Test Tube Meat Nears Dinner Table

[Rule]

x86] link=topic=6373.msg76718#msg76718 date=1151085869]
Why should we act in a way outside of what evolution has prepared us for, though, Rule?  If we are better-equipped to develop tools, then why shouldn't we use every advantage we naturally have to survive and thrive?

I think most of us do act in a way to insure our survival.  Even socially, when "survival value" is not a consideration, we usually turn our heads the other way in disinterest.   

Just because we are equipped to do something doesn't mean we should necessarily do it though.  You or I may be well equipped to be hardened thiefs or criminals, and it may well be to our advantage (from a survival standpoint), but we likely won't be thiefs because we feel that it is not "the right" thing to do -- an argument could be made that we would not do this because we would be acting hypocritically: it isn't necessary for survival, we wouldn't like to be stolen from, so we should not steal.

Eating meat was once a choice we made as humans in order to survive.  Presently this isn't the case by a long stretch.  We eat meat because we like the taste.  In my opinion, certain animals that we eat are so intelligent, conscious, and aware of their surroundings that their lives aren't worth trading for one more item (of many) on our menu of "things that might taste good." 

[Eric]

Wouldn't mass adoption of this engineered meat cause an increase in overall animal population and bring the potential for dramatic change of our ecosystem?

[Rule]

Wouldn't mass adoption of this engineered meat cause an increase in overall animal population and bring the potential for dramatic change of our ecosystem?

I don't think so, because most of the meat people eat comes from domesticated animals on farms (who are generally disconnected from the ecosystem).

[AntiVirus]

That's probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. :(

It's interesting that you should say that when it comes from someone far more intelligent and learned than yourself.

Harsh. :)

By the way, judging from the tone of your reply, I'm guessing you're religious.  Aside from this thread, I have no data to back that up.  You just seem conditioned in one way or another to talk the way you do when you obviously know very little about what you're saying.  Am I right?  I am not condemning you for being religious if you are, I'm just quite curious if my guess is correct.

I am not overly-religious.  Infact, I don't even go to church.

They are also faster at learning many skills than the average or even "gifted" human: hunting, recognition (voice, appearance, etc), prudent "crisis" or (urgent) decision making (for example, in those "fight or flight" situations).  Incidentally, in reputable academic journals (e.g. american journal of psychology), the average dog's overall learning capacity (not even singling out wolf dogs or german shepards) has been shown to be roughly equivalent to an average human 10 year old's.  However, they are intrinsically more gifted than most humans at certain tasks used to measure intelligence (as I've said above).

They might be good at learning skills that they have evolved for over many many years, but that should be a given.  Without these certain skills animals would have died off long ago.  That is evolution that is natural selection working.  Back when Humans were wild and not civilized and were similar to animals they too probably had these same capabilities.  If they didn't have the skills needed to survive, then we wouldn't be where we are today.   

And I would bet that for every one skill and animal has, there are at least ten more skills a human has. Do you think that animals and humans are equal to each other?  Is that what you are going at?  Or are you saying that animals are better than humans?  How could something we protect and keep alive be our equal?  We, as humans, have FAR more potential to grow and learn.  You said it yourself,

the average dog's overall learning capacity (not even singling out wolf dogs or german shepards) has been shown to be roughly equivalent to an average human 10 year old's

when you compare something to another thing, you always compare something worse to something better.  Just like in this example you gave here.  I believe that saying that animals are our equal or above us is arrogant and ignorant, not the other way around.

Sure, there are some aspects that animals have that are better than humans, but if you look at the whole picture humans have accomplished more and are a far more sophisticated and evolved race. 

Statements like "humans are better than animals," are extremely ignorant and arrogant.  In what way are  we better?  We're better because we're human? 

What makes us not better? 

I believe that arguing opinions doesn't get you anywhere, so I am willing to agree to disagree and just leave it at that.

[Rule]

I don't really care to continue this discussion, because you obviously are quite decided and closed minded on the whole issue. 

You ask if other animals are equal to or better than humans?  Those are two very subjectively defined words.  Certain specific animals are better at certain specific things than us, (this is something that can be empirically tested), and we are better at other things.  As I've pointed out, scientifically speaking humans aren't some great exception -- we're just some mutations away from other life on this planet.

I don't know if you figured this out or not, but
1) I am human, so a suggestion that other animals could be superior is the opposite of arrogance.
2) Find the error in your sentence: "back when humans were domesticated..."

Look, half of things you've written don't make any sense.  You're what, 18?  Also, you have shown considerable ignorance on the information available in regards to animal intelligence and learning.  I suggest learning a little humility before forming such big headed and uneducated opinions.  I have gone out of my way to spend time with
animals and learn about them.  You obviously haven't.

Also, from what I've seen, humans generally base a majority of their decisions on what will gratify them the most with the least work.  We are selfish, destructive, greedy, compulsive, and arrogant creatures, and I would not be upset if I were something else, like a killer whale or a wolf.

[AntiVirus]

I don't really care to continue this discussion, because you obviously are quite decided and closed minded on the whole issue. 

Lol!  I am not the only one. :)

2) Find the error in your sentence: "back when humans were domesticated..."

Lmfao!! Whooops!  Didn't pay attention to what I wrote.  Either way, it's fixed.

Certain specific animals are better at certain specific things than us, (this is something that can be empirically tested), and we are better at other things...

Sure, there are some aspects that animals have that are better than humans, but if you look at the whole picture humans have accomplished more and are a far more sophisticated and evolved race. 

Also, from what I've seen, humans generally base a majority of their decisions on what will gratify them the most with the least work.  We are selfish, destructive, greedy, compulsive, and arrogant creatures...

We can atleast agree on one thing. :)

[Chavo]

Its unfortunate that I left town shortly after my last reply, I would have loved to refute you myself Rule.  You seem to have no issue with presuming you are better than anyone who has a different opinion than you yet are insulted by the idea that humans might be better than animals.

Ha.

Maybe I'm being a bit blunt or rude, but what would you expect when your oppening argument is "You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.   It may sound as though I'm belittling your opinion -- that's because I am."

[Rule]

Its unfortunate that I left town shortly after my last reply, I would have loved to refute you myself Rule. 

Refute what?  Work done in peer-reviewed academic journals?  Good luck with that.  Incidentally, I noticed that you were viewing this thread before today and after I had posted my reply.

You seem to have no issue with presuming you are better than anyone who has a different opinion than you yet are insulted by the idea that humans might be better than animals.

I'm not insulted by the idea.  As I've pointed out, "better" is subjective.  I do, however, get frustrated when people make arguments that are glaringly emotional and poorly thought out.  The notion that humans are somehow the superior exception in this world is a widespread fallacy that creates dangerous social biases and provides justification for behavior that would otherwise be seen as atrocious.  The notion of human superiority (in all facets) makes us feel comfortable, and yes, it is arrogant, because it is counter to the facts and is poorly researched.

Maybe I'm being a bit blunt or rude, but what would you expect when your oppening argument is "You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.   It may sound as though I'm belittling your opinion -- that's because I am."

And I stand by what I said.  You haven't exemplified anything you've said or shown that you have any level of expertise towards the arrogant, matter-of-fact claims you're making.  It may sound as though I'm belittling your opinion -- that's because I am.

Thought exercise:  How would you feel if I told you I were eating a 10 year old human child right now? 

[Chavo]

Its unfortunate that I left town shortly after my last reply, I would have loved to refute you myself Rule. 

Refute what?  Work done in peer-reviewed academic journals?  Good luck with that.  Incidentally, I noticed that you were viewing this thread before today and after I had posted my reply.

refute.  ffs choose your battles.  Refute is not improperly used. Having time to view short replies != Having time to read long replies and reply to them in a thought out and educated manner.  Do you take pleasure in being a dick for no reason or do you just think you are better than everyone else?

You seem to have no issue with presuming you are better than anyone who has a different opinion than you yet are insulted by the idea that humans might be better than animals.

I'm not insulted by the idea.  As I've pointed out, "better" is subjective.  I do, however, get frustrated when people make arguments that are glaringly emotional and poorly thought out.  The notion that humans are somehow the superior exception in this world is a widespread fallacy that creates dangerous social biases and provides justification for behavior that would otherwise be seen as atrocious.  The notion of human superiority (in all facets) makes us feel comfortable, and yes, it is arrogant, because it is counter to the facts and is poorly researched.

Maybe you wouldn't be so frustrated if you bothered to get clarifications regarding someones intent instead of being presumptious.  Your opinion being the opposite of mine does not make my opinion 'glaringly emotional and poorly thought out.' If you would like to have a debate concerning the topic of a differing opinion, I would hope that you would be able to do so in an open minded and intelligent manner.  For someone that insists they are so educated, you certainly seem to lack a bit of common sense when it comes to debating differences of opinion without being insulting.  Yes I realize that statement is hypocritical but I would not be responding this way if had not found it necessary to make it a personal issue.

Maybe I'm being a bit blunt or rude, but what would you expect when your oppening argument is "You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.   It may sound as though I'm belittling your opinion -- that's because I am."

And I stand by what I said.  You haven't exemplified anything you've said or shown that you have any level of expertise towards the arrogant, matter-of-fact claims you're making.  It may sound as though I'm belittling your opinion -- that's because I am.

Thought exercise:  How would you feel if I told you I were eating a 10 year old human child right now? 

So you would rather be rude and hypocritical than have an intelligent debate?

[Rule]

*yawn*

Linking to a dictionary definition doesn't make your post most authoritative.  I said good luck trying to refute peer-reviewed academic journals.  Please read what I write more carefully so I don't need to explain things. 

What you said was just bullshit.  Animals aren't intelligent?  It's ok to eat and kill them because they don't feel pain and aren't aware?  Do you have eyes?   It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that animals have feelings.  Referring you to studies done showing that animals have a superior intelligence to humans in many areas is overkill!  You're making the thick-headed claim that animals don't even have feelings!

No, this isn't one of those "yeah, we all have opinions and we should respect one another's ideas on these sorts of things" kind of situations.  What you're saying is dead wrong, can be empirically disproven, and is really just obviously false to anyone who's bothered to spend some time with particularly intelligent animals.   

Animals don't have feelings?  They aren't aware? Please.  Why don't you throw in, "water is a chemical element."

[Chavo]

You just COMPLETELY disregarded my post and chose to ignore the issue at hand, congratulations.

Linking to a dictionary definition is adequate proof when pointing out that your nit picking is not even accurate.  Please use some common sense so you don't make yourself look more like an idiot.

[Rule]

You just COMPLETELY disregarded my post and chose to ignore the issue at hand, congratulations.

Linking to a dictionary definition is adequate proof when pointing out that your nit picking is not even accurate.  Please use some common sense so you don't make yourself look more like an idiot.

Perhaps if you ate some more fish you'd realize that I'm not nit picking.  "Refute" is a pretty common word, and *sigh* obviously you need things explained to you in small pieces. 

To use your linked definition of refute:
Refute: "prove to be false or incorrect"

In other words, I said good luck proving that the results of peer-reviewed academic journals are "false or incorrect."  How is that nitpicking?

Also, the issue at hand is your  idiotic post here . 

Good job criticizing me for (supposedly) ignoring your more recent, content-free post, (you probably think this because I didn't directly quote anything), and then totally ignoring my post.

You know, I think something like Karate would do you good.  It might sharpen your mind and increase your ability to focus for more than 10 seconds.  Just some friendly advice.

[Chavo]

Perhaps if you ate some more fish you'd realize that I'm not nit picking.  "Refute" is a pretty common word, and *sigh* obviously you need things explained to you in small pieces.

To use your linked definition of refute:
Refute: "prove to be false or incorrect"

In other words, I said good luck proving that the results of peer-reviewed academic journals are "false or incorrect."  How is that nitpicking?

How is

Refute what?  Work done in peer-reviewed academic journals?  Good luck with that.  Incidentally, I noticed that you were viewing this thread before today and after I had posted my reply.

not nit-picking? Obviously you missed my statement about picking your battles...

Also, the issue at hand is your  idiotic post here .

Wrong.  I have made it abundantly clear that I have no desire of arguing the initial topic of this thread with you until you decide to be civil and use your brain.  The issue at hand is clearly noted in this post.

Its unfortunate that I left town shortly after my last reply, I would have loved to refute you myself Rule.  You seem to have no issue with presuming you are better than anyone who has a different opinion than you yet are insulted by the idea that humans might be better than animals.

Ha.

Maybe I'm being a bit blunt or rude, but what would you expect when your oppening argument is "You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.   It may sound as though I'm belittling your opinion -- that's because I am."

and the ones following it.

Good job criticizing me for (supposedly) ignoring your more recent, content-free post, (you probably think this because I didn't directly quote anything), and then totally ignoring my post.

You know, I think something like Karate would do you good.  It might sharpen your mind and increase your ability to focus for more than 10 seconds.  Just some friendly advice.

Again, you've decided to use childish insults instead of actually make an intellectual argument.  Why am I still talking to you when you have only shown that you like to use big words, not that you are capable of having an intelligent conversation?

[Rule]

I'm using big words?

Look, I'm not interested in getting into a squabble over semantics or dictionary definitions, or whether you've misinterpreted me and think I'm nitpicking about something.  It's just a waste of time, and even if we resolved that it wouldn't really matter because it's not important.

What you said in the post I linked is completely indefensible.  There is well-researched, strong evidence, counter to what you said.  Also, most people realize that animals at least have feelings, regardless of what they think specifically about animal intelligence.   This is why you're getting attitude.  There's not much to "debate."  This isn't subjective opinions we're talking about.  You're just wrong.  Game over.  2+2 != 7. 

[Chavo]

What part of

Wrong.  I have made it abundantly clear that I have no desire of arguing the initial topic of this thread with you until you decide to be civil and use your brain.  The issue at hand is clearly noted in this post.

don't you understand?