I would argue that most plants require specific nutrients derived from us and other dead organisms, so this seems oversimplified. Secondly, we don't know exactly at what point humans turned to cooking their food, since it isn't technically necessary depending on what is eaten. Thirdly, no "moral argument" exists for not eating whatever we are conditioned by evolution to eat. It's a fact of our existence and part of the reason the community of individuals is the larger organism (species), since we are programmed to die. From my point of view, the possibility exists of harnessing the specific wavelengths of energy used to power cells, rendering circulating glucose unnecessary. Or human consciousness could be transferred to a robot or other mechanism which could recover energy directly, as in solar power, to drive the "organism", but I've seen no evidence this will ever be possible, since consciousness seems to disappear with the death of the organism. Eventually, the biggest problem is that people are conditioned, evolutionarily and culturally, to love to eat, and eat a lot, especially if the food is tasty. Not sure what kind of life "eating solar energy" would be. Doesn't sound appetizing.
[quote]However, most plants and algae are autotrophs. They bootstrap their biomass without the barbarism of eating others: using photosynthesis, turning sunlight, water, and carbon (pulled from the air) into energy. They may kill through competition, but they don’t need to kill to eat.[/quote].
They do however pollute the planet with the toxic waste of oxygen, which killed most of the anaerobic life on Earth at the time. A few survivors hid; the rest learned to protect themselves from deadly oxygen by buffering it with reduced organic compounds. After a while though the only ready source of reduced organic compounds were the algae and plants. So don't blame animals, the photosynthesizers started it!
Excellent, eye opening piece, especially for those concerned about "the violence...of eating." But, come to think about it, also "the inefficiency of eating" - the annoyance of having to eat, and the desire to pop some sort of energy pill to deal with hunger so one can get on with the rest of life.
If we become travellers of the universe, we can no longer tap into solar panels around the Sun. We live in semi darkness with pinholes of light to guide our way, but perhaps not enough yo feed us.
So we morph out of our bodies, and become spirit based?? No need for food if we can believe the gospel geeks. We have moved back to the bossum of God. Sounds boring.
I believe God and the prophets also said to make use of the animals and plants of the earth.
SO. If we stay on earth we need to take on chlorophyll. Hmm more genetic modification. More disasters. We can't even get it right with vaccination against common disease any more. Too many nay sayers.
Following this track for a future does not make me green with envy (nor chlorophyll).
'Unbiblical'? So you let a farrago of Bronze Age tall tales, superstition and mythology, put together by a group of Middle-eastern nomads with absolutely no cultural similarity to 21st century 'western civilisation', channel what you allow yourself to think? That seems to me to be a very strange way to live. If you want to believe in a god, fine, but why such in such a narrow way?
Is eating animals immoral when you do it respectfully? Without the greed that comes with massive scale. Actually caring for the animals and giving them decent lives.
How do you do that nowadays, when massive scale is needed to stop mass starvation? In any case, you are going to end their supposed decent lives (which must be un-naturally imprisoned, otherwise they might head for the hills) before their natural end.
Good point. Im not smart enough to solve that problem. Dont know that its possible, short of a meteor strike or some other worldwide calamity giving us no other option.
Science is trying to give us food that doesnt require death. But all of the worst food for us was created by science in recent history. Human meddling and scale rips the soul out. Circumventing the natural order is megalomaniacal. It seems that the further we get from nature, the more miserable we become. But I aint going to start a self sustaining farm any time soon either.
Maybe the megalomania leads to something divine? Hope so.
Today's scientists should feed these artificial foods to themselves and their children for three generations to prove the efficacy before it can be offered to the public, atypically with the nature of the food fully described in large print.
Great article!
I would argue that most plants require specific nutrients derived from us and other dead organisms, so this seems oversimplified. Secondly, we don't know exactly at what point humans turned to cooking their food, since it isn't technically necessary depending on what is eaten. Thirdly, no "moral argument" exists for not eating whatever we are conditioned by evolution to eat. It's a fact of our existence and part of the reason the community of individuals is the larger organism (species), since we are programmed to die. From my point of view, the possibility exists of harnessing the specific wavelengths of energy used to power cells, rendering circulating glucose unnecessary. Or human consciousness could be transferred to a robot or other mechanism which could recover energy directly, as in solar power, to drive the "organism", but I've seen no evidence this will ever be possible, since consciousness seems to disappear with the death of the organism. Eventually, the biggest problem is that people are conditioned, evolutionarily and culturally, to love to eat, and eat a lot, especially if the food is tasty. Not sure what kind of life "eating solar energy" would be. Doesn't sound appetizing.
Sounds like Solyent Green!
The other end of "eating" cannot be simply designed out - a heathly gut biome is critical.
[quote]However, most plants and algae are autotrophs. They bootstrap their biomass without the barbarism of eating others: using photosynthesis, turning sunlight, water, and carbon (pulled from the air) into energy. They may kill through competition, but they don’t need to kill to eat.[/quote].
They do however pollute the planet with the toxic waste of oxygen, which killed most of the anaerobic life on Earth at the time. A few survivors hid; the rest learned to protect themselves from deadly oxygen by buffering it with reduced organic compounds. After a while though the only ready source of reduced organic compounds were the algae and plants. So don't blame animals, the photosynthesizers started it!
Excellent, eye opening piece, especially for those concerned about "the violence...of eating." But, come to think about it, also "the inefficiency of eating" - the annoyance of having to eat, and the desire to pop some sort of energy pill to deal with hunger so one can get on with the rest of life.
Cool..
Awesome article ❤️🌱
Hmm makes me think.
If we become travellers of the universe, we can no longer tap into solar panels around the Sun. We live in semi darkness with pinholes of light to guide our way, but perhaps not enough yo feed us.
So we morph out of our bodies, and become spirit based?? No need for food if we can believe the gospel geeks. We have moved back to the bossum of God. Sounds boring.
I believe God and the prophets also said to make use of the animals and plants of the earth.
SO. If we stay on earth we need to take on chlorophyll. Hmm more genetic modification. More disasters. We can't even get it right with vaccination against common disease any more. Too many nay sayers.
Following this track for a future does not make me green with envy (nor chlorophyll).
Hand me at least a vegan sausage please.
Didn't we already do that with Beyond ?
Too unbiblical for me to continue reading the whole thing
'Unbiblical'? So you let a farrago of Bronze Age tall tales, superstition and mythology, put together by a group of Middle-eastern nomads with absolutely no cultural similarity to 21st century 'western civilisation', channel what you allow yourself to think? That seems to me to be a very strange way to live. If you want to believe in a god, fine, but why such in such a narrow way?
Amen.
Is eating animals immoral when you do it respectfully? Without the greed that comes with massive scale. Actually caring for the animals and giving them decent lives.
How do you do that nowadays, when massive scale is needed to stop mass starvation? In any case, you are going to end their supposed decent lives (which must be un-naturally imprisoned, otherwise they might head for the hills) before their natural end.
Good point. Im not smart enough to solve that problem. Dont know that its possible, short of a meteor strike or some other worldwide calamity giving us no other option.
Science is trying to give us food that doesnt require death. But all of the worst food for us was created by science in recent history. Human meddling and scale rips the soul out. Circumventing the natural order is megalomaniacal. It seems that the further we get from nature, the more miserable we become. But I aint going to start a self sustaining farm any time soon either.
Maybe the megalomania leads to something divine? Hope so.
Its a fascinating time to be alive.
Yes, I agree with you there.
Today's scientists should feed these artificial foods to themselves and their children for three generations to prove the efficacy before it can be offered to the public, atypically with the nature of the food fully described in large print.