Re: Arrow of morality

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Sun Jan 04 2004 - 11:25:44 MST

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:32:02 +0900
"Metaqualia" <> wrote:

> > > What if there are no answers that yield obviously superior results for
> > > society? There is no answer, for example, to the meat question -- and
> > > yet there is great rage among some about killing and eating
> > > animals. Many thorny moral questions have no objective answer, which
> > > is why they are thorny in the first place.
> There are answers that yield obviously superior results for society.
> There is an answer to the meat question.
> Develop nanotechnology, then the animals can live and we can eat meat.
> Nobody 100 years ago could have thought of this, still the solution was
> always there, readily accessible with more knowledge/intelligence.

Eventually the same technology may remove the need to eat at all unless you really want to. For reasons of increased health and longevity I am working on getting rid of mere food taste attachments in favor of eating for health and well-being as I am sure many others are doing or considering. I would be pleased not to have to eat (or sleep) at all except for ritualistic reasons.

But using nanotech to produce meat products instead of harvesting millions of hectares of crops to feed billions of head of livestock who are then slaughtered would be a large improvement.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT