Cannibalism

Thread starter #1

ambush80

Senior Member
A thread in the Political Forum sparked a question. It's about cultured meat. Meat grown in labs. So if they could take cells from a non-human animal, encode them to create human cells, would it be cannibalism to eat them? What would Jesus do?
 

660griz

Senior Member
A thread in the Political Forum sparked a question. It's about cultured meat. Meat grown in labs. So if they could take cells from a non-human animal, encode them to create human cells, would it be cannibalism to eat them? What would Jesus do?
He's good with it.

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink (John 6:53-55).
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
A thread in the Political Forum sparked a question. It's about cultured meat. Meat grown in labs. So if they could take cells from a non-human animal, encode them to create human cells, would it be cannibalism to eat them? What would Jesus do?
So really the first question is did they create a human from those non human cells by encoding them.
Tricky question.
Under your scenario is there any, and I mean ANY, difference between a natural born human and this "created" human?
Any left over ANYTHING from the original non human cell?
 
Thread starter #4

ambush80

Senior Member
So really the first question is did they create a human from those non human cells by encoding them.
Tricky question.
Under your scenario is there any, and I mean ANY, difference between a natural born human and this "created" human?
Any left over ANYTHING from the original non human cell?
I'm not talking about making a whole human yet. That's a fun question, too. They will have created human tissue; calf muscle, eye ball, skin, etc. The differences between these tissues and "natural" human tissues is the question. The non-human tissue is just basic building material. Take out the DNA and I'm pretty sure our collagen looks just like a fish's.

If I pay to have a lab make me some human tissue, can I do with it whatever I want?

So, Sean Carrol makes the argument that if we were able to reproduce ourselves exactly down to the atom that a separate consciousness would arise. The clone isn't me. It's its own being and therefore has it's own rights. What if I commission that they grow "me" in a lab minus a brain, or even just a rudimentary brain; good enough to walk around but maybe not to think, like a dog? What could I morally do to that thing? Could I put it on a leash like a dog? Make it crate up when I go to work? These problems are right around the corner, providing we don't blow ourselves up first.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
I'm not talking about making a whole human yet. That's a fun question, too. They will have created human tissue; calf muscle, eye ball, skin, etc. The differences between these tissues and "natural" human tissues is the question. The non-human tissue is just basic building material. Take out the DNA and I'm pretty sure our collagen looks just like a fish's.

If I pay to have a lab make me some human tissue, can I do with it whatever I want?

So, Sean Carrol makes the argument that if we were able to reproduce ourselves exactly down to the atom that a separate consciousness would arise. The clone isn't me. It's its own being and therefore has it's own rights. What if I commission that they grow "me" in a lab minus a brain, or even just a rudimentary brain; good enough to walk around but maybe not to think, like a dog? What could I morally do to that thing? Could I put it on a leash like a dog? Make it crate up when I go to work? These problems are right around the corner, providing we don't blow ourselves up first.
Ok gotcha. I was going too far ahead with it.
It's its own being and therefore has it's own rights.
There's a Star Trek episode (one of the new fangled versions of Star Trek) that addressed that very subject about Data.
Self awareness was the determining factor in whether he was a being and therefore had rights.
 
Thread starter #6

ambush80

Senior Member
Ok gotcha. I was going too far ahead with it.

There's a Star Trek episode (one of the new fangled versions of Star Trek) that addressed that very subject about Data.
Self awareness was the determining factor in whether he was a being and therefore had rights.
I love the subject of AI. It raises some cool philosophical and moral questions. I would love for some believers to weigh in on the subject of AI through their lens of faith.
 
I think Jesus wouldn't give it a second thought. Matter of fact if you're having lunch with him you better chow down quick or he'll pull the "are you gonna finish that?" routine. And he reads your newspaper from over your shoulder - I hate that!

Seriously though the whole "Soylent Green" thing might not be too far off!
 

NCHillbilly

Administrator
Ok gotcha. I was going too far ahead with it.

There's a Star Trek episode (one of the new fangled versions of Star Trek) that addressed that very subject about Data.
Self awareness was the determining factor in whether he was a being and therefore had rights.
Ted the teddy bear had to go to court about this issue, too.
 

Israel

Senior Member
I love the subject of AI. It raises some cool philosophical and moral questions. I would love for some believers to weigh in on the subject of AI through their lens of faith.
AI...just making more of itself...having zero clue what it is doing.


"Forgive them Father, they don't know what they are doing"
 
Thread starter #11

ambush80

Senior Member
AI...just making more of itself...having zero clue what it is doing.


"Forgive them Father, they don't know what they are doing"
So, you think we should stop trying to make AI? Talk to me like we're in that jon boat drowning minnows.
 

Israel

Senior Member
Brother (I'd say)...what's gonna be is gonna be, no matter my opinion of it.

So maybe the question ain't right?

"So, you think we should stop trying to make AI?"
I think it'd be a good idea for the tide to stop if I'm buried to my neck in the sand below the high water line too.

Do I think it's so normally horrific that men do stuff as though they also control consequences? Yeah...but my knowing that...has never even stopped me.
 
Thread starter #13

ambush80

Senior Member
Brother (I'd say)...what's gonna be is gonna be, no matter my opinion of it.

So maybe the question ain't right?



I think it'd be a good idea for the tide to stop if I'm buried to my neck in the sand below the high water line too.

Do I think it's so normally horrific that men do stuff as though they also control consequences? Yeah...but my knowing that...has never even stopped me.
Yeah, but I asked your opinion.

It seems to me like you're saying that you think it will lead to our inevitable death (the rising tide). You also seem to say that you think we do things without considering the consequences. And then you seem to be saying that you do that yourself. Do you notice something? I consistently have to qualify by saying "you seem to be saying".

I just want to point out how easily and simply you could have said those things and I wouldn't have to try to interpret what you said. I'm going to attempt to translate what you said into conversational English. "I think that AI will lead to our eventual death. We often build things that are dangerous to us without considering the dangers. I do it myself." Did that get the gist or did my lack of poetry miss some nuance?

I think you're wrong. I think that very bright and concerned people recognize the dangers of AI and are seeking to only advance the technology if the best possible safeguards are in place. They know we can't cover all the bases but we can try. Some AI theorists think that AI developers and advanced nations should have a type Manhattan Project for AI. I agree that the advancement of the technology will continue.
 
Last edited:

Israel

Senior Member
Yeah, but I asked your opinion.

It seems to me like you're saying that you think it will lead to our inevitable death (the rising tide). You also seem to say that you think we do things without considering the consequences. And then you seem to be saying that you do that yourself. Do you notice something? I consistently have to qualify by saying "you seem to be saying".

I just want to point out how easily and simply you could have said those things and I wouldn't have to try to interpret what you said. I'm going to attempt to translate what you said into conversational English. "I think that AI will lead to our eventual death. We often build things that are dangerous to us without considering the dangers. I do it myself." Did that get the gist or did my lack of poetry miss some nuance?

I think you're wrong. I think that very bright and concerned people recognize the dangers of AI and are seeking to only advance the technology if the best possible safeguards are in place. They know we can't cover all the bases but we can try. Some AI theorists think that AI developers and advanced nations should have a type Manhattan Project for AI. I agree that the advancement of the technology will continue.
Did that get the gist or did my lack of poetry miss some nuance?

Nah, you got it fair 'nough.

Do I see brain sucking droids on the horizon? Things that will creep silently into homes, steal babies out of cribs and inject them with some germ of data that will turn them to their use, allowing them to stare mindlessly and interminably at their own image in awe? Believing they see? Enamored of what they behold?

Nah...I don't see that, not in the future, anyway.
 
Thread starter #15

ambush80

Senior Member
Nah, you got it fair 'nough.

Do I see brain sucking droids on the horizon? Things that will creep silently into homes, steal babies out of cribs and inject them with some germ of data that will turn them to their use, allowing them to stare mindlessly and interminably at their own image in awe? Believing they see? Enamored of what they behold?

Nah...I don't see that, not in the future, anyway.
What do you think "turn them to their use" means?
 

Israel

Senior Member
and there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, that also the image of the beast may speak, and that it may cause as many as shall not bow before the image of the beast, that they may be killed.

But that too, neither do I see in the future

BTW...ya see 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri?

It's exactly like Arrival, but without Aliens and "space ships" and an emphasis on the nuances of language and its either limits...(or boundlessness to a) communication. Which itself was just like "The Shawshank Redemption" but without prison and guards and a Raquel Welch poster...which was also just like Tombstone but without horses and pistol twirling...which is just like...

 
Last edited:
Thread starter #17

ambush80

Senior Member
and there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, that also the image of the beast may speak, and that it may cause as many as shall not bow before the image of the beast, that they may be killed.

But that too, neither do I see in the future

BTW...ya see 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri?

It's exactly like Arrival, but without Aliens and "space ships" and an emphasis on the nuances of language and its either limits...(or boundlessness to a) communication. Which itself was just like "The Shawshank Redemption" but without prison and guards and a Raquel Welch poster...which was also just like Tombstone but without horses and pistol twirling...which is just like...

WHY!!!!!?????

Why do you have to try so hard to be cryptic? Remember Jordan Peterson saying "If you're disagreeable and you don't follow the rules of the game, people won't play with you." You exasperate me. :mad:

Are you gonna wise up or keep insisting that "It's them with the problem"?
 
I have figured it out at last.

Israel wrote the Bible! That's why there are 50,000 denominations of Christians who have spent the last 2,000 years trying to figure out what it means and translate it to understandable, normal non-metaphoric speech. ::ke: :bounce:
 

Israel

Senior Member
WHY!!!!!?????

Why do you have to try so hard to be cryptic? Remember Jordan Peterson saying "If you're disagreeable and you don't follow the rules of the game, people won't play with you." You exasperate me. :mad:

Are you gonna wise up or keep insisting that "It's them with the problem"?
I can't deny it could very well be me..."trying" to be cryptic.

But couldn't it very well be you, thinking you know yourself so well as being able to rightly attribute motives from there...on to another?

Simply..."for me to be like the way I perceive him...that would be me trying very hard to be cryptic" (What weighs five pounds of cryptic in me...)


As to playing the JBP card...c'mon.

It's almost like you saying to someone ...maybe even someone like me...

"you know...I got this very important new info for you, hot of the press from Jordan 'you'll find folks way more amenable if YOU do this...or stop doing that' "


For that there would have to be the assumption "it must be very important that I find people a certain way relative to me"=I must be very important then.

Don't hurt yourself on the ha ha's going out.
 
Thread starter #20

ambush80

Senior Member
and there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, that also the image of the beast may speak, and that it may cause as many as shall not bow before the image of the beast, that they may be killed.

But that too, neither do I see in the future

BTW...ya see 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri?

It's exactly like Arrival, but without Aliens and "space ships" and an emphasis on the nuances of language and its either limits...(or boundlessness to a) communication. Which itself was just like "The Shawshank Redemption" but without prison and guards and a Raquel Welch poster...which was also just like Tombstone but without horses and pistol twirling...which is just like...

I can't deny it could very well be me..."trying" to be cryptic.

But couldn't it very well be you, thinking you know yourself so well as being able to rightly attribute motives from there...on to another?

Simply..."for me to be like the way I perceive him...that would be me trying very hard to be cryptic" (What weighs five pounds of cryptic in me...)


As to playing the JBP card...c'mon.

It's almost like you saying to someone ...maybe even someone like me...

"you know...I got this very important new info for you, hot of the press from Jordan 'you'll find folks way more amenable if YOU do this...or stop doing that' "


For that there would have to be the assumption "it must be very important that I find people a certain way relative to me"=I must be very important then.

Don't hurt yourself on the ha ha's going out.

I barely have an idea of what you tried to express in the first post. I'm sure you were trying to tell me something. I coudn't figure out what it was and I try VERY hard. Many others have said the same. I will understand what you're trying to say better if you say it in a conversational way. If your goal isn't conversation then carry on doing your "art". If that's how you talk to everyone you meet on the street then......I don't know what to say.

The second post is plain(er) English. I understood it much better. All I know is that if the bank teller asks me if I want large or small bills and I reply "Blood is the rose of mysterious union" that we will have a poor exchange.

And Peterson is right.
 
Top