There are many levels of ethical antagonism with human behavior in the context of food consumption and these probably vary all the way to people who produce their own nutrients by combining the raw elements to create them. Leave no soul consumed, they cry.
"What the hell did that mean," is the quick response, followed shortly after by, "never mind."
There are ethical considerations in eating anything as something will die to sustain you. Whether it's a plant or a cow really has no logical difference in terms of asking whether it has a soul, it does or it doesn't.
This follows from the discussion yesterday about what scientists are doing with a synthetic brain in the lab. We don't know what constitutes awareness so this is loaded with ethical considerations. (Blog: Ethical Fun with a Synthetic Brain in a Test Tube)
Experiments have been run to detect awareness in plants. Some used sound and different types of music would be played (e.g. rock, classical, etc) to find which, if any, improved the plant's growth cycle which scientists deemed success or failure if it did not. We think but are not sure rock music stunted growth whereas classical may have enhanced it.
Other experiments have been run such as connecting an EKG (i.e. measures heart activity) to a plant and then the plant has been cut or insulted in some other way. The device was used to discover any kind of reaction. There was likely something but nothing particularly interesting.
Determining if something is aware when it can't tell you itself is the problem facing our panel of ethicists and the most raw example of that is in "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo. The book was noted yesterday and the detail is Johnny went off to war and was so badly-injured that nothing worked anymore. He could not hear, speak, see, arms and legs gone ... absolute horror. But still he was alive in there.
The problem in that situation in which you have detected awareness and now you're trying to connect with it. The problem at the base remains the same as to how do you detect awareness. Thus far, we don't seem particularly good at it.
There are many loci within the brain at which doctors can direct some type of stimulus (e.g. electrical) and elicit some type of reaction. There's been a great deal of that to try to determine which parts serve what purpose and there is much more sophisticated experimentation as well. However, there doesn't appear to be anything for detection of awareness or they would have been no disagreement in the case of Terry Schiavo.
There is no test which says definitively, this brain-damaged person is aware and this brain-damaged person is not ... except for a flat line and that's of no use as the person is deceased ... or we measure the wrong thing.
Medical ethicists have barely acknowledged the Twentieth Century and this helps you in no way when someone you love is screwed up beyond all imagination and what is the right thing, what do I do, what do I do. You will face this in your life as it's part of living. Part of love is the losing and you must understand that or you are not ready yet.
This is where you think only, gee, I could use a little help on this one. Some of you have an immediate answer and good for you if that works as it as it can. The trouble is the number of people who do not know that answer and this is not angling toward any sort of validation of a need for God. In that situation, you are not looking for anything but an answer.
There is only one answer and it's not acceptable to many people. The Vatican maintains that person is alive until the person is dead. How that person gets from one state to the other is only the business of God. Many do not accept that answer but it's an answer nevertheless which is satisfactory within the families of many others. When the same answer is applied to other families, the arguing starts but that is not my argument. Regardless of acceptability, it is an answer.
After someone has been in a coma or some other type of severely-degraded state for months or years, the answer may be fading in suitability ... or not. It's your faith, drive it as you will.
For others, the question will nag louder and louder. How could this possibly be what this person I love would really have wanted me to do.
That's when you will be asking for a little help and the ethicists aren't there or they are chained by the arguing from above. That's the fundamental reason that arguing needs to be a panel of ethicists so humans come up with some type of answer which works. We see the agony which comes in extreme cases from this circumstance so that answer does not exist right now and that's why we need that panel.
For keeping humanity alive in general, we can bypass any ethical consideration with synthetic food. That may sound horrendous but they will have no trouble with making perfect food. That will be the trouble with it. The food will be perfect but it will have no character whatsoever.
Wine develops character, I believe from congeners which are some type of impurity. Music works the same way. If the beat is too perfect then our minds will reject it. For synthetic drums, it's important to make them not quite right.
These synthetic food chefs will learn to do that too as they can put anything you want into the food, they just need to know how to make it.
What if humans were to do that and go all out Techno Maxxo and synthesize all food for human consumption.
Yah, yah, everything's incalculable ... until you do it. How about we ask the Wright Brothers about building an International Space Station.
Impossible, impossible, they said.
And they even threw this in my face,
man cannot live and breathe underwater
So we synth all food on the planet in our Techno Maxxo Giganto machines.
What's so wrong with that.
What's right with it ...
Do you think you want to do this. If you are going to go out there and play Starrider, you will have to do it. The actuality of it doesn't seem such a terrible thing as the food will be perfect. Presumably the factory shapes it into something halfway pleasing aesthetically and then prepare for dinner as you will.
(Ed: will you ever get tired of quoting Hendrix?)
Not a chance.
"What the hell did that mean," is the quick response, followed shortly after by, "never mind."
There are ethical considerations in eating anything as something will die to sustain you. Whether it's a plant or a cow really has no logical difference in terms of asking whether it has a soul, it does or it doesn't.
This follows from the discussion yesterday about what scientists are doing with a synthetic brain in the lab. We don't know what constitutes awareness so this is loaded with ethical considerations. (Blog: Ethical Fun with a Synthetic Brain in a Test Tube)
Experiments have been run to detect awareness in plants. Some used sound and different types of music would be played (e.g. rock, classical, etc) to find which, if any, improved the plant's growth cycle which scientists deemed success or failure if it did not. We think but are not sure rock music stunted growth whereas classical may have enhanced it.
Other experiments have been run such as connecting an EKG (i.e. measures heart activity) to a plant and then the plant has been cut or insulted in some other way. The device was used to discover any kind of reaction. There was likely something but nothing particularly interesting.
Determining if something is aware when it can't tell you itself is the problem facing our panel of ethicists and the most raw example of that is in "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo. The book was noted yesterday and the detail is Johnny went off to war and was so badly-injured that nothing worked anymore. He could not hear, speak, see, arms and legs gone ... absolute horror. But still he was alive in there.
The problem in that situation in which you have detected awareness and now you're trying to connect with it. The problem at the base remains the same as to how do you detect awareness. Thus far, we don't seem particularly good at it.
There are many loci within the brain at which doctors can direct some type of stimulus (e.g. electrical) and elicit some type of reaction. There's been a great deal of that to try to determine which parts serve what purpose and there is much more sophisticated experimentation as well. However, there doesn't appear to be anything for detection of awareness or they would have been no disagreement in the case of Terry Schiavo.
There is no test which says definitively, this brain-damaged person is aware and this brain-damaged person is not ... except for a flat line and that's of no use as the person is deceased ... or we measure the wrong thing.
Medical ethicists have barely acknowledged the Twentieth Century and this helps you in no way when someone you love is screwed up beyond all imagination and what is the right thing, what do I do, what do I do. You will face this in your life as it's part of living. Part of love is the losing and you must understand that or you are not ready yet.
This is where you think only, gee, I could use a little help on this one. Some of you have an immediate answer and good for you if that works as it as it can. The trouble is the number of people who do not know that answer and this is not angling toward any sort of validation of a need for God. In that situation, you are not looking for anything but an answer.
There is only one answer and it's not acceptable to many people. The Vatican maintains that person is alive until the person is dead. How that person gets from one state to the other is only the business of God. Many do not accept that answer but it's an answer nevertheless which is satisfactory within the families of many others. When the same answer is applied to other families, the arguing starts but that is not my argument. Regardless of acceptability, it is an answer.
After someone has been in a coma or some other type of severely-degraded state for months or years, the answer may be fading in suitability ... or not. It's your faith, drive it as you will.
For others, the question will nag louder and louder. How could this possibly be what this person I love would really have wanted me to do.
That's when you will be asking for a little help and the ethicists aren't there or they are chained by the arguing from above. That's the fundamental reason that arguing needs to be a panel of ethicists so humans come up with some type of answer which works. We see the agony which comes in extreme cases from this circumstance so that answer does not exist right now and that's why we need that panel.
For keeping humanity alive in general, we can bypass any ethical consideration with synthetic food. That may sound horrendous but they will have no trouble with making perfect food. That will be the trouble with it. The food will be perfect but it will have no character whatsoever.
Wine develops character, I believe from congeners which are some type of impurity. Music works the same way. If the beat is too perfect then our minds will reject it. For synthetic drums, it's important to make them not quite right.
These synthetic food chefs will learn to do that too as they can put anything you want into the food, they just need to know how to make it.
What if humans were to do that and go all out Techno Maxxo and synthesize all food for human consumption.
Yah, yah, everything's incalculable ... until you do it. How about we ask the Wright Brothers about building an International Space Station.
Impossible, impossible, they said.
And they even threw this in my face,
man cannot live and breathe underwater
So we synth all food on the planet in our Techno Maxxo Giganto machines.
What's so wrong with that.
What's right with it ...
- No possible chance of bacterial infection except due to manufacturing incompetence
- Guaranteed perfect taste every single time
- Guaranteed availability at any time
- Production costs will plummet because you don't have to wait four to six months to grow it
- No natural supply of anything is being wasted by it
Do you think you want to do this. If you are going to go out there and play Starrider, you will have to do it. The actuality of it doesn't seem such a terrible thing as the food will be perfect. Presumably the factory shapes it into something halfway pleasing aesthetically and then prepare for dinner as you will.
(Ed: will you ever get tired of quoting Hendrix?)
Not a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment