From: Damien Broderick (damien@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sun Jul 26 1998 - 14:26:42 MDT
At 05:15 PM 7/25/98 +0000, Nick wrote:
> husbandry. If we could design cattle without brains or with just the
> brain stem, we would have a way of producing meat without maltreating
> animals (the brainless bodies wouldn't count as animals). The human
> yuck-feeling (probably temporary) would have to be weighed against
> the permanent reduction in animal suffering.
This component of the FAQ needs *excruciating* sensitivity. Almost
everyone has a gag reflex at this suggestion. I wonder (dunno if it makes
bio-botanical sense) if the suggestion might be better expressed as: if we
could design plants and vegetables that include certain animal genes, we
might be able to `grow steaks' in the same way we now grow tomatos or
lettuces. [If that *doesn't* make sense for energetic reasons, we need to
rephrase the brainless cows scenario more delicately.]
> intergalactic space. Whoever was in charge of this project could
> probably have done with a little bit more accountability!
Careful! Whimsical homour is not read as such by believers - and there are
always nitwits who would quote such a line as proof that >H believe in
deity but pit themselves against Him/Her/It!
> persons created per year. This does not mean that population could
> not grow; only that the growth would have to be polynomial rather
> than exponential.
Many readers are non-mathematical. You need to explain this a bit, even if
only by providding examples of the two progressions.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:24 MST