Vegans and the Replicator

[sevenstars]

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.

And now I'll add this, here - could this be the reason replicator food is off? It's people, like Soylent Green?

And we have a connection.

As soon as I saw the opening of this thread, I thought of a short story I'd read about unutterably tasty, synthetic human flesh, and the moral questions surrounding it. But I couldn't remember the name, and I'm guessing it was "Food of the Gods"-- thanks.

I'm not really sure the "replicated steak" issue goes much beyond the issue of a meat substitute, like TVP or soy-based bacon: someone has eaten the real meat thing in the past, and liked it, and would like to recreate it as closely as possible without actually, you know, killing some meat

However...

...Eating replicated meat is not ever going to make people start harming cows. There is no risk.

I'm not quite sure this is true. Maybe this is the more important argument against replicated flesh, human or animal. What does it inflame desire for, in people who have previously never tasted real meat, and would not initially be inclined to kill for food?

 

[Paradon]

The replicated meat better taste good because I wouldn't eat it if it didn't... Unless there was no other choices. Thats' why there would always be a market for the real thing. Replicating is more like an art form.... There's a lot of imperfection in the real meat and food and trying to replicate it using a precise mathical equation isn't going to cut it.

 

[sevenstars]

Regarding quality, I'm not totally convinced that replicated food is inferior. It may or may not be different, but that doesn't mean people don't really enjoy it. It seems to me on Voyager, replicated food was the rationed luxury; they had a full-time cook they were always complaining about, cooking the real food from all over the Delta Quadrant. He looked pretty competent to me. But they were used to personal preferences and endless variety.

And wasn't Wesley Crusher getting his space princess girlfriend delicious things out of the replicator to try?

 

[Paradon]

A lot of foreign food taste really good, too. I know everybody love thai desert and a lot of noodle dishes...and how about Mexican food. You can only great authentic Mexican food outside of Mexico in L.A. IMO. And my personal favorite is French food. I think that's one of the things Trek got wrong.

 

[sevenstars]

Well, yes, and they ate a lot of what I guess one might consider "foreign food"-- out of the replicator. In fact, it was the replicator that gave them access to their favorite foods from anywhere in the galaxy, anytime they wanted it.

 

[Paradon]

I think it's still hard to replicate food because there isn't a single mathical equation that can describe every molecule and every atom that make up the food because of their imperfections. Furthermore, there are hundreds of thousands of varieties of dishes out there from different cultures. You're talking about duplicating something right down to the molecular level. So this is why I think it doesn't taste as good as the real thing.

 

[horatio83]

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.

My first reaction, being a vegetarian because of ethical reasons, was that I could eat replicated meal and would only not do it because not eating meat has become a habit. This is the obvious, pragmatic, utilitarian solution, no actual harm is done so why not do it.

Your dilemma is rooted in origins, that there is some "original sin" which forever puts a stain on the consumption of meat.
I'd like to approach it from the other end, appearances. Taking into account retrogradeloop's post, what if some Federation race ate synthesized primate meat? Here the problem is not that they killed fellow primates in the past which forbids them to do eat meat without killing but that the appearance of the meat is repugnant to any other primate species.

Why do we put clothes on deceased people? Seems pointless from a pragmatic perspective, homeless folks have more use for it than a corpse. We want to overpaint the ridiculous, disgraceful, biological aspects of a corpse and give dead people a human face (in the sense of culture).

The point is that appearances matter.

 

[Paradon]

Don't animals eat other animals? It's nature that we developed liking for meat. that's how our species were able to develop bigger brain. As long as you are respecting the animals that gave up its life for you, then you're fine. I think if you like eating meat...and in some culture it is part of tradition; then it's also OK. The native people of the Pacific Northwest hunt and eat seals and they eat them raw, blubber and all. In the old days if they didn't eat the seal blubber, they would not survive Alaska's long harsh winter months. They need the seal fat to survive Alaska's very long winter, and it's dark, I think, 6 months out the year. Now it's more like it's part of their tradition and they eat the seal as part of traditional meal.

 

[horatio83]

Nature is one thing, culture is another. We are omnivores but industrial meat production is something cultural.
When someone teases me about my vegeterianism I always tell the joke that I wouldn't mind to go hunting with him in order to indirectly point out this nature-culture issue.

About the bigger brain part, I don't see how meal as a protein source leads to a bigger brain and today the barbecue-and-beer folks seem to not get bigger brains by eating raw amounts of red meat.

 

[Deks]

Well let's see. Acceptable, as in meeting only minimum requirements; barely adequate, capable of being endured, hardly tolerable.

Sounds yummy.

'Acceptable' can also be interpreted by A LOT of people as 'wonderful' or 'just right' (given that someone else besides the 'loved one' or the character itself made it).

No, it probably comes out as good as it's ever going to get. It isn't just like real food "down to the molecular level." What it actually is, is something that looks like the real thing, the shape and external appearance. The internal composition is a approximation. Not a side by side genetic duplication.

An approximation?
Who are you trying to convince?
The recipe and the entire molecular structure of a meal is stored in the ships computer as stated on-screen.
People can also make changes to the recipe that's inside the computer, or they can input new recipes to create their own meals.
Your argument doesn't really hold ground.

Then explain why Starfleet personnel don't do just that? They been eating replicator food for years, they understand how to give verbal instruction to a computer, they could order dish after dish, take a small taste, making small incremental changes to the "recipe."
But there is no sign that anybody ever has. Or that a replicator can be adjusted in this fashion.

They DID.
'I slaved over the replicator for hours' was mentioned several times on Voyager for one thing... because when you fiddle with the recipe of something, you still have to make sure it comes out the way YOU like it.
That can easily take time when you are cooking a meal.
We've mostly seen the crew eating in the mess hall that already has replicators with pre-programmed meals in the ships database, but they won't have access to their modified meals there most likely unless they request it (usually, they make these changes in the privacy of their quarters), and why would they spend long amount of time in the mess-hall changing the recipe when other people would be waiting to order their meals?
They go to the mess-hall for socializing and replicators are taken for granted in that era, as is the food, so why would they rave about it?
It was also mentioned that the replicator can create whatever you want as long as you know it's molecular composition.

Except, by dialog replicators don't dish up anything worth raving about.

Next time you watch the episode New Ground, listen to the enthusiasm in Geordi's voice as he speaks of the soliton wave. How many times can you remember people going on that way about replicator food?

Because the soliton wave was a completely new piece of technology whereas the replicators were already taken for granted and they were based on pre-existing technology. And the soliton Wave was mentioned in but 1 episode, then completely discarded.
Plus, alien races that didn't have replicator technology were continuously amazed at what it could do - and I hadn't seen the Kazon or Neelix complaining about the water not 'tasting right'.

Enthusiasm. Picard speaking on archeology. Riker as he plays jazz. Crusher producing her theater. When people talk with enthusiasm on the subject of food, it's because it is being prepared "by hand."

But not a word of enthusiasm on what falls out of the hole in the wall.

So what?
As Riker himself said, the computer replicates a meal exactly as the recipe states.
They were excited at the prospect that someone was actually HAND MAKING a meal.
These people were mostly accustomed to foods that came out directly from a replicator and was more than adequate for their needs.

Also, on Voyager, the replicator on board the Delta Flyer was programmed with certain dishes that Neelix himself prepared.

Making a statement that you cannot change the recipe of a pattern is nonsensical as you are merely instructing the computer to modify the pre-existing molecular structure by adding or removing certain aspects.
For the love of man, these people are creating something using manipulation of particles on a subatomic scale to re-arrange the structure from one state into something else.
Modifying a simple recipe is a 'no brainer'.

One other thing...
Season 7 of TNG showed Ro-Laren making a very strong hasparat for that old Maqui guy.
They only had access to replicators when it came to food as we've seen.
Plus, the guy's praise of her ability to make such a strong hasparat would be an indication that the meal was indeed 'superb'.

As I've already mentioned twice before, the only 'complaints' we've seen about replicated food came on less than a handful occasions, and from people who either preferred/emphasized actually preparing the food with their bare hands instead of allowing the computer to do all the work for them, or because it didn't taste 'right' because the recipe in the database did not obviously agree with a single persons taste buds (who probably would had to modify every single replicator he came across off to make the meal the way he wanted to).

 

[Relayer1]

Don't animals eat other animals? It's nature that we developed liking for meat. that's how our species were able to develop bigger brain. As long as you are respecting the animals that gave up its life for you, then you're fine. I think if you like eating meat...and in some culture it is part of tradition; then it's also OK. The native people of the Pacific Northwest hunt and eat seals and they eat them raw, blubber and all. In the old days if they didn't eat the seal blubber, they would not survive Alaska's long harsh winter months. They need the seal fat to survive Alaska's very long winter, and it's dark, I think, 6 months out the year. Now it's more like it's part of their tradition and they eat the seal as part of traditional meal.

Yes animals do, but they either have no choice, or lack the intellect to make that choice. Respecting something or cultural tradition does not give you the right to inflict suffering or to kill. Apply your argument to a culture that condoned child abuse or cannibalism and you will get the point.

We have moved past the need to eat meat - we eat meat because we like it, it is killing for our own pleasure. For those few that kill for survival the argument (obviously) does not apply.

About the bigger brain part, I don't see how meal as a protein source leads to a bigger brain and today the barbecue-and-beer folks seem to not get bigger brains by eating raw amounts of red meat.

I refer you to a part of one of my earlier posts (which some fellow veggies dispute purely because they don't like any pro meat arguments) -

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

Putting aside the need for large ruminant type digestive system (possibly with several stomachs) leading to larger abdomens than those in humans or vulcans, higher thinking and social development requires free time. A lifestyle spent constantly grazing or foraging gives little opportunity to develop complex social structure, develop non survival skills such as art and crafts, writing, maths, science and philosophy.

For a lifestyle with free time to explore such niceities you need a plentiful supply of protein that you don't have to expend time obtaining every day - i.e. hunting for meat only every few days / week would free up much of your time.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

[
We have moved past the need to eat meat - we eat meat because we like it, it is killing for our own pleasure.

Agreed on the first point (eating meat because we like it), disagreed on the second.

The meat is already dead when it gets to my plate. I consider my conscience clear, I did not kill it. Of course it could be argued that my love of meat dishes is creating a demand for killing animals, but the eating of meat is too ingrained in our culture and is not going away. I disagree when vegans say they can eliminate the demand for meat by their own personal decision not to eat it. They can choose not to eat meat, but there are too many billions who still will, and they're not changing.

Or as Ron White said: "I didn't claw my way to the top of the fuckin' food chain to eat CARROTS."

That being said, I wonder if there are any vegans who would rethink their position if there came a completely painless and 'clean' method of killing animals for food. We all know how...graphic butchering can be. That's probably a big reason why some vegans exist. But if we could simply press a button and do away with all that, how different would it be? Think about it.

As for cloned meat: If the animal could give up some of its cells, which would later be used to grow cloned meat, and yet the animal would still live, how could anyone have a problem with that? The animal's not even DEAD, for crying out loud! Giving up a few cells is nothing. We all do it every day by simply EXISTING...

 

[horatio83]

[
We have moved past the need to eat meat - we eat meat because we like it, it is killing for our own pleasure.

Agreed on the first point (eating meat because we like it), disagreed on the second.

The meat is already dead when it gets to my plate. I consider my conscience clear, I did not kill it. Of course it could be argued that my love of meat dishes is creating a demand for killing animals, but the eating of meat is too ingrained in our culture and is not going away. I disagree when vegans say they can eliminate the demand for meat by their own personal decision not to eat it. They can choose not to eat meat, but there are too many billions who still will, and they're not changing.

That's like Micheal Corleone saying that he did not kill his brother because he only gave the order whereas someone else actually pulled the trigger.
Sure, eating meat is natural for humans but buying sausages or fishsticks in the supermarket is not natural, it is cultural and the point of culture is that you can change it.

There is not enough place on this planet to sustain a Western-style meal demand for seven billion people, not to mention the carbondioxide emissions of all the cows and pigs.

It is not a matter of chocolate or strawberry cake but one of survival. You carnivores are on the wrong side to achieve this goal.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

That's like Micheal Corleone saying that he did not kill his brother because he only gave the order whereas someone else actually pulled the trigger.

No, not at all. Meat eaters have no personal role in the killing of the meat that is on their plate. It's already there.

I didn't kill the cow that is now my hamburger. I didn't even give the order. I was not involved at all. That hamburger will always exist; it's just a question of who eats it. If I don't, somebody else will.

Some meat eaters may be persuaded, on principle, to switch. But this will never make enough of a difference to eliminate all meat.

 

[Relayer1]

That being said, I wonder if there are any vegans who would rethink their position if there came a completely painless and 'clean' method of killing animals for food. We all know how...graphic butchering can be. That's probably a big reason why some vegans exist. But if we could simply press a button and do away with all that, how different would it be? Think about it.

As for cloned meat: If the animal could give up some of its cells, which would later be used to grow cloned meat, and yet the animal would still live, how could anyone have a problem with that? The animal's not even DEAD, for crying out loud! Giving up a few cells is nothing. We all do it every day by simply EXISTING...

No - instant and painless is better - it's certainly the way I'd like to go, but killing is killing, and it's wrong.

Cloned meat ? Bring it on - I'm in ! As I have said before, I LIKE meat.

As regards the animal 'donating' cells, so what ? There are African tribes whose main source of protein is from blood collected from their prized cattle. They take small amounts on a regular basis. Whilst I can't condone whatever discomfort is caused (probably very little) the animal is essentially unharmed. I am sure we could do likewise with cells but painlessly.

 

[Vanyel]

Currently, can we clone a steak, or ribs, or fajitas from the cells of a live animal? I'm asking can it go from cells to ready made cuts of meat or is there another step or steps between gathering cells and a cut of meat?

 

[Paradon]

The meat takes on the flavor of what it was eating and fat comes from what it was eating, too. So cloning meat probably takes the flavors out of it.

 

[horatio83]

No, not at all. Meat eaters have no personal role in the killing of the meat that is on their plate. It's already there.

I didn't kill the cow that is now my hamburger. I didn't even give the order. I was not involved at all. That hamburger will always exist; it's just a question of who eats it. If I don't, somebody else will.

Some meat eaters may be persuaded, on principle, to switch. But this will never make enough of a difference to eliminate all meat.

That hamburger does not exist if you do not demand it because meat supply isn't fixed / price-independent.
I am not one of these militant veggies who wants to tell other people what to do or what not to do but if you ignore economics 101 in order to convince yourself that you did not cause the killing of animals when you eat meal I have to cry foul and point out that I smell BS.
By the way, you involuntarily pointed out the horror of industrial meat production, people can pretend to not be responsible.

 

[Takeru]

Sure, eating meat is natural for humans but buying sausages or fishsticks in the supermarket is not natural, it is cultural and the point of culture is that you can change it.

I can't speak for others, but I don't want to change it. I don't like killing animals, but love to eat them. So having others do the slaughtering and buying the meat in small portions works perfect for me.

 

[Relayer1]

Sure, eating meat is natural for humans but buying sausages or fishsticks in the supermarket is not natural, it is cultural and the point of culture is that you can change it.

I can't speak for others, but I don't want to change it. I don't like killing animals, but love to eat them. So having others do the slaughtering and buying the meat in small portions works perfect for me.

But disliking killing yet supporting it purely for your own pleasure doesn't reflect very well on you...