Vegans and the Replicator

[Deks]

According to the technical advisers to the show, by way of the TNG tech manual (non-canon),
something does go into the replicator, a sterile organic goo from a holding tank.

Which just might explain the finished product's taste.

Key phrase: 'non-canon'.
Replicators were REPEATEDLY stated to convert Energy into Matter and there was 0 mention on-screen that they use organic mass/raw matter of any kind to make anything.
And if you bring up Ds9 and how we saw some kind of matter being splurged when they were fixing a replicator - keep in mind that those were Cardassian replicators, not Federation, and it was a malfunction - other situations in cases of malfunctions demonstrated that things appeared in systems where they didn't belong - so the Ds9 singular example of a 'leaking pipe' is 0 proof.

Also, even if raw matter WAS involved (and by on-screen evidence/statements it's NOT) nothing would affect the product's taste.
Because it would be broken down into base elements, then reconstituted into something entirely different... once you get rid of the original by breaking it down into base elements and you rearrange them to suit your needs, it no longer 'tastes', 'feels' or 'smells' like the thing it was before (because you just formed a new molecular structure).
But this process of breaking down matter into base elements and reconstituting them into new matter was done in Archers and Kirk's era before the invention of replicators, and even WE can do it.

The way energy to matter transformation probably happens is on the subatomic scale through rearrangement of particles.
The plasma that runs through the EPS grid of the ship probably contains base elements in abundance (they would likely use a form of energy which would for all intense and purposes be 'convenient), which makes it an excellent source (it's constantly generated so long as the Warp core is active and the system is supplied).
The replicator merely takes needed energy, and re-assembles those readily available base elements into matter at a command.
It stands to reason they would be energy intensive as a result (at least until Voyager got the technology in season 7 to triple their efficiency and reduce the power consumption by half - of what they were using while they were in a Void which forced the ship at the time to consume 10x more power than outside of it).

Archer's and Kirk's era way of producing foods and materials was probably done (as previously mentioned - plus it was in fact directly inferred) via heavy recycling (which would entail breaking down existing matter into base elements and then reconstituting them into something else) and selective growth of specific protein based organs (synthetic meat with all the nutrients if not even more so - there would be 0 need for slaughtering animals even before Archer's Enterprise NX-01 was launched - so I really don't get why a lot of people tout that replicators would eliminate a lot of things - they are just a step up from what was done before- and a more efficient/cleaner way of doing it).

Your argument that replicators create 'flawed' food is flawed by itself, because it's only been mentioned on FEW instances (2 or 3 at best) by selective (and again FEW) characters who stated the food 'doesn't taste right' - which can be interpreted in MANY ways... the first one that comes to mind was that it tastes different to those specific individuals, because they probably grew accustomed to food which has been PREPARED in a different way.
The replicator has a pattern for how a certain meal is done in a 'generic way' - therefore, a person would probably have to 'slave over the replicator' so to say in order to get the taste right because they would have to fiddle with the existing pattern so they can add or remove certain things to 'get the taste right'.
Kim for example replicated his mom's Apple pie, and ended up saying 'it's good, but would have tasted better in San Francisco'.
Psychological effect at work, nothing more.

Also... vegans can still exist even if no animals died to supply your meat.
How?
They could be disgusted by meat itself for one thing (as Vulcans apparently are).

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I've considered the possibility that Vulcan (apparently) don't eat meat because they're biologically incapable of doing so. Vulcans are herbivores, the meat would basically pass straight through their bodies, providing no nutrition.

It's virtually impossible for biologically adapted herbivores to attain intelligence and culture.

You sure? What if the plants fought back? Especially if the prey ones weren't sessile, and needed to be hunted down and eventually domesticated.

OK, this is sci-fi, and a plausible scenario could possibly be constructed, but as I said, it's not likely...

See above.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Replicators were REPEATEDLY stated to convert Energy into Matter

Replicators don't convert energy into matter, they USE energy to convert matter to other matter.

What the 'original matter' is, is of course up for debate. Probably derives as much from recycling 'waste matter' as it would from using inert bulk.

As for vegans: I doubt there are any in Trek's time. Vegans exist today because they feel it's immoral or unhealthy (or both) to eat meat or dairy products. Logically speaking, with replicated food, both of those go away.

 

[Vanyel]

As for vegans: I doubt there are any in Trek's time. Vegans exist today because they feel it's immoral or unhealthy (or both) to eat meat or dairy products. Logically speaking, with replicated food, both of those go away.

The moral issue doesn't go away. A pattern for for a 20oz T-bone steak cooked to Medium well (my favorite) had to come from somewhere. The easiest source would be a butchered and cooked T-bone steak, that was scanned. So while you may be well over 100 years from the butchered cattle, it still had to die to make that pattern.

The idea that they could scan a whole live animal is plausible, then use that scan to virtually butcher and get what cuts you want. However using food that's already butchered, possibly even cooked, would be easier. You have a steak cooked properly, and you wont have to have people experimenting with the virtual cow to get the right cuts of meat and then have them cook it properly.

 

[USS Excelsior]

They could also scan a dead cow if it died other than from it being killed for food.

Besides the real debate will be when there's in-vitro meat available en masse that's grown in the lab.

From pig to plate graphic:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101208/full/468752a/box/1.html

Article:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101...ost_recent+(NatureNews+-+Most+recent+articles

 

[Elder Knight]

There's an Arthur C. Clarke short story (I think it's entitled "Food of the Gods," that deals with a dilemma regarding synthetic meat.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The moral issue doesn't go away. A pattern for for a 20oz T-bone steak cooked to Medium well (my favorite) had to come from somewhere.

Of course it came from somewhere - the computer. By definition, no real animals are ever harmed when replicators are used. So therefore, the moral issue cannot apply.

So while you may be well over 100 years from the butchered cattle, it still had to die to make that pattern.

Even if one butchered animal was used a hundred years ago, that was all in the past. Animals are not *regularly* butchered to make replicated food. The process is not ongoing. Taking a moral stand against meat that's replicated is useless, because it will have no lasting effects - it will not save any animals, because no animals are hurt in the making of replicated food.

What's past is past, and should not be considered. You don't see people refusing on principle to drive Volkswagens just because Hitler had a hand in their creation, do you?

 

[Deks]

Replicators were REPEATEDLY stated to convert Energy into Matter

Replicators don't convert energy into matter, they USE energy to convert matter to other matter.

What the 'original matter' is, is of course up for debate. Probably derives as much from recycling 'waste matter' as it would from using inert bulk.

Where was it stated on-screen that replicators convert matter into matter exactly?
Nowhere.
They were stated to convert energy into matter and were specific about this.

Also, in regards to Vegans, as I already said... they might have developed an actual disliking for meat based products as such.
No moral ground is required.

 

[Vanyel]

The moral issue doesn't go away. A pattern for for a 20oz T-bone steak cooked to Medium well (my favorite) had to come from somewhere.

Of course it came from somewhere - the computer. By definition, no real animals are ever harmed when replicators are used. So therefore, the moral issue cannot apply.

So while you may be well over 100 years from the butchered cattle, it still had to die to make that pattern.

Even if one butchered animal was used a hundred years ago, that was all in the past. Animals are not *regularly* butchered to make replicated food. The process is not ongoing. Taking a moral stand against meat that's replicated is useless, because it will have no lasting effects - it will not save any animals, because no animals are hurt in the making of replicated food.

What's past is past, and should not be considered. You don't see people refusing on principle to drive Volkswagens just because Hitler had a hand in their creation, do you?

Well since you brought them up, there are many doctors who refuse to use data gained by Nazi experiments on humans. It's still an ethical and moral issue for many. Were about 70 years from the time of those medical tortures, is it okay to use that data now? Or can we use it in 30 years? After all, it was in the past.

And I did have a neighbor who served in WWII (He fought in Europe and was wounded in France.) and until his dieing day, he never intentionally used a German made product. If he found out it was German made he'd throw it away.

 

[Paradon]

Sometimes God and morality is all we got... You throw that out the window and all that's left is an empty shell. If everybody always try to do the right thing, there wouldn't be so much wars, suffering and death. And what you do does send ripples. They can kill us but they can't never defeat us and that pisssed of people that is as closed to evil. Eventually, good will trumphs...if hope is kept alive because nobody likes pain and suffering.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Well since you brought them up, there are many doctors who refuse to use data gained by Nazi experiments on humans. It's still an ethical and moral issue for many. Were about 70 years from the time of those medical tortures, is it okay to use that data now? Or can we use it in 30 years? After all, it was in the past.

I submit that it would be okay to use such data now. There is no more Nazi Party; to use the data gathered by an organization that no longer exists would not be lending credence to it, it would not be giving them legitimacy. The data is already out there. It is not going away. To use it to save lives is, IMHO, a more justifiable act than allowing people to die on principle.

On a lesser scale, the same principle applies here. If, by TNG's time, there were some who refused to eat replicated meat because a cow died three hundred years ago, what is the point of that? With the invention of the replicator, no one will ever kill a cow for food again. Eating replicated meat is not ever going to make people start harming cows. There is no risk.

 

[Paradon]

I think a moral society is more properous and best of all...no one dies needlessly and senselessly.

 

[Vanyel]

Well since you brought them up, there are many doctors who refuse to use data gained by Nazi experiments on humans. It's still an ethical and moral issue for many. Were about 70 years from the time of those medical tortures, is it okay to use that data now? Or can we use it in 30 years? After all, it was in the past.

I submit that it would be okay to use such data now. There is no more Nazi Party; to use the data gathered by an organization that no longer exists would not be lending credence to it, it would not be giving them legitimacy. The data is already out there. It is not going away. To use it to save lives is, IMHO, a more justifiable act than allowing people to die on principle.

On a lesser scale, the same principle applies here. If, by TNG's time, there were some who refused to eat replicated meat because a cow died three hundred years ago, what is the point of that? With the invention of the replicator, no one will ever kill a cow for food again. Eating replicated meat is not ever going to make people start harming cows. There is no risk.

While the Nazi Party may no longer be around, its ideology is still carried out by the Neo-Nazi's.

To use the data collected on helpless children by Dr. Mengele, is enough of a moral dilemma to make me refuse the use of the data. People, were left out to freeze. People were sown together to create co-joined twins. People were forced to the limits of their bodies endurance and beyond and you think it's okay to use that data because it happened in the past? It's okay to build on evil of that scale? It would give Dr. Mengele's "research" legitimacy because it's being used. It would give him the legitimacy given to Dr. Salk.

Tell me, are you saying what you did for arguments sake or because you believe our hands would be clean because we did no killing, and it happened so long ago? Would you make the same argument to a survivor of Dr. Mengele?

 

[Timo]

I think a moral society is more properous and best of all...no one dies needlessly and senselessly.

How so? There's nothing in the definition of "morals" to preclude needless and senseless death or killing. Indeed, some popular morals absolutely require it. They just play semantic tricks with the words "needless" and "senseless"; popular replacements include "patriotic" and "selfless"...

In a more universal sense, morals take away the power to decide. Which is just sheer moral cowardice in itself, because the morals originally were decided by somebody - why outsource your integrity?

Veganism is a personal decision. Whether one finds it justified by ecological, economical, moral or gastronomical arguments is another personal decision. And whether another one approves...

It wouldn't be difficult to see future vegans use their pre-meal prayer to pay their respects to the Jesus Cow who gave her ribs so that the world would never again have to raise cattle - and then gorge themselves upon replicated beef.

Nor would it be difficult to see other future vegans consider these people murderers and neo-carnivores, and engage in replicator burning and fly-by shootings of beef pattern artists.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Paradon]

I think a moral society is more properous and best of all...no one dies needlessly and senselessly.

How so? There's nothing in the definition of "morals" to preclude needless and senseless death or killing. Indeed, some popular morals absolutely require it. They just play semantic tricks with the words "needless" and "senseless"; popular replacements include "patriotic" and "selfless"...

In a more universal sense, morals take away the power to decide. Which is just sheer moral cowardice in itself, because the morals originally were decided by somebody - why outsource your integrity?

Veganism is a personal decision. Whether one finds it justified by ecological, economical, moral or gastronomical arguments is another personal decision. And whether another one approves...

It wouldn't be difficult to see future vegans use their pre-meal prayer to pay their respects to the Jesus Cow who gave her ribs so that the world would never again have to raise cattle - and then gorge themselves upon replicated beef.

Nor would it be difficult to see other future vegans consider these people murderers and neo-carnivores, and engage in replicator burning and fly-by shootings of beef pattern artists.

Timo Saloniemi

Sorry for not reading the other thread properly. I'm buy no mean against or for vegan and people who enjoy eating meat. I think the issue concerning my view on morality really has not relevant on this thread.

Anyhow, what I meant my morality is the way most people around the world view it today... THings like freedom, human rights and liberty. That's why I think people can decide for themselves whether to be a vegan or carnivore/omnivore. But I do think that vegans tend to take out their frustration out on other people, who some time didn't know any better, because they can't change the world... They're too quick to blame other people for their own shortcoming and the world and point out their mistakes. Furthermore, I feel that humans had evolved to become more of a meat eater. Fighting the urge to eat meat, I think, only make you feel more and more like crap because you can't really make the cravings go away and that drives these people crazy.

Everthing in moderation!

 

[Deks]

But you have to keep in mind how that's your opinion of course which is not shared by everyone.

Furthermore, morality doesn't need religion in order to exist or function or vice verse.
Both can be (and were) used to entice people into doing acts that can be considered 'heinous' (definition of which depends entirely on how a person perceives it - which again is determined by personal perceptions, cultural influence, background, environment, etc...).

Biologically speaking, humans are actually much closer to herbivores than carnivores.
Likewise, each persons body has a unique biochemistry which effectively translates to different kinds of reactions to what we ingest, are exposed to, etc.

Furthermore, just because a large concentration of people behave or live in a certain way, doesn't mean it can be applicable to every person on the planet (let alone with success).
Look at the medical establishment and just how many people suffer/die from various problems without them even knowing the actual cause... or if they do, apply potentially dangerous drugs that can quite simply kill you, even though tests existed for some time to determine each person's tolerance to various substances, chemicals, etc., nutrient absorption, and a whole bunch of other things I won't even go into (and yet they aren't part of 'standard' diagnosis).
And why?
Because a lot of people find it easier to generalize than to 'waste time' in trying to look at each situation individually.

Personally, I enjoy eating meat, but for the most part, my diet is comprised of non-meat based foods.

As for vegans, they can probably easily develop a distaste for meat (simply because it doesn't agree with them) even if it's not based on 'slaughtering of animals' as some would put it.
It's no different than some people not liking certain types of foods for example because they make their stomachs turn.

 

[Paradon]

No, morality doesn't need religeon to function, but it does make me a better and stronger person, which allows me to live and enjoy life even more. To me God represent something that fills the void in my heart...the goodness I feel that might be missing because I'm suffering a great deal. Life can be pretty sad and believing in God is better than the alternatives as to becoming too attached to and deify pets or become animal horders. People need to find emotional and spiritual support to help cope with sickness, suffering and death.

Anyway, biologically speaking the humans are more carnivorous. Actually, I think we are what you called a true ominivore. Because if we were a trure herbovores, we could extract all the nurtrients that we need just eating leaves or grasses but we can't. Even some herbivores can't digest grasses because there is too much rasin, tough cellulose that protects it from animals that eat them. I'm not saying you like to eat meat, but I feel that we as a species love eating meat. I have nothing against vegetarians, but I do think that sometimes these people tends to look at life in more black and white and take out their frustration on people who didn't know any better.

On a side note: there isn't anything wrong with the doctors in this country. It's the government system that got our healthcare system where it is today.

 

[Deks]

Life can be pretty sad and believing in God is better than the alternatives as to becoming too attached to and deify pets or become animal horders. People need to find emotional and spiritual support to help cope with sickness, suffering and death.

Lol... 'belief', 'faith' and similar concepts are aspects I personally found ludicrous a long time ago.
I prefer seeing things in a continuous state of flux, and never really 'fixed'.
I have no need for 'beliefs' or 'faith' (in any sense of the said terms), let alone 'god' or 'religion' - but that's just me.
You also had humans a long time ago who also didn't endorse religion of any kind, didn't have 'beliefs' or 'faith' and they often even behaved in a far more 'humane' capacity than those who did otherwise - plus they coped with life just fine.
Furthermore, to say that a person is 'empty' or 'devoid' inside simply because they don't conform to your particular perception seems a bit short-sighted to me.

Also, the human digestive track is practically the same like the ones found in herbivores (long) than carnivores (short).
We CAN eat other things though, that's not the question, but biologically speaking we are far closer to herbivores than other types.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but alternative foods that contain high concentrations of nutrients often found in 'meat' based products do exist - and they are plant based.
Furthermore, leaves and grass have only so much nutritious value...
Even full-blown herbivores in nature probably eat diverse forms of plant life, just like humans eat diverse forms of foods.

As for doctors...
Which country are you talking about?
Countries aside, doctors are trained to think within specific parameters, and they often 'drone' about various things that are 'well established' even if it's not really based on the scientific method and will prescribe treatments that work for 'most' people (generalization).
I'm actually surprised just how much the US population is stuffing itself with drugs on a regular basis to 'take care of' every single thing.

Surprisingly, humans can manage just fine (even better) without pumping drugs all the time into their bodies that suppress their immune systems (which can result in a wide 'arsenal' of issues down the line).
The doctors who are smart and care about their patients would prescribe drugs only if absolutely necessary (no other choice) and on a short term basis.

But hey, plenty of people conform to what is 'generally accepted' or comes from 'accredited individuals', right?
Lol...
The plethora of issues society is facing because of such behavior is rather evident.
Plenty of eople have a tendency to not do their own research nor do they question or try to determine what is best for them (instead, they give the job to someone else, switch their brains off, and 'hope for the best').

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

While the Nazi Party may no longer be around, its ideology is still carried out by the Neo-Nazi's.

Who are so scattered and ineffectual as to be effectively irrelevant. There will never again be a Nazi Party on the scale of the one that once existed in Germany. Nazism is as dead as Communism.

 

[T'Girl]

There will never again be a Nazi Party on the scale of the one that once existed in Germany. Nazism is as dead as Communism.

The Ba'ath political party that currently exists in many middle eastern countries, is in all but name the Nazi political party. The ideals are the same, Saddam Hussein's political party was Ba'ath. The party survives him.

Vulcans are herbivores

It's virtually impossible for biologically adapted herbivores to attain intelligence and culture.

You sure?

Star Trek did have the Phylosians. A mobile sentient plant species, who possessed a technologically-advanced civilization.

'god' or 'religion'

This thread brings up something else. Could a Muslim or a Jew eat replicated pork? Would a Hindu be able to partake of replicated beef?

If the replicated matter isn't real, but a artificial construct, do the dietary restrictions remain in place? If it all comes out of the same "box," how do you know that your Passover lamb was male? If what comes out of a replicator was never "the flesh of any warm-blooded animal," then can Catholics do barbequed chicken on Lent Friday's?

... something does go into the replicator, a sterile organic goo from a holding tank.

... and there was 0 mention on-screen that they use organic mass/raw matter of any kind to make anything.

But then you said.

The replicator merely takes needed energy, and re-assembles those readily available base elements into matter at a command.

So, while we disagree on the form, you do agree with myself and others that the replicator does use previously existing materials (base elements), and not just "energy" to produce it's final product.

Your argument that replicators create 'flawed' food is flawed by itself, because it's only been mentioned on FEW instances (2 or 3 at best) by selective (and again FEW) characters

But it was mentioned, and by more than a single person (like the dismissible single mention of no money). And how many time did we hear people comment that the replicator food was great, or fantastic? Deanna seem to enjoy her chocolate, and that's it, single references are dismissible flukes. Tom Riker was enjoying his first meal after being rescued, but he likely would have enjoyed anything decent.

There is no strong evidence that replicator food rises above "acceptable."

People talk about good food, whether they make it themselves, or it was laid in front of them at a restaurant. We have heard people on the shows talk about common everyday things, but not about the glorious meal that the replicator produced for dinner last night.

Last night was Thanksgiving dinner at my sister home, and I'm going to come right out and say it ... THE FOOD WAS FANTASTIC. It wasn't just the setting, or the company, the food itself was spectacular. All my phone calls and E-mail since that meal have commented on it. When on the show did anyone ever say the same about a replicated meal?

The leftover roasted turkey wing I had for breakfast was pretty good too. From the evidence, the dialog from the show, if it had come out of a replicator it wouldn't have been "pretty good."