Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (21608)	5/15/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

"any movement which conserves the earth's resources" Not any movement. Since many of them are Luddite in nature and seek to push the clock back on all technology. I'd hate to live without antibiotics, good refrigeration and modern dentistry. What we need to do is amend that. "Any movement which conserves the earth's resources" by amplifying what's a resource, and enabling us to develop high-tech clean alternatives to filthy primitive technology. Like burning wood as a fuel, which strictly imho is a much greater crime than eating meat. "Who gave us permission to eat animals, anyway?" Whoa. Loaded one, Christine! Waht kind of question is this? Who has authority over such matters? Where is it written that permission is even needed? The implications in that one question include, but are not limited to, an abrogation of mankind's responsibilities as the dominant species in this neck of the galaxy. We write the rules here. Of course, the smart monkey's corollary is that we should do some homework on the rules we write and enact. I see the willingness to eat or not eat meat as an ethical choice. One of several ethical choices, none of which can be proven better than any other without agreeing on some basic premises. (Like, f'rinstance, I don't buy your contention that carnivory is impolite. Cats have terrific table manners. especially fully cooked cats:-D) And that ain't the human way. I think one day soon (fifty? a hundred years?) biotechnology will have come to the point where we can simulate a T-bone or a lamb chop without killing a critter. Then a simulated steak will be as good and cheaper than growing it in a cow. This is how I see the future of meatlessness - not a deloberate course of conscientous deprivation. But an advanced, improved repalcement for a popular but expensive product. Then I too will be a vegetarian! but not until then 9or the triple bypass:-D)

To: Grainne who wrote (21608)	5/15/1998 4:40:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine: "I do think that any movement which conserves the earth's resources, causes less pollution, and does not hurt animals, however, is a good thing." NONSENSE. Controlling pollution requires more sophisticated technology, not LESS technology. Conserving the earth's resources is a non-issue because we'll get most resources from space (the solar syatem) as we head further into the next Century. Hurting animals is a good thing -- it keeps us at the top of the food chain -- which is where we must remain if we intend to stay the dominant species in this sector of space. "Who gave us all permission to eat other animals, anyway? It seems a little savage to me." The dominant species gives themselves permission. There is a farmer in England who thinks we shouldn't eat plants. He sleeps in his corn and barley field every night. He talks to "them". If we listened to all these kooks we'd all starve ourselves to death. Of course there are those who would say that the elimination of the human race would be the best thing to happen to the planet. Wish I had 'em aboard a spaceship -- they'd be out the airlock without a suit pronto! Father Terrence