The Speculist

Of course, there are many vegetarians -- even of the ethical variety -- who aren't as obnoxious (or reality-challenged) as PETA. And it's entirely possible to believe that eating a cheeseburger is wrong without believing it's murder.

For example, orthodox Jews don't eat cheeseburgers (even with kosher beef and cheese) because it is considered immoral to mix meat and dairy products.

Which brings us back to a question we've discussed before. When we have vat-grown meat, will all the religious and ethical restrictions still apply? Can a vegetarian eat a vat-grown steak? Can an observant Jew eat vat-grown shellfish?

And, coming back to the picture, will there be a fad of eating vat-grown human flesh?

CHARLTON HESTON (running through the streets, panicking, face streaked with sweat):

Vat-grown human flesh is sort of made out of people!!! It's kind of like eating PEEEEEEEEEOPLE...

Phil:

Yeah, I overstated my case. People have very complex relationships with food. Many vegetarians don't believe killing animals for food is wrong. They just choose to eat other things - maybe for health reasons. And then there are the cases you stated.

I should have said that in order for PETA to convince you to become THEIR kind of vegetarian, they have to get you to believe that killing animals for food is murder. That's a hard sell. It doesn't help their case that we are adapted to eat meat. We have the teeth to tear meat, the shortened intestines that meat eaters have, and we possess the necessary enzymes to digest meat.

Yeah, plus it's yummy.

I do think that our society will revisit this issue when vat grown meat is indistinguishable from the real thing.

But THEN:

CHARLTON HESTON (running through the streets, panicking, face streaked with sweat):

Have you seen those pulsating pods of flesh!? It's GROOOOOSSS!!!! GROOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSS!!!

"Soylent Blue is horses!"

Hi, just thought I'd post here, even if no-one reads this! The views you've put on here are very blind, now I've been a veggie for almost a year and i think its great. But I'm a bit different to most veggie's. I tend to do a LOT of thinking, and i don't know if you follow the theory that we evolved from apes and not through God putting us on this earth, but if you do then this won't apply to you. Even so, please read this and let me know what you think.

At some point in evolution our diets may have consisted off of plant life alone (we were herbivores), in extreme conditions food sources become scarce, so we are forced to find 'alternate' food methods, so our food becomes meat from other animals. Apes you will notice are the prime example of this, an apes diet involves mainly fruit and vegetation, although there are rare instances when they will kill and eat smaller organisms (sorry, they eat insects too). This desision to eat other animals led evolution to give us the necescary biological adpations to eat meat. Don't belive me? then let me tell you this; the human organism has an appendix, the appendix can be safely removed from the body without causing any trouble to the human. The appendix's actual use is the breakdown of tough materials such as thich leaves and tree bark. But wait! says God boy, theres nothing in the bible about tree munching, in fact I'm sure Jesus never got off his horse on palm Sunday, waved to the crowd, then made a feast out of trees, if he did then I'm sure the loaves and the fishes would have made more sense. So why would god give us appendixes, well theres my problem. My beleif is that God never existed in the first place, or, that he did contribute to our evolution, hence he did 'make' us, but not out of dust or whatever.

Ok, so now were thinkinbg along my lines consider this, a human is an animal, just as a cat/dog or even a monkey, but the human has better adaptions than other animals. Now the human has adapted; as has the cat and the dog, to eat meat. So when Phil says 'It doesn't help their case that we are adapted to eat meat. We have the teeth to tear meat, the shortened intestines that meat eaters have, and we possess the necessary enzymes to digest meat' he is right, but thats the wrong way to use your well learned information: 'humans are supposed to be omniverous' (or eat meat), but as vegetarians such as myself prove, you can 'live' off a vegetarian diet. It pisses me off though when PETA and other vegetarians say 'eating meat is wrong', listen to me veggie's!!! ITS NOT WRONG!!! what wrong is keeping animals caged up (not that they dont have a nice life anyway) then killing them. Especially as little kids will happily go to a pig farm, feed the pigs, then go home and eat them without knowing what its doing. Consider this though, if we are animals like other animals and not 'humans' which most people consider a completely different thing to animals, (hence the term human and animal used as opposing terms), then all we are doing is what we are naturally supposed to do, eat food to survive, and if we've adapted to eat meat then we are eating meat. Now, this is where i get contraversial! Meat, is the flesh (muscle) of an animal, whether it be pig, cow, chicken, sheep, horse, cat, dog the list goes on. So, what covers the bones of a human...Oh yeah.. Flesh or more commonly reffered to as MEAT! So, (and this is why I love the picture at the top), why don't we eat human meat, some do, apparently its a lot like pork but slightly saltier. If you do, you get locked up, but whats the difference, a lot of animals will eat thier own species/close reletives (apes) and don;t get arrested. I think we should look beyond cannibalism and put some delicious human meat on the market. Now for those people who are puking into a bucket at the thought of this just remember its only the same as the meat of other animals so you cant complain, just think next time your eating pork, what would this be like with a bit of salt, hmmm thats human! Another point is that in some countries people will eat animals that over here we would consider 'wrong' or 'disgusting', e.g. in france eating horse meat is quite common, and in places in India they will strip the skin off live dogs and hang them off meat racks for human consumption, they will also keep tiny kittens caged up for eating. Now ordinarily, you should see that as wrong, but to them it is quite common, so when we think of canibalism as wrong, is this the same? Please understand my views, both meat eaters and vegetarians. I have no problem with either of you but I'd rather that meat eaters understood what they are eating, and veggies; meat eating isnt wrong, but how we prepare animals for slaughter it is [misspelled expletive deleted], imagine this: From a young age (14) children are taken from thier parents into camps, they are fed food and fattened up, once sufficent fatty muscle has been put on they are taken into rooms and either; shot/electricuted etc. then the bodies are hung up and carved to the bone (in some cases the bone of the child will be left intact from the joint, so people can have human leg). Human hands etc. are discarded, perhaps sent to a cat/dog food factory as they contain little meat. The meat from the stomach would be very fatty red meat. The meat off the lower back of the child may be good. And leg or arm meat would be the tastiest. Ok, so now you probably think I'm sick, but replace the words 'child' and human' etc. with pig and its fine. (every animal has a brain almost identical) The thing is we are all animals and if we want to eat one-another ten we can, but I still think its something I'd rather not be a part of. Ignore it, or accept it, we are eating our own. Thanks for reading this if you did.

Wow, I'm not suprised if you didnt read this!!! I put a LOT!

Tom.

Tom:

Thanks for your comments. A few of thoughts:

1. Have a look around the blog and you'll see that we're pretty familiar with evolution. This blog doesn't dispute evolution, in fact we generally assume that it's more or less correct. And without attempting to speak for Stephen, I can say that -- in my opinion -- the whole "God vs. evolution" dichotomy is a tired one, and it's well past time it was put to rest. If God exists (and I believe He does) then He does so irrespective of whether evolution is true. If God does not exist, his non-existence is also independent of the veracity of evolution. The two facts are not logically dependent on each other.

2. Meat eating is much more common among apes than was originally thought. Apparently chimps organize all-out hunting expiditions for monkeys. Chimps have also been known to develop a taste for human flesh. The line between meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters is not as clear as we would like it to be. Also, since you accept the fact that humanity is an evolved species, why is it so hard to believe that we were non-meat-eaters who evolved into meat-eaters? (Chimps may be going through a similar evolution even now.) Or are you saying that evolution has taken a wrong turn somehow?

3. I think you may have a point about caging animals and you definitely have a point about mistreating them. Killing them, I'm less certain about. In some sense it probably is wrong for us to kill animals, but how could we ever come to that conclusion? Certainly not from watching animals in the wild. They kill each other as and when they need to. Still, I believe that humans have a special responsibility to animals, a higher one than they have to each other. (However, this is a religious belief of mine, so you may not find it interesting or relevant.) As I noted in an earlier commnent, I believe that technology will eventually remove the need to kill animals from the production of meat (or leather). I'm looking forward to that. I think it will be a very good thing.

4. The reason we don't eat human flesh is because it's wrong to kill people. I believe that it's morally wrong to use other people in any way: as objects of agression, as sex objects, as slave labor to do my bidding, or as food. This is a moral belief that I would maintain even if it were to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. This belief extends to animals in that I think that we shouldn't use animals as a means to an end wantonly or cruelly. And, per my previous point, if we can get beyond using animals at all, I'll be fine with that. But I don't think your children-to-animals comparison works. Human beings are not the same as animals. Even if my belief that this is so is nothing more than a case of species-based prejudice, I'm sticking with it.

Fair enough, although I can't really grasp your view on religion, and if it’s what I think it is, then that might be a little similar to my view on religion. I did at one point think that God exists, but then once I'd done an animal management course at college, I realised that science overpowered religion and I couldn't see how a God could exist, but then I thought; maybe God isn't a person, maybe God is a word that we use to explain the unexplained, like; why did the tree fall over, "Oh, God did it", in the olden times, due to lack of scientific knowledge, people would have been unable to explain things that went on in the world e.g. thunder and lightning, so they would use religion as the answer e.g. 'god is angry', humans are comforted by understanding. In other words, 'GOD' is another way of describing 'mother nature' the biggest clue here being that 'God is all around us' a fact that a lot of Christians choose to believe, yet they still see God as a person. That may not be what you believe, but again I am just seeing what you think. Sorry to rabbit on about Evolution, I haven’t been here before! I'll try to limit my use of it in conversation.

I also should say, that I am only 17! Don’t think I'm some immature kid though, I know what you're saying, although it does mean Im unfamiliar with a few of the words you use! Out of interest how old are you, and what education have you had? Or are you self taught.

The point you made on 2. about 'evolution going wrong' is not completely what I meant. Although people will classify an organism as an omnivore, carnivore, herbivore insectivore WHATEVER! It may be forced to find alternate food methods e.g. meat, and because humans (being a highly developed animal) found food scarce at one point, or chose to eat meat for some other reason (perhaps because it tasted better or provided better nutrients).

The important thing to remember though is that evolution doesn’t happen because it is supposed to, birth and death are all part of evolution, birth provides the new model a sort of mark 2 of the predecessor. Death, allows space for the newly adapted organism to live. If everyone lived forever, then there would be no point in evolution. This does bring up an interesting point though, 'what is the meaning of life', for a lifetime people have though this and have come to no answer, its my belief that there is no meaning to life. Life happens as an accident. Life, is not supposed to happen. It just does, we are no more significant on this planet, than ants are in the back garden. Ants that we dont really want to live with. The problem with humans is is that we take too much care in life and choose to believe that we do have a purpose.

Maybe ants do as well, maybe ants wake up in the morning and think that their purpose to life is to invade human homes and collect food I dunno! The meaning of life is to live, reproduce and die, so that your species may continue to live. I'm sorry if your familiar with this theory as well and I'm just going on again.

I don’t agree with your theory on humans being a higher being than animals, I can't see how people don’t realise that we are just animals. Human culture seems to mask the origin of our past. To explain things we make things up and it is my opinion that this is what has happened with God, I know this sounds preposterous but it might be true, that or I am wrong and their truly is a god. The other 'more extreme' theory is that aliens came down a VERY long time ago and people thought they were gods from the skies. Don’t think I’m a crackpot cos I don’t really believe in that theory but it just explains a few things.

An example of human nature making things up is father Christmas or Santa Claus or saint nick I dunno where you come from, I'm British but I dunno if you're American or what? Never mind. But from an early age parents make up 'Santa' and children believe intently that he exists. then when right, parents reveal the truth. As hard and painful as it may be to find out, at one point in that Childs life that thought of Santa delivering presents makes Christmas that little bit more magical and exciting. This belief of Santa is similar to God. Oh bugger, sorry I've gone of into Gods existence again.

Never mind. I don’t think it is wrong to kill people and eat them I just would never do it because the thought would make me violently sick! It is no different from an animal killing and eating his own than a human. But because humans have developed emotions as a method of better communication it becomes a lot harder and seems 'wrong'. For all we know, a lot of animals probably have a very complex communication system (some people believe that cats and dogs communicate psychically), and in their society killing one another is merely a way of eliminating the weak for food and they accept it fully. I know this goes against everything you believe in and I apologise but I am 100% sure in my mind that humans are simply an advances species of animal.

Before I go, I'd really like to show you something that may interest you to know, (you may already know this though I’m not sure): Apes communicate through different pitches of grunting or shouting (sort of barking). But because they have no voice box (Adams apple) they cannot use human speech as humans do, but see this on Koko, the gorilla that can communicate flawlessly with humans, it really is quite unbelievable, in terms of evolution, this is a huge step up: http://www.koko.org/ Please take the time to study this site, if you don’t want to, I'll give you a quick brief from the site: Koko, a female lowland gorilla born in 1971, uses sign language and understand spoken English. Koko's participation in this study began when she was one year old, Her intellectual, physical, and linguistic development has been studied extensively since her infancy. Before Project Koko, very little was known about gorilla intelligence. During the course of the study, Koko has advanced further with language than any other non-human.

Koko has a working vocabulary of over 1000 signs. Koko understands approximately 2,000 words of spoken English. Koko initiates the majority of conversations with her human companions and typically constructs statements averaging three to six words. Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered "normal." Behind this gorilla physique lies the brain of a not so intelligent human. Look at this site, its really quite amazing. Go to the Koko TV section as well to see the gorilla having a conversation. The site below is about how humans are adapted in comparison to animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Tom

Your comments are appreciated, but please try to write in paragraphs. I have divided your comments into sample paragraphs to give you an idea.

Let me just respond to a few things, in no particular order:

I'm a bit older than 17, myself. Actually, I have a daughter who will turn 17 before too long.

For more details, Stephen and I have both published our bios, which you can access here.

Thanks for the link about Koko. I haven't heard anything about her in years. Quite an amazing gorilla.

You wrote:

I don’t think it is wrong to kill people and eat them I just would never do it because the thought would make me violently sick!

I think the real issue here, is whether you think that anything is truly right or wrong. You indicate that you believe our ideas about killing being wrong are just some leftover emotional baggage. So am I right in concluding that it would not be "wrong" for you to kill your neighbor so that you could have all his stuff? This wouldn't involve doing anything gross like eating human flesh. Just getting rid of someone who hasn't done antyhing for you, anyway, and helping yourself to his car and flat screen TV.

After all, if our rules against killing are just emotional nonsense, then surely our rules against stealing are the same? Life has no meaning, as you said, and we've just made up all this right-wrong stuff the same as we made up Santa Claus.

Likewise, if a stranger decides to kill you for the money that you happen to have on you, you can protest that his behavior is inconvenient, but not that it's wrong. There is no right or wrong.

This worldview is called nihilism. It often seems a very sophisticated way of looking at the world when people are first introduced to it (or think it up for themselves) but it is ultimately a path to nowhere.

One need not be a theist in order to believe that life has meaning and that humanity is worthwhile. One can be a humanist or even a transhumanist (as many of our friends here at the Speculist are) and reject any sort of belief in God, but still find meaning in life. Nor are these labels necessarily contradictory. I consider myself to be a theist, a humanist, and a transhumanist.

Forget about arguments about the soul or any of the rest of it for a while. Humans are special because we have minds that allow us to picture the world differently than it is, and to talk about it. And to try to change the world.

Humans believe that life has a purpose.

Does Koko think about the future? Does she think that her life has meaning? Maybe she does. In which case, I'm perfectly happy to welcome her into the human family (or what Stephen might call the "family of persons.")

But she's an exception. By and large, animals don't engage in this kind of behavior. They are different from us. Human beings are the "time-travelling" species, the species that lives with one foot in the future. That's one of the reasons we have a special responsibility toward them. We can see things they can't and can change the world in ways they can't understand.

Can they do the same?

Well, they haven't so far.

Tom:

The only thing I'd add to what Phil has written concerns humanism. Humanism comes in two flavors - secular and nonsecular.

I'm a humanist. All of history's great religious leaders that I admire (Jesus is a great example of this) were humanists.

They were not secular humanists. Neither am I.

Any religion that is not humanist is, IMHO, false - and primitive. Most religions (including Christianity) have gone through periods of this. The value of the individual is subordinated to the power of the religious heirarchy as they preach unquestioning faith in a moody, unloving, merciless god.

Fortunately, most religions grow beyond that. One of the great world religions has not. And so we find ourselves at war with a world view that grows out of this anti-humanism. The best answer to this conflict would be reformation from within - a Muslim Martin Luther.

But I digress. Phil and I are unusual in the transhumanist community. Most transhumanists are atheists - secular humanists. But they aren't nihilists. A nihilist is not a humanist at all. A nihilist denies the value of any individual other than self. It's a path to loneliness, despair, and ultimately the nuthouse.

A secular humanist sees in others the same value that he recognizes in himself. This is apart from any faith in a higher power. These people can live quite moral and good lives.

Some (supposed) Christians I know live quite immoral and bad lives.

So why do I hold on to my Christian faith? Because redemption is powerful. Because it gives perfect meaning to my imperfect life.