Would replicated food be Kosher and Halal?

[CoveTom]

I think it would depend partially on whether the religion prohibited a certain food item because of the food itself being deemed morally wrong, or whether it was something else like a penitential practice.

For example, I am Catholic. In the Catholic Church, Fridays have customarily been days of abstaining from meat. That is not because meat is in any way considered bad, unclean, or immoral, but simply as an act of self-sacrifice as a form of penance.

Now, if a replicator could produce something that, as Riker says, is "as fresh and tasty as meat" but wasn't actually meat, I would think that would be violating the "spirit" of the act of penance, since you would be finding a way to avoid actually making the self-sacrifice.

On the other hand, several religions do not eat pork products because they have a problem with pork itself. In that case, I would think replicated bacon, for example, would be acceptable because the point is to avoid the actual food that comes from the pig, which they are doing.

 

[Christopher]

On the other hand, several religions do not eat pork products because they have a problem with pork itself. In that case, I would think replicated bacon, for example, would be acceptable because the point is to avoid the actual food that comes from the pig, which they are doing.

Synthesized bacon, maybe. But replicated bacon would presumably be a molecular-resolution transporter duplicate of real bacon that had its pattern scanned and stored. It's right there in the name of the technology -- it creates an exact replica of an original item, rather than synthesizing an approximation of it from scratch. So arguably it does come from a pig in a sense.

Yes, there are some episodes where characters opine that replicated food doesn't taste as good as the real thing, but that's a case of the episode writers misunderstanding the technology and confusing it with food synthesis. (My rationalization for those references is that, while a replicated food item tastes exactly like the original item it replicates, every replica tastes exactly the same, which might be less satisfying than meals prepared from scratch, which are different every time.)

 

[CoveTom]

Synthesized bacon, maybe. But replicated bacon would presumably be a molecular-resolution transporter duplicate of real bacon that had its pattern scanned and stored. It's right there in the name of the technology -- it creates an exact replica of an original item, rather than synthesizing an approximation of it from scratch. So arguably it does come from a pig in a sense.

I can see that, but I think it's also up for debate. Riker's full description in "Lonely Among Us" is, "You've seen something as fresh and tasty as meat, but inorganically materialized out of patterns used by our transporters." The whole "inorganic" part is what strikes me. I wonder what the "raw materials" are that the transporter is using to make the "burned, replicated bird meat" that Kurn loves so much.

Yes, there are some episodes where characters opine that replicated food doesn't taste as good as the real thing, but that's a case of the episode writers misunderstanding the technology and confusing it with food synthesis. (My rationalization for those references is that, while a replicated food item tastes exactly like the original item it replicates, every replica tastes exactly the same, which might be less satisfying than meals prepared from scratch, which are different every time.)

I think your rationalization makes a great deal of sense and is in line with what is actually said on some occasions. For example, when Riker is preparing his (not so good) eggs, he says, "The ship's computer would be more efficient, but it wouldn't allow for the subtlety needed for great cooking. It would give you all of the ingredients in pre-determined measurements, but wouldn't allow for flair or individuality. And Data,as we both know, flair is what marks the difference between artistry and mere competence."

 

[Christopher]

I can see that, but I think it's also up for debate. Riker's full description in "Lonely Among Us" is, "You've seen something as fresh and tasty as meat, but inorganically materialized out of patterns used by our transporters." The whole "inorganic" part is what strikes me. I wonder what the "raw materials" are that the transporter is using to make the "burned, replicated bird meat" that Kurn loves so much.

If it's edible to humanoids, then it's made of carbon compounds, and is therefore organic by definition. The raw materials would obviously have to be the same chemical compounds of CHON and trace elements that real meat is made from. Maybe Riker meant "inorganic" in the sense of not grown or derived from living organisms. The chemistry is organic, but the process by which the meal is created is technological.

 

[CoveTom]

If it's edible to humanoids, then it's made of carbon compounds, and is therefore organic by definition. The raw materials would obviously have to be the same chemical compounds of CHON and trace elements that real meat is made from. Maybe Riker meant "inorganic" in the sense of not grown or derived from living organisms. The chemistry is organic, but the process by which the meal is created is technological.

I mean, if you want to go down to that level, then there would be no difference between cows and pigs today because both are made from the same basic carbon compounds that make up all life. But we were discussing this in the context of religion, and clearly various religions differentiate between foods that come from different species of animal in determining whether or not they are allowed to be eaten. So I still think the argument could be made, for religious purposes, that replicated bacon did not actually come from a pig and, therefore, is acceptable.

 

[Christopher]

I mean, if you want to go down to that level, then there would be no difference between cows and pigs today because both are made from the same basic carbon compounds that make up all life. But we were discussing this in the context of religion, and clearly various religions differentiate between foods that come from different species of animal in determining whether or not they are allowed to be eaten. So I still think the argument could be made, for religious purposes, that replicated bacon did not actually come from a pig and, therefore, is acceptable.

It could be made if you define your initial terms in the right way, but such definitions are always arbitrary when it comes to things like religion. Which is my point, that there's no way to predict where given believers might choose to draw the line, and that different religious scholars or authorities would probably have conflicting opinions on the question. Which is what happens when you base things on belief instead of nice solid data.

But the essential difference between replicators and earlier tech like TOS's synthesizers and ENT's protein resequencers is that replicated items are meant to be transporter duplicates of an original item, and thus are identical to the original item, molecule per molecule (albeit with imprecision at the quantum level that makes it unfeasible to replicate living things). So if "Enemy Within" Evil Kirk, Thomas Riker, and William Boimler are real humans, then a replicated pork chop is a real pork chop, or at least as close to it as any technology can feasibly produce. If nothing else, the pattern for it would have been recorded by transporter-scanning a real pork chop, so it would have originally come from a slaughtered pig in that sense.

 

[Tuskin38]

True but in SNW they have TNG style replicators in one of the episodes

He said that in the post you quoted lol

 

[FredH]

(My rationalization for those references is that, while a replicated food item tastes exactly like the original item it replicates, every replica tastes exactly the same, which might be less satisfying than meals prepared from scratch, which are different every time.)

I’ve tended to assume it’s at least sometimes a case of people convincing themselves it doesn’t taste the same and is “just missing something”, when in fact if they didn’t know it was replicated, they’d notice no difference at all.

 

[Citiprime]

I remember seeing someone liken replicated food versus "real" food as being similar to a live concert. Why would people go out to a restaurant like Sisko's when they have a replicator at home? The replicated food is going to be the same every time just like the studio version of a song will sound the same every listen. But if you go to the concert, there's a chance of hearing a variation of the song which will be a unique experience.

This also goes for the Holodeck.

Why would people go on real vacation trips to Risa when you could program the holodeck to offer any experience you'd like? People still place value on uniqueness and a natural experience.

 

[Christopher]

I’ve tended to assume it’s at least sometimes a case of people convincing themselves it doesn’t taste the same and is “just missing something”, when in fact if they didn’t know it was replicated, they’d notice no difference at all.

Also plausible. I've read that wine tasting is very subjective and that people can be manipulated into imagining they taste a difference when there is none.

 

[CoveTom]

Which is what happens when you base things on belief instead of nice solid data.

Sounds like something Picard would say during one of his pompous anti-religion speeches.

But the essential difference between replicators and earlier tech like TOS's synthesizers and ENT's protein resequencers is that replicated items are meant to be transporter duplicates of an original item, and thus are identical to the original item, molecule per molecule (albeit with imprecision at the quantum level that makes it unfeasible to replicate living things). So if "Enemy Within" Evil Kirk, Thomas Riker, and William Boimler are real humans, then a replicated pork chop is a real pork chop, or at least as close to it as any technology can feasibly produce. If nothing else, the pattern for it would have been recorded by transporter-scanning a real pork chop, so it would have originally come from a slaughtered pig in that sense.

I'm still not sure I agree. Of course, this is all fiction, so there is no "real" answer. However, you are coming to a conclusion about just what a food replicator is which does not seem to be supported by what the characters themselves actually say. Their descriptions of what food replicators do, and the rather frequent discussions about how real food is superior to replicated food, suggest to me that replicators are not, in fact, making exact transporter duplicates of the original item. Based on the character reactions and statements, it feels more to me like an advancement of the earlier food synthesizers that is still constructing a close approximation, rather than being like beaming up a pig and cooking it.

 

[Christopher]

I'm still not sure I agree. Of course, this is all fiction, so there is no "real" answer. However, you are coming to a conclusion about just what a food replicator is which does not seem to be supported by what the characters themselves actually say.

It comes from the published technical manuals and behind-the-scenes info. It's also obvious from the visual and sound effects of replicators that they're transporter-based. Plus, as I said, the very name "replicator" indicates something that creates exact replicas, not just approximations. If it were merely a synthesizer, they would call it a synthesizer.

Their descriptions of what food replicators do, and the rather frequent discussions about how real food is superior to replicated food, suggest to me that replicators are not, in fact, making exact transporter duplicates of the original item.

Except that real people are wrong about things all the time, so why should we assume that everything a fictional character says or believes is absolute gospel?

Also, how "frequent" are these discussions? I don't recall it coming up more than a handful of times. Besides, I and others have already discussed how to reconcile that character perception. It could be the result of exact replicas always tasting the same and thus being less interesting, or it could be a subjective perception based on people's assumptions and expectations.

Not to mention that scriptwriters sometimes get things wrong, so we can't take every word as gospel. The Moriarty episodes of TNG included gibberish about "holodeck matter," contradicting not only the technical manuals but the frequent references in Voyager to holodeck constructs being made of "photons and force fields." VGR: "Fury" claimed "Faster than light, no left or right," i.e. that a starship at warp couldn't turn, even though we've frequently seen starships doing just that both before and after that episode. The problem with citing "evidence" from a bunch of made-up stories is that different data points can contradict each other.

Based on the character reactions and statements, it feels more to me like an advancement of the earlier food synthesizers that is still constructing a close approximation, rather than being like beaming up a pig and cooking it.

But why would it be? If it's a transporter-based technology, which it visibly and audibly is, then it would logically have the ability to scan real items and record their patterns. So that would be the simplest way to create a catalog of replicator items.

Besides, it's not just food that gets replicated, it's uniforms, equipment, ship components, etc. Replicated components and devices would have to be exact replicas in order to function as intended. So why wouldn't foodstuffs be?

 

[Forbin]

My only dietary restrictions arise from having no gall bladder. All that religious stuff just confuses me.

 

[David cgc]

Their descriptions of what food replicators do, and the rather frequent discussions about how real food is superior to replicated food, suggest to me that replicators are not, in fact, making exact transporter duplicates of the original item. Based on the character reactions and statements, it feels more to me like an advancement of the earlier food synthesizers that is still constructing a close approximation, rather than being like beaming up a pig and cooking it.

My take is that replicators (at least, Starfleet replicators feeding people on the job) alter their template patterns to make food as healthy as possible. Similar to fortifying foods with vitamins and minerals in the modern day, but even more intrinsic, adjusting proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and so on while still (ostensibly) looking, feeling, and tasting like the original food. In "The Price," Deanna's chocolate rant shows that she knows the replicator is perfectly capable of creating an authenticly unhealthy dessert, it just doesn't do that normally, producing a diet-compliant version instead.

That might also be related to the Lower Decks episode that showed that the junior officers had lower-quality replicators with fewer options than the command crew.