Moral and Ethical Question for all

a reply to: SLAYER69

if we get to the point where we are travelling to earth like planets we better have damn sure sorted out our own dietary requirements and gone past the whole meat or veg stage in our dietary evolution

in order to be a space fairing race we need to control our biology with a degree of mastery
there simply isnt enough room to bring all that meat and store it safely in space to travel there or anywhere else

we need to find a protein paste which gives us all we need
or genetically modify ourslves to become photosynthetic
the only reason we continue to eat meat and vegetables in the grandiose scale we do is our own damn ego's

I wont eat those vegetables because I dont like the taste
I wont eat meat because x,y, z
I dont like chicken, I dont like live , I dont like broccoli
aye but where there is no choice you just eat to survive
so take away our choices and reduce our dietary input and reduce our chances of mutation etc
give us a full super food protein paste choc full of vitamins and minerals and all we need to survive
but no one will eat it because it looks un-apetising and tastes less than nice !

it's all #in ego , you give a westerner a bowl of plain rice , they will turn their nose up " what no meat, no sauce no veg"
give a starving african a bowl of rice and they will eat it in a heart beat !

originally posted by: SLAYER69
*Theoretical Hypothetical exercise....

Assuming....


Assuming, we don't do ourselves in with all that's presently going on in the world.


One day, we find a habitable planet, Yes, there is life there, Yes, It meets all our 'Human' sustenance requirements. Water, Air, Temperature, Gravity, Dry land mass, friendly atmospheric weather conditions, Yadda, Yadda, Blah Blah Blah etc...

What would be our Moral and Ethical right to consume lower forms of life for our very Human 'Protein' necessity?

Animal right advocates, your input is on deck.

Hunters (myself among them) need to be very clear about our stance.

*This question came about during my review of some information regarding 'Alien Autopsy' findings. In that, The information supposedly found that they, the 'Greys' absorbed what they needed nutritionally through their skin, [Similar to mushrooms] and much unlike mushrooms, We, The human race are not there biologically yet, if we ever will be at all. But could through genetic modifications, someday we may be so.

In the meantime, to be optimally healthy, We genetically need animal fats and protein and the clearest course of action is consuming 'Lower life forms'


Would we, as a specie, have the right during colonization, have a right, to consume animal lifeforms on our New home world?

Biblical speaking, and for argument sake, For you religious folk, We do here on Earth but how about elsewhere?

We'd have to bring Mikey along. (he eats anything)

I don't know. Everything on the planet might be edible but...

Like the first dude that ate an artichoke. My hat's off to whomever took a bite out of a raw one.

If it's life or death situation and eventually it would be, eat it.

I'm a chef by trade so I'd be pretty excited to get my hands on some exo-yummies.

Denebian Slime Devils or Regulan Bloodworms!! Right out of the swamp raw with a squeeze of lime and a dash of tabasco sauce, warm!

Well... we are an omnivorous species. I expect an animal, Homo sapiens included, to act accourding to their nature. Meat eating is so ubiquitous to human behavior it is quite silly to think we'd stop eating meat because it is "unethical" or because we have moved spiritually past that. So, to all the folks here asserting that we will evolve, either physically or spiritually, past that point and use that as an arguement for why any advanced species will need to find the consumption of animal protein abhorrent and sheltered, and, if I may, delusional.

We will land there, and we will keep eating our animal protein. We might take the lab grown stuff for the trip, but you, as a hunter, should be well aware that meat you catch and kill yourself is just objectively better. It is fuller in flavor, not packed full of hormones and chemicals, and is somehow more fulfilling to eat. It's probably the work you put into it, but man that first bite of deer you shot yourself? Magical.

So, yeah. I see no reason to avoid eating to local fauna. That is just a meat eating animal doing what it does. The only unethical action would be to hunt the local life for the fun of it, or to introduce earth fauna as a food source. Otherwise you're just a human trying to survive with the tools you have on hand. Just like we've been doing since the first archaic hominid realized a pointy stick it a great way to jab something til it stops moving. Beyond that, if the life isn't sapient there are no morals to the equation. No more so than going out back and snagging a rabbit.

“Oh but I was born to eat meat, humans evolved that way! It's natural!”

Ok, did you also evolve to drink pepsi and eat pounds and pounds of heavily processed sugar, flour, and Yellow#5 per year too?

I am pretty sure cavemen didn’t consume massive quantities of high fructose corn syrup.

Nor did they take 100% synthetic pharmaceuticals to extend their life.

Nor did they spend hours and hours sitting and staring at computer screens while becoming obese.

If you want to be truly a natural caveman, then quit your office job, go live in the woods where you can exercise naturally (not at a gym), cure yourself with the herbs you find nearby (if any), and kill animals with a pointy stick (or whatever other weapon you can fashion yourself without artificial production machines).

You all cherry-pick when you want to be “natural” and “unnatural”. Most of you live a life that is as far removed from "natural" as it gets.

Adding: if you are going to embrace modernity for certain things like medicine, housing and electronics, then why not embrace a new modern diet as well. Living without eating meat is 100% possible and studies have shown you actually live longer as a vegetarian (when you do it correctly).

According, to two studies people who ate less meat increased their like span by about 3.6 years. The Seventh Day Adventists were a good group of people to study because they live a healthy lifestyle with no meat their average men lived 7.28 years more and women lived 4.42 years more

source

There would eventually be a situation where nature and hunger would take over and one would have to eat the animals life or plant life. To this date we still have never even found plant life anywhere. So if plant life were just as rare as animal life would there be the same stigma of eating plant life or killing it to make shelter. I believe that nature would eventually produce the inevitable outcome of killing life on other worlds.

a reply to: primespickle

I hate studies like that. Did they also exercise more! Live healthy by not using drugs and / or alcohol? Avoid processed good in general.

One. Prove it was meant alone.

Two. Still no basses why its immoral to hunt while practicing good stewardship?

Three, you are in denial a meat diet is what helped the intelligence in our species to grow.

originally posted by: primespickle
“Oh but I was born to eat meat, humans evolved that way!”

Correct. Homo sapiens evolved eating meat. That is a true statement.

Ok, did you also evolve to drink pepsi and eat pounds and pounds of heavily processed sugar, flour, and Yellow#5 per year too?

Apples to oranges. However, humans, as with all primates, love fruit and sweet things. So crafting sugary drinks for ourselves seems a natural progression from sucking the juice out of an orange. The flour, though... kinda. Actually. Grains and pulses make up a good part of the human diet.

I am pretty sure cavemen didn’t consume massive quantities of high fructose corn syrup.

Well, given that Homo neanderthalensis died out/was subsumed about 30k years before corn became a thing... however, you know just as well as I do that, given the chance, they would have gladly. Assuming Neanderthal man enjoyed sugar as much as Homo sapiens do. Neanderthal mostly ate meat, so they may not have had a taste for sweet things. But I've never actually come across a culture that didn't like sugary treats, even if it's just some fruit. So, a "caveman" would have guzzled HFCS down like water. Or maybe glazed his meat with it... I dunno. I'd imagine that would come down to personal enjoyment of sweet foods. But yes, they would have gladly eaten that without so much as a second thought.

Nor did they take 100% synthetic pharmaceuticals to extend their life.

Well, you can't take something you haven't created yet. Can you? However, given that medicine is a pan human concept that is another thing that our pre-modern ancestors would have done if they could.

Nor did they spend hours and hours sitting and staring at computer screens while becoming obese.

You're mentioning an aweful lot of things that ancient humans of all flavors would have done if given the opportunity. You know that, right? Is your argument seriously that ancient humans lacked modern convenience? That's, to be frank, a #ty argument.

If you want to be truly a natural caveman, then quit your office job, go live in the woods where you can exercise naturally (not at a gym), cure yourself with the herbs you find nearby (if any), and kill animals with a pointy stick (or whatever other weapon you can fashion yourself without artificial production machines).

So... leave a life archaic hominids would have viewed as a paradise to... toil? No, that's ridiculous. Every aspect of our modern lives is an improvement upon the things we've been doing for about 3 million years. What started as a gathering around a cook fire became dinner watching football. What was one day a multi-day excursion to locate meat to feed your clan has turned into a quick trip down to the super-market to gather the foods we figured out how to raise and grow on our own.

Also, as an aside, the concept of the caveman is highly flawed and doesn't see academic use for a reason. Archaic humans more likely than not had culture just as we do. Likely not terribly advanced, however Neanderthal burial sites do suggest a high level of social development.

You all cherry-pick when you want to be “natural” and “unnatural”. Most of you live a life this is as far removed from "natural" as it gets.

But, that's the thing. Nothing is cherry picked unless you're going out of your way to "get back to nature". Everything we do is our natural behavior. Humans act within their nature. They always have. Just because modern man has figured out how to make his life longer, easier, and less killy doesn't make our lives any less natural. We've merely taken our natural behavior and inclinations to their logical conclusions.

In short, you don't actually understand why humans do what they do so you are ranting entirely from a point of ignorance. Sorry, bud. Your argument is weak and your view point is inherently flawed.

a reply to: sapien82

If planets are seeded by aliens or planet debris, what difference does it make?

originally posted by: obscurepanda

So... leave a life archaic hominids would have viewed as a paradise to... toil? No, that's ridiculous. Every aspect of our modern lives is an improvement upon the things we've been doing for about 3 million years. What started as a gathering around a cook fire became dinner watching football. What was one day a multi-day excursion to locate meat to feed your clan has turned into a quick trip down to the super-market to gather the foods we figured out how to raise and grow on our own.

Exactly. That was my point. Humans have made improvements with medicine, transportation, you name it. The progress that humans have made really separates them from their distant ancestors.

Now, what we need to improve upon is The Standard American Diet that needlessly exploits defenseless animals. It is 100% possible to lead a healthy long life as a vegetarian.

Animals have no voice in the matter. Exploiting them is like exploiting someone that is mentally challenged. Would you rob a person with Downs Syndrome because it was easy? Why not? I mean, survival of the fittest, right?

It is morally wrong to take advantage of those that are weaker. Let alone to suit a primitive diet that is unnecessary in the modern world.

You don't NEED to eat meat. You WANT to eat meat. Big difference.

a reply to: primespickle

How is being part of a food chain exploration. And still not addressing why anyone should adopt your morals. We grew in intelligence by eating meat. You don't need a car. You don't need a 1800 square foot house. You don't need a smart phone. You don't need a computer. What is your point?

All we have to compare to is what we eat on this Earth today.
Whatever the equivelants are over there, I'd probably be ok with eating.

That being said, I would prefer not to eat (here and whatever equivalent there):

• Certain higher marine animals: Whales, Porpoises, Dolphins
  
• Apes and other species theoretically related to or otherwise similar us: Apes, Chimps, Monkeys, and Humans.
  
• Some other higher land animals: Elephants, Rhino's
  

The bigger issue (much as with here) is not hunting anything to extinction. Wiping out several species could have cascading effects up and down the food chain.

Ok, humans cook their meat.

Cooking has many benefits over raw meat. Ask anyone who's ever been to a BBQ.

Seriously tho, it is superior to raw meat.

But thankfully the colony wouldn't have to do a trial and error on the local flora and fauna.

The planet would have been probed first for as much survivability as possible. (except they didn't account for the Threads)

And if the planet has intelligent life, should it even be a question to start eating stuff without permission?

I still say eat it if no locals object.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
And if the planet has intelligent life, should it even be a question to start eating stuff without permission?
I still say eat it if no locals object.

Unfortunately according to the (alleged) Project Serpo documents, the Zeta's did not let our people eat the meat of anything they caught/killed there.

:-)

Moral and Ethical right? That's cute. Rights are usually afforded to you by whatever government is in power. Is this planet already inhabited? If so , then it would be up to them if we could do anything at all. But i doubt we would even be in a position to eat any "meat" there anyway, since our immune systems would go into overload as soon as we physically touched this other species. And you're using objective terms. Morality is dictated by the circumstances and what society allows. Society might say something is "right", but if it's a group of psychopaths, then I doubt it'd be ethical.

I would hardly call animals defenseless. They are stronger than we are, faster than we are, and have heightened senses to give them an advantage. We just have guns. And some animals were put here to be food. If we can accept that God made us and all that, then why can't those same people accept that God put some animals here for us to eat?

originally posted by: Spacespider
I think humans will evolve someday and not eat slaughters animals anymore..
There will still be protein in the form of something made in a lab that looks and taste the same, you wont know it if not knowing you where eating artificial meat...

we currently have man-made white=meat chicken, packaged as boneless-skinless chicken breasts...(also those fake wings/nuggets)

we already have fake steak, how do you suppose those 'Sizzler Steak House' entrees come out highly uniform & absolutely no grizzle or stringy fat in any order served?


regrettably the beef animal or fowl is still the basic component of these processed foods, as the proteins in actual animals is too tricky or expensive to replicate.

the stringy chicken breasts & the visual presentation of the steak patties are near perfect in texture and taste comparisons with naturally butchered animals ...(with bruises and warts and all)



I seriously think that indigenous life forms on colonized worlds will be considered TABOO...
sorta like cannibalism is considered a NO-no...the colonists will unfreeze the livestock, unpack the seeds, and remain a 'Sustainable society' without perverting a higher moral code... well the future Buddhist or Christian explorers may outlaw the equivelents of ancient Dodo hunting or Bison killing sprees... I won't even ponder just what any future Jihadist minded may think about lower life forms & hunger

a reply to: SLAYER69

It has been mentioned by Krazysh0t and MBCowboy, but I would like to extend a bit: that would require, first, that on planet 'Prey' the life is carbon based, secondly, that their biomolecules are the same as ours, and folded in the right way, thirdly, that they don't contain toxic substances for us, and last, that they contain all the vitamins and essential nutrients we need. (And, I suppose you would also like the food to taste 'good', so they should not contain any foul smelling molecules.)

Basically we must assume that their biochemistry is an exact copy of the biochemistry on Earth; which is very unlikely. We simply would not digest biomolecules that our bodies don't recognize. And the absence of even 1 essential or semi-essential nutrient (vitamin/mineral/amino acid/fatty acid ...) will kill us in the medium term.

So, yes, we will be obliged to take our picknic with us, and all the means and resources to prepare subsequent picknics while there. Loads of sugar to ferment to get bacterial-yeast biomass to make a meat substitute...

Thinking about that: we better take an extensive library of microorganisms with us that can grow on different substrates, especially inorganic ones, and that we can eat afterwards.

Cheers!

a reply to: SLAYER69

By our physical nature we have no choice but to consume and lower life forms must do the same. Who knows, maybe in the future we may invent photosynthesis suits, thus allowing us to manufacture nutrients from the sunshine, air and water, then absorb it through our skin. Who knows what life forms may be found on distant planets, perhaps plants that will provide us with all our nutritional requirements. Or, if we invent a pill that meets all of our daily requirements.

As for now, moral choices of what to eat should also include sustainability in addition to animal rights. It is Vitamin B12 that our bodies need to avoid serious disorders, however this vitamin can be found in dairy products and eggs, not only in animal flesh. So, really, where is the need to eat flesh?

If we do travel to a distant new Earth, we should bring with us fowl and hooved animals for eggs and dairy, thus sustaining us.

I'm sure this point must have been made already but I'd be very ssuprised if we could eat ET life that's evolved on another planet and not become seriously ill from it. We probably haven't evolved to appear on the same food chain.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I think it would be okay and here's why. Some have said that the Grey's got to where they where through thousands of years of evolution and also genetic manipulation to the point that they are one gender and also as you said absorb their nutrients via skin. We may never get to that point or want too and the only other option that is a middle ground is to clone meats and fats from animals that we would consider food from our planet and on others if we live there.

I think that is slowly becoming a possibility because of the increase in population and also ecological destruction of the good land and the seas. What we truly and I mean truly need to get accomplished and being used is nanotechnology and smart materials. The reason being is that I think that any alien planet that will have life or partial livable will be biologically toxic and/or bacteria and mold and viruses may look at us as a smorgasborg. There could be the fear that our microfauna in our bodies could be replaced with alien and maybe we become changed by it or taken over. I know that sounds crazy but remember we are biological animals also and their are examples of mold or fungus controlling other biological beings (two examples ants and spiders and possibly others). Like that game the last of us.

www.youtube.com...