- #1
FZ+
- 1,604
- 3
I'm not sure if any of you read Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy series of SF books, but in "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe", there is an interesting scenario which has clearly induced me to take the unwise step of opening a discussion around it. Below is from memory, so flame me liberally for any minute inaccuracies...
In the book, the protagonist encounters a cow-like lifeform which has been genetically modified to remove the genes regarding self-preservation, so that it actually WANTS to be eaten. The argument was that a sense of sympathy to animals prevented conventional agriculture, but by making the livestock a willing participant in it's own slaughter, the guilt on behalf of the diners is assuaged. The protagonist, on the other hand, is greatly disturbed by this, and refuses to eat the meat, though he was perfectly happy to eat burgers etc (let's ignore BSE for now ) back on earth.
Now obviously (!) this raises a number of questions.
1. Is our willingness to eat the meat, kill stuff etc influenced by the desires/feelings of the animal. Ie. is there a difference between killing a "willing" victim, and an "unwilling" one?
2. Does the logic hold valid if we artificially alter the animal? This does not have to be GM and livestock. For example, is it right to send troops into battle if we brainwash them by propaganda into believing in the righteousness of their cause?
3. Is there a real difference between "artificially" altering the animal, and the animal naturally learning? Is there a dividing line between providing information and brainwashing? Is intention significant? Obviously the above scenario is a caricature, but do consider...
4. Is it possible to provide information without a brainwashing element?
5. Why does the protagonist refuse to eat the meat?
I want answers! (Wuli: or good reasons why my questions are meaningless... )
In the book, the protagonist encounters a cow-like lifeform which has been genetically modified to remove the genes regarding self-preservation, so that it actually WANTS to be eaten. The argument was that a sense of sympathy to animals prevented conventional agriculture, but by making the livestock a willing participant in it's own slaughter, the guilt on behalf of the diners is assuaged. The protagonist, on the other hand, is greatly disturbed by this, and refuses to eat the meat, though he was perfectly happy to eat burgers etc (let's ignore BSE for now ) back on earth.
Now obviously (!) this raises a number of questions.
1. Is our willingness to eat the meat, kill stuff etc influenced by the desires/feelings of the animal. Ie. is there a difference between killing a "willing" victim, and an "unwilling" one?
2. Does the logic hold valid if we artificially alter the animal? This does not have to be GM and livestock. For example, is it right to send troops into battle if we brainwash them by propaganda into believing in the righteousness of their cause?
3. Is there a real difference between "artificially" altering the animal, and the animal naturally learning? Is there a dividing line between providing information and brainwashing? Is intention significant? Obviously the above scenario is a caricature, but do consider...
4. Is it possible to provide information without a brainwashing element?
5. Why does the protagonist refuse to eat the meat?
I want answers! (Wuli: or good reasons why my questions are meaningless... )