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

[trekfan_1]

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.




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.




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.

Which brings it back to original discussion. A post was made that replicated meat would not be vegan If it was derived directly ( a duplicate) from a real specific animal that was scanned. The assumption was inferred that was the only way replicators can work. So I guess if the meal was derrived from data alone and not directly from a specific, previous living breathing animal, it may change the (that) conversation. That's why I wanted to clarify it's exact method or the available methods. So perhaps you can ask the computer to replicate a meat based meal based solely on its own reassembly of data. An aproximation based on existing patterns ( for the meat portions) and if your a vegan - that may be enough of a difference for some people to be ok with from a philosophical standpoint.

Perhaps you can even have the food be replicated to generate the same texture and taste ( may be even better) as the real thing and have it not genetically similar to an actual animal at all. I've had bad luck at great tasting Watermelon. I think I would be OK with enhancement via a replicator. My sense is that Star Trek's tech should be advanced enough to effectively produce food that tastes good by way of recreating its "flavor " alone without needing "the original ".

In regards to replicators being based on transporter technology. I already knew that. But my ( perhaps misunderstanding) of it was that the technology itself was based on the same technology ( principle/mechanism) used with transporters. I didn't necessarily equate that to a transporter and transporter pattern itself being industrially used to clone or library a meal for the replicator. Just that the hardware and software for both are based on similar design technology.

The last point I meant was meant to illustrate my thought process in so much as if you looked up a "typical" generic structure of a animal or species in the computer, the computer would give you a non specific ( to one individual) genetic structure of said species. And I thought the replicator worked similarly.

Edit: Didn't they say in Star Trek Discovery that they actually used human waste matter to create food? Or am I imagining that? Perhaps it's was the future Discovery era.

 

[NCC-73515]

Not everything the replicator makes has to have an original source object. In early TNG, they say meat is made using something from transporter patterns. Perhaps all it takes is to beam a cow, which doesn't harm it, and then you extract the muscle part of its pattern and store it separately

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Perhaps all it takes is to beam a cow, which doesn't harm it, and then you extract the muscle part of its pattern and store it separately

That's an interesting idea. Thank you!

 

[Christopher]

Which brings it back to original discussion. A post was made that replicated meat would not be vegan If it was derived directly ( a duplicate) from a real specific animal that was scanned. The assumption was inferred that was the only way replicators can work.

Of course it's not the only way, but it's the easiest way and thus presumably the most common way. Yes, of course you could create a replicator pattern some other way, but why go to the trouble when the simplest way is just to scan a real object with a transporter and store the pattern? It's the same thing a transporter pattern buffer does, it just stores the pattern permanently at lower resolution instead of temporarily.

Perhaps you can even have the food be replicated to generate the same texture and taste ( may be even better) as the real thing and have it not genetically similar to an actual animal at all. I've had bad luck at great tasting Watermelon. I think I would be OK with enhancement via a replicator. My sense is that Star Trek's tech should be advanced enough to effectively produce food that tastes good by way of recreating its "flavor " alone without needing "the original ".

I suppose that's possible. But you'd need tasters who have experience eating real meat so that they can tell you if the substitute tastes authentic.

In regards to replicators being based on transporter technology. I already knew that. But my ( perhaps misunderstanding) of it was that the technology itself was based on the same technology ( principle/mechanism) used with transporters. I didn't necessarily equate that to a transporter and transporter pattern itself being industrially used to clone or library a meal for the replicator. Just that the hardware and software for both are based on similar design technology.

I don't see the distinction. Like I said, you can't synthesize a replicator pattern for a given item if you don't have data about the actual item to base the synthesis on. An artist needs a model.

The last point I meant was meant to illustrate my thought process in so much as if you looked up a "typical" generic structure of a animal or species in the computer, the computer would give you a non specific ( to one individual) genetic structure of said species. And I thought the replicator worked similarly.

As I said, it could. But that doesn't mean it has to. Why use generative AI to create a synthetic image of an object if you can just take a photo of the object? It's a lot simpler.

Edit: Didn't they say in Star Trek Discovery that they actually used human waste matter to create food? Or am I imagining that? Perhaps it's was the future Discovery era.

Yes, Admiral Vance said that about the 32nd-century Starfleet HQ to explain how self-contained it is. But it's ridiculous that the writers treated that as something unpleasant or even unusual, because that's literally how agriculture works. What do they think fertilizer is? What do they think soil is?

Not everything the replicator makes has to have an original source object. In early TNG, they say meat is made using something from transporter patterns. Perhaps all it takes is to beam a cow, which doesn't harm it, and then you extract the muscle part of its pattern and store it separately

But that is an original source object.

As I said, it would depend on the individual's commitment to veganism and their philosophical reasons for it. Most people would probably be okay with eating meat that didn't require killing an animal for its direct creation. But someone with a stronger philosophical objection to eating meat might have trouble with the idea of eating something that was even derived from a living animal, however indirectly. People differ, so there's no single answer.

 

[David cgc]

The joke about Janeway burning a replicated roast suggests that the replicator does more than, well, replicate template items. It might have some kind of "rendering" ability that allows it to simulate the process of cooking a meal, for personalization based on a recipe or individual's cooking style (probably what Janeway was doing), or maybe just as a matter of course to provide some variety and enrichment so people don't slowly develop a psychological complex because every slice of pizza they eat has exactly eleven olives in precisely the same positions every single time.

That would also explain the lines about teaching the replicator to mix a drink, or trying to program it with unknown food from first principles rather than being able to provide it an example.

 

[Turtletrekker]

@JD -- what say you?

 

[Christopher]

The joke about Janeway burning a replicated roast suggests that the replicator does more than, well, replicate template items. It might have some kind of "rendering" ability that allows it to simulate the process of cooking a meal, for personalization based on a recipe or individual's cooking style (probably what Janeway was doing), or maybe just as a matter of course to provide some variety and enrichment so people don't slowly develop a psychological complex because every slice of pizza they eat has exactly eleven olives in precisely the same positions every single time.

It's true that you can modify the temperature of an object that comes out of the replicator. I guess that if the replicator assembles something that's a molecularly perfect roast at the moment of its creation but is exceedingly hot, it might burn as quickly as it would if you dropped a perfect roast into an open flame, say.

 

[Turtletrekker]

"Hot banana! Hot banana!"

 

[JD]

@JD -- what say you?

MfKPAOg

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.

It doesn't matter who made the thing as long as no animal were used in the process of making it. If it worked that way modern vegans wouldn't be able to do anything since everything is made by people and people eat meat.

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.

I don't really see that as an issue, I eat plant based meat all the time and it hasn't made me want to go back to eating real meat.
Just to be clear, I'm only speaking for myself here, I'm not sure what the stance of the orginizations who approve of vegan products would be. For me, it would entirely depend on where the information came from, if someone just went down to a farm, and scanned a whole bunch of healthy, well treated animals who were going to go on to full lives, I'd say it's vegan. But if the data came from meat from an animal then I would say it's not. The only thing that makes it a little unclear for me though, is the fact that you aren't actually killing animals or using animals every time you're replicating stuff.

 

[Tosk]

Perhaps all it takes is to beam a cow

Yeah, but what if the cow doesn't want to be beamed?

Treating a cow like property is still arguably exploitation of an animal.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Admiral Vance told us that it's all made of shit anyway.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It doesn't matter who made the thing as long as no animal were used in the process of making it.

Under the qualifications I mentioned, the Kzinti are carnivores. I mean, that's why I used them as an example, in contrast to Vulcans, who (at least in some, most, or almost all episodes) canonically are at least vegetarians.

I also explained my reasoning about the operative words of practicality. In the thought experiment it was practical to choose an alternative where fewer animals were harmed as opposed to more. I doubt vegans would hesitate to support the harming of fewer animals, as opposed to more.

I'll put it another way: Show me a vegan who, when presented with two practical alternatives that cost about the same to produce the same utility, choses the one that they know results in the harm of more animals than would be harmed under the other alternative.

 

[JD]

Oh, I thought you were trying to say that vegan won't even use things made by people who eat even if there are no animals involved in the actual process.

 

[MarcKle1964]

When I'm Starship Captain, my first priority would be a hydroponics farm so the crew can eat non replicated food with real flavor once in a while.

 

[Christopher]

When I'm Starship Captain, my first priority would be a hydroponics farm so the crew can eat non replicated food with real flavor once in a while.

As I said, since replicated food is an exact transporter duplicate of a real item, there's no logic to the belief that it would taste less real. At worst, it would just taste the same every time.

Although, come to think of it, I suppose it's possible that whatever committee is in charge of approving replicator recipes for Starfleet use might favor basic, inoffensive recipes calibrated to be generically pleasant, and thus they might have a certain lack of character.