4 ms·
So it offends your sensibilities, but GP is correct, it doesn't physically harm anyone. It probably will help reduce conscious suffering in the long run.
by sooheon 6y ago
So it offends your sensibilities, but GP is correct, it doesn't physically harm anyone. It probably will help reduce conscious suffering in the long run.
- renewiltord 6y agoInteresting. If this isn't an interaction between a high-divinity moral foundation individual and a low-divinity individual.
- jodrellblank 6y agoGP didn't say it "doesn't physically harm anyone". Are you saying there's no harm except physical harm?
- sooheon 6y agoObviously not. But the set of harms that should reasonably be given as an answer to "why not?" is not equal to the set of all imaginable harms.
- just-ok 6y agoSurveillance doesn’t physically harm anyone, either, but does that also reduce conscious suffering in the long run? Sibling comments are right: physical harm != harm.
- sooheon 6y agoThere is a more direct link from surveillance to physical harm (loss of freedom, imprisonment, death) than there is from lab meat. I agree, physical harm != harm, but harm != harm we should restrict others' freedom in order to prevent.
- briefcomment 6y agoLet me clarify. I wouldn't be surprised if the smell and taste of cooked human flesh causes physiological and mental changes to humans. Those changes could possibly lower the barriers for human to human violence. Probably worth studying before bringing this into the mass market. Maybe case studies of cannibalism would shed some light. An otherwise peaceful society who, for example, eats recently dead people, may suggest there wouldn't be any concerns with lab grown human meat.