant that once existed. But rather from a molecular pattern that was uniquely created that would be an authentic "version" of such animal that could of conceivably been bred naturally if such organization of molecular structure happened in nature.

If so, you could theoretically create a meal from an extinct animal as long as you have the dataset of its overall molecular pattern. Like Buffalo meat, which I believe by Star Treks time, is an extinct animal. I'm pretty sure a replicator can make you a Water Buffalo Steak dinner. No?

 

[Christopher]

Really? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought replicated food was not an atom by atom recreation of a specific animal or plant that once existed. But rather from a molecular pattern that would be an authentic version of such animal.

But you get the molecular pattern by scanning a real object. How else would you do it? Replicators are obviously transporter-based technology -- they use the same sparkly visual effect, so clearly that's what we were meant to understand. Replicators are to transporters as video recording is to live TV broadcasts. It's the same technology used to store and reproduce something rather than simply transmit it. (Which is why replicator resolution isn't high enough to clone living beings, because it would take a prohibitive amount of data storage space to store complete quantum information about them.)

I mean, even generative AI has to be trained on real images in order to create convincing new images. So to create authentic replicas of real food items, there'd have to be real food items scanned at some point in the process to provide the baseline data, even if the replicator AI had the flexibility to alter the patterns' parameters from the original scan ("Banana, hot") or to mix and match elements of different scanned patterns to produce a new recipe.

If so you could theoretically create a meal from an extent animal. Like Buffalo meat, which I believe in Star Treks time, is an extinct animal

You'd still need a sample of the original to scan for its pattern. Presumably one could use preserved buffalo DNA to culture cells for vat-grown meat that could then be scanned.

Then again, if replicators can work like AI and generate new combinations by mixing the original data, then theoretically you could combine bison and chicken patterns and replicate literal buffalo wings...

 

[trekfan_1]

But you get the molecular pattern by scanning a real object. How else would you do it? Replicators are obviously transporter-based technology -- they use the same sparkly visual effect, so clearly that's what we were meant to understand. Replicators are to transporters as video recording is to live TV broadcasts. It's the same technology used to store and reproduce something rather than simply transmit it. (Which is why replicator resolution isn't high enough to clone living beings, because it would take a prohibitive amount of data storage space to store complete quantum information about them.)

I mean, even generative AI has to be trained on real images in order to create convincing new images. So to create authentic replicas of real food items, there'd have to be real food items scanned at some point in the process to provide the baseline data, even if the replicator AI had the flexibility to alter the patterns' parameters from the original scan ("Banana, hot") or to mix and match elements of different scanned patterns to produce a new recipe.




You'd still need a sample of the original to scan for its pattern. Presumably one could use preserved buffalo DNA to culture cells for vat-grown meat that could then be scanned.

Then again, if replicators can work like AI and generate new combinations by mixing the original data, then theoretically you could combine bison and chicken patterns and replicate literal buffalo wings...

Not necessarily saying your wrong just that was never my interpretation. In an episode of DS9, Eddington said " But you and I both know what we're really eating. Replicated protein molecules and textured carbohydrates."

And Data said: " I am afraid they would require the molecular structure of the beverage in question" ( to repicate an alien beverage).

Didn't Lwanxa Troi once said she would try to "teach" a Ferengi replicator to make a drink? It sounded to me that just data is necessary.

To me that doesn't sound like its an exact copy of the orginal but rather a aproximation of it with some modifications made to simulate a "typical " version of the food. Using dna/data not necessary via scanning a specific item directly. If you order sausage in a replicator, my impression was always they are not eating from one specific animal that once existed and was scanned. But using blended amalgamations of similar structures that exist in the databanks.

 

[DarthTimon]

Perhaps a bit of a silly question and Ofcourse the replicator is fiction, but I'm curious to learn the prevailing opinion. "Replicated " meat obviously did not come from living animals. So it seems pretty straightforward. But hypothetically, would most/all/some vegans still object to eating a substance that tastes and is essentialy equal too ( at the molecular level) to a living animal? I'm not a vegan or vegetarian . When I asked A.I it surmised yes it would be technically "vegan " compliant but some may still object for emotional/personal reasons.

As a side note, if all you eat is replicated matter, what can kind of eater are you? Your technically not even eating veggie matter as *all* food is recreated at the molecular level . So terms like "vegetarian " or "carnivore " may be somewhat irrelevant in Star Trek's future. Would there be a new classification? Like following a "Artificial substanance diet? "

I know a few vegetarians. Some don't like the taste of meat, so replicated meat wouldn't appeal to them at all anyway. Others miss stuff like bacon, so they'd probably jump at the chance!

 

[Christopher]

Not necessarily saying your wrong just that was never my interpretation. In an episode of DS9, Eddington said " But you and I both know what we're really eating. Replicated protein molecules and textured carbohydrates."

Because the writers didn't always read the technical manuals and sometimes got things like this wrong. Eddington's line would've made sense in the ENT or TOS era, but it's anachronistic in the 24th century. Lines like that are exactly what I was criticizing when I said the writers sometimes misrepresented replicated food as being merely an approximation.

In the TNG Writers' Technical Manual (a shorter, more behind-the-scenes document than the professionally published TNGTM), there isn't a separate section on replicators, but under "The Transporter -- Once and for all," it says "It is also capable of reproducing many objects such as foods, tools, and the like. The key limitation is that stored objects have only a limited 'resolution' so that one CANNOT store and reproduce a living being." The published TNGTM states clearly on pp. 90-91 that replicators are "transporter-based," the only differences being that it converts a raw matter supply to fit a stored pattern and that the resolution is too low to recreate living beings.

It's basically in the same category as the TNG Moriarty episodes' gibberish about "holodeck matter," when we know that holodecks create virtual images with "photons and force fields," as VGR often put it, and actual solid objects are simply replicated. Since this is make-believe rather than a documentary, sometimes its creators just get things wrong even compared to the universe's own fictional ground rules.

And Data said: " I am afraid they would require the molecular structure of the beverage in question" ( to repicate an alien beverage).

To me that doesn't sound like its an exact copy of the orginal but rather a aproximation of it with some modifications made to simulate a "typical " version of the food. Using dna/data not necessary via scanning a specific item exactly

Huh? The molecular structure of the beverage is its transporter pattern. It's the exact same principle, scanning the real thing so the machine can recreate its pattern.

And of course, there's no reason it can't be both. It's all ultimately data, and there's no reason that data couldn't come both from direct scans and computer reconstructions, depending on the situation. The replicator would process it the same either way. It just seems to me that scanning a real object, when available, is by far the simplest way to get an authentic pattern. I mean, we already know they have that scanning technology, because transporters exist. Why wouldn't they use it for replicators too?

 

[trekfan_1]

Because the writers didn't always read the technical manuals and sometimes got things like this wrong. Eddington's line would've made sense in the ENT or TOS era, but it's anachronistic in the 24th century. Lines like that are exactly what I was criticizing when I said the writers sometimes misrepresented replicated food as being merely an approximation.

In the TNG Writers' Technical Manual (a shorter, more behind-the-scenes document than the professionally published TNGTM), there isn't a separate section on replicators, but under "The Transporter -- Once and for all," it says "It is also capable of reproducing many objects such as foods, tools, and the like. The key limitation is that stored objects have only a limited 'resolution' so that one CANNOT store and reproduce a living being." The published TNGTM states clearly on pp. 90-91 that replicators are "transporter-based," the only differences being that it converts a raw matter supply to fit a stored pattern and that the resolution is too low to recreate living beings.

It's basically in the same category as the TNG Moriarty episodes' gibberish about "holodeck matter," when we know that holodecks create virtual images with "photons and force fields," as VGR often put it, and actual solid objects are simply replicated. Since this is make-believe rather than a documentary, sometimes its creators just get things wrong even compared to the universe's own fictional ground rules.




Huh? The molecular structure of the beverage is its transporter pattern. It's the exact same principle, scanning the real thing so the machine can recreate its pattern.

And of course, there's no reason it can't be both. It's all ultimately data, and there's no reason that data couldn't come both from direct scans and computer reconstructions, depending on the situation. The replicator would process it the same either way. It just seems to me that scanning a real object, when available, is by far the simplest way to get an authentic pattern. I mean, we already know they have that scanning technology, because transporters exist. Why wouldn't they use it for replicators too?

Well for meat, they may just use computer reconstruction rather than scanning a specific chicken. I'm just saying it's likely not just one-for-one duplication via exact scans. Could be that, could be computer reconstructions, could be via direct scan with some intentional modifications. Or a bit of everything. If you order a chicken sandwich and then ask the computer about its origin, would it really say it came from a transporter scan of chicken 4632 that was bred on Earth colony 2? If so, I am mistaken. Didn't think it worked that way.

So in reference to this discussion, if you sat at a science statiion on the bridge and asked it to show you to the molecular structure of a standard chicken , would it show you the exact pattern of one specific chicken that once lived or an aproximation of an average looking pattern for such a lifeform? Same thing for a human pattern . Would it pull up a real "head to toe" exact pattern, genetic defects and all , of a human that already exists or existed ?

 

[Christopher]

Well for meat, they may just use computer reconstruction rather than scanning a specific chicken. I'm just saying it's likely not just one-for-one duplication via exact scans.

I've already acknowledged that as one option. I'm just saying that somebody had to scan a real chicken at the start of the process in order to get the data that any later modification is based on.

Besides, it stands to reason that the best way to make good replicator patterns is to hire chefs to make the best genuine food items they can and then scan them as templates for replicator use.

Could be that, could be computer reconstructions, could be via direct scan with some intentional modifications. Or a bit of everything. If you order a chicken sandwich and then ask the computer about its origin, would it really say it came from a transporter scan of chicken 4632 that was bred on Earth colony 2? If so, I am mistaken. Didn't think it worked that way.

As I said, the tech references are explicit that replicators are based on transporter technology. So it follows that they use transporter scanners to record the patterns of real objects and store (or edit) those patterns for later use. I'm sure records are kept of the origins of the patterns for quality control purposes.

So in reference to this discussion, if you sat at a science statiion on the bridge and asked it to show you to the molecular structure of a standard chicken , would it show you the exact pattern of one specific chicken that once lived or an aproximation of an average looking pattern for such a lifeform? Same thing for a human pattern . Would it pull up a real "head to toe" exact pattern, genetic defects and all , of a human that already exists or existed ?

I'm not sure how that's relevant to a discussion of replicators, since different technologies have different needs. And it's not an all-or-nothing question. Data is data. Replicators could use any pattern, whether scanned from a single specific item, AI-generated from an amalgam of similar items, or synthesized from pure code. But even the pure code would need to be based on an understanding of the real object, so the process would need to start with a scan of a real object or objects in any case.