My understanding is that (back in the days of obtaining nutrients and calories without much technology!), shifting to a diet that included animals gave pre-humans (or early humans?) a tremendous gain - especially in energy/time spent and energy/nutrients obtained.



There seems to an implied assumption or two here which I'm not quite seeing.

Are you suggesting that modern humans should choose their behaviors based on their evolutionary heritage? Are you assuming that all ethical decisions are, or should be, defined by evolution? Or are you asking why - for those who think evolution explains everything - why do some of us choose not to eat meat?

But it is not an evolutionary trait. It is a technique. A technique is simply a way of doing something. Techniques that are valuable continue to be practiced. Techniques that are not are abandoned.

For example, before the written word it was incredibly difficult to transfer knowledge from one generation to another. If someone had a valuable piece of knowledge they had to verbally transmit it to someone who had to retain it and then transmit it in turn. A single accident or untimely death could wipe out a great deal of knowledge that would have to be re-discovered. Writing protects that knowledge.

Yet, there is no writing gene. Children must still be taught to speak, read and write. To believe that jobs/skills can be passed down from generation to generation is a bit of a throw-back idea. The children of kings shall be kings and the children of farmers will be farmers.

\Well really, the two are interconnected. Physical comfort is a personal value. A jail cell is very uncomfortable compared to your own living room. Pretty obvious choice there, based solely on personal values.

The legal system is really just an extension of personal values in that it is a result of people who are in agreement (and in power) deciding that they do not want their "mutually agreed upon personal values" violated (i.e. “acted against”). So they create a “legal system” whose purpose is to enforce those mutually agreed upon personal values. Specifically, enforce them on others who do not agree with them. This is the basic purpose of police and military – to stop others from acting in a way that does not align with a specific viewpoint.

It’s interesting to note that, in our “legal system” for example, the very rights that are supposedly being “protected” are the one’s that are taken away. Sort of a "two wrongs do make a right" So it seems that the so-called “inalienable rights” are not really “inalienable” after all.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I didn’t mean to (and don’t see where I did) say that the technique was an evolutionary trait. Only that the desire was. As is the desire to “transfer knowledge from one generation to another” with the purpose of enhancing the “survival potential” of future generations.

Ah, gotcha.

I don't know if a desire can be a genetic trait so I will leave that to those who are more knowledgeable. But I do know my grandfather loved a good steak, my father loved a good steak, and I love a good steak.

One thing that I really like about this thread is that Sky is questioning the logic behind certain connections between evolution and behavior, creating a platform to explore what 'evolution' might really mean, or how it might really work, without the discussion being disrupted by those who insisted 'it didn't happen'.

Personally, I think there may be genes that encourage us to be better able to write. I am curious about the claims made by the originator of 'Ebonics' about genetics and language. I would not be terribly surprised if Chinese people had slightly different genetic predilections regarding written words than Europeans.

If this were true, it would (I expect) have nothing to do with predator prey dynamics of early humans. Where might it come from? Perhaps the activity of culture on evolution - like the antler horns I'm fond of mentioning - if improved language skills helped a person birth more offspring in a particular community.

Of course, there is a huge problem when people abuse such notions to justify social injustice, as you touch on here:

My understanding is that (back in the days of obtaining nutrients and calories without much technology!), shifting to a diet that included animals gave pre-humans (or early humans?) a tremendous gain - especially in energy/time spent and energy/nutrients obtained.

That is a such a huge question. I just wrote out a bunch of hypotheticals, but as the science of genetics advances we may soon be dealing with realities rather than hypotheticals.

I am torn on this questions - I would like to prevent senseless mass murderings, but beyond a few obvious things like that, I do not trust any person or body of people to make the decision regarding what makes for ethical behavior.

What if we could simply shape our genetics to favor greater empathy & respect for others?

With modern technology, I believe we most certainly can get everything we need from plants (& single celled organisms).

The period of my life in which I had the highest level of physical fitness, stamina, and general feelings of well being, was also the one in which I was eating a vegan diet. This was not the standard situation, though, as several of my friends were vegan chefs, and I was always eating a massive quantity of healthy, delicious, vegan food.

I'm not clear on this concept of 'meant' to eat meat. We are structured to be -able- to eat meat. From the individual perspective there are efficiency gains from eating meat (but from the 'whole system' perspective it is more efficient to eat plants).

But just because we have eaten meat in the past, and have the ability to eat meat (including the structure of our teeth) - that means we are 'meant' to eat meat? That we 'should' eat meat?

Males are structurally built to have sex with females - couldn't one argue that we are 'meant' for men to have sex with women? Something like the existence of canine teeth seems a weak foundation for arguing what I ought to eat.

Interesting point. It would seem to refute my assumption that a “desire for meat" is in any way genetically based. So I’d have to back-and-fill and revise my statement to something like “a desire for food, and meat falls under the category of ‘food’”.

But as it relates to the topic at hand (the morality/ethics of using animals for food vis-à-vis evolution) I don’t see any appreciable difference between the two.

I'm confused, but thats okay. If eating meat helped us with the individual or group energy dynamics of food procurement, we might have evolved an affinity/taste for meat to help motivate us to go after 'that which provides favorable energy dynamics'. So I was agreeing with you from the beginning on this point, though my matter-of-fact tone may sound like I'm arguing.



Agreed, either way!

I don’t see a categorical difference between using gene manipulation to alter behavior and some of the current methods already in practice.

We are already using chemicals (not to mention the more extreme treatments such as electro-convulsive therapy and psychosurgery) to directly alter physiology in an attempt to change behavior. In many cases, these treatments are sanctioned by law, if not directly ordered by courts.

So I don’t see gene manipulation as being a separate and distinct issue with no precedent. In my opinion, the key ethical issues of gene manipulation have already been addressed and “resolved” in the scientific and political arenas by the psychiapriests.

I can see this if the question is modifying the genes of the individual - especially one who has already demonstrated anti-social behaviors, for the purpose of making them 'less of a threat' to others.

But we are getting into a whole new can of worms if people seek to eliminate certain genes from our gene pool!

What if every potential parent had to have their genome sequenced, and if they had the 'psychopathic killer' gene, they had to agree to some kind of gene modification (or special selective fertilization technique) before they have children?

See, I knew I'd catch some flack

By "meant" I was implying all the resons you gave. If we were not meant to omnivores, then I do believe that we would have been structured differently i.e. either a mouth full of grinders that herbavores have or a big mouth full of T-Rex. teeth.

Yes, males and females are structurally biult for sex with each other and I see your point: just because you are built to perform a function doesn't mean that you have to.

As for your comments to your vegan diet, you are the only one I've "talked" to that actually enjoyed the diet and found it to be good for you, I didn't mean to "trash" the lifestyle. That's just been my experience.

I hope this shores up the foundations a little.

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that we have an affinity for sweets because in nature sweet taste indicates sugars (such as in fruits and berries) that were packed with energy.

Also, a bitter taste was generally associated with things that we should not eat. However, as an avowed coffee drinker I take issue with that observation.

Exactly, and through much of our evolutionary past it was a 'good thing' for us to get as much energy density in our food as possible.... today, in the modern world, the reverse is true, and our collective 'sweet tooth' (combined with other factors) is causing serious diseases & health problems!

I think a major factor here is how our technology and economy have changed the energy equation for getting food - which is also why eating meat (while still advantageous in some ways) is not as -much- of an advantage as it once was. And, or course, eating too much meat is also causing health problems.

My point is that we are already forcing people to undergo physiological changes in order to remove undesireable behaviour from the society. Requiring gene manipulation to accomplish the same thing is only an extension of that activity. And in practical terms of the current socio-political climate, is a very small extension.

Happy to oblige! This is a sensitive topic for some, but I definitely do not identify myself very strongly with my diet, nor with other people who eat the same diet that I eat.



I'm still a bit confused, but lets look at:



But does it mean that you 'should'?

Was I 'meant' to eat meat? What does that even mean? I am also larger than most women, and given a desire to sex, was I 'meant' to rape? I know those are not equal lines of reasoning, but I am not clear on the meaning of the word 'meant' in this context. It honestly sounds a bit like a 'brush it under the carpet and don't think about it' kind of word.

I recognize homo sapiens as an omnivore species. Should that alone determine whether its ethical or appropriate to factory-farm and eat animals?



By definition, a vegan diet is a diet of exclusion. You take the standard dietary elements most widely available in our society, and remove all the animals products, you have created a diet that is less healthy for most people (exception being maybe people on the brink of a heart attack from too much meat).

So to eat a healthy vegan diet, as Redykeulous says, you have do a lot more than simply remove some things from your diet. Empty calories are the enemy.



Hey, I am completely not offended in the least! Bring on the trashing!

Sky, please forgive me for being dense. Maybe I am so focused on my point that I'm failing to see yours. I agree that genetic manipulation to an individual can be viewed as only an extension of, say, using drugs or 'psychosurgery' to control the individual. So, I think I understand and agree with your point about steps taken to control certain categories of individuals... And when those individuals are sterilized or otherwise prevented from passing on their genes, this effects our gene pool.

But I still think that its an entirely different topic to ask about -fixing our genes as a species-. If a certain gene is determined to encourage mass murdering, and people want to get that gene our of our gene pool, how might they go about doing so? It opens the door to issues with far greater reach and implication than just drugging, lobotomizing or sterilizing those people who demonstrated conditions or anti-social behavior.

For example, it could open the door to people needing permits (from the genepriests) to have children.

Ok, now I get where you’re going. It was I who was being dense.

I was talking about the effects on a single individual over a period of a few decades at most. You’re talking about the effects on the entire race over a period of – well – much longer.

So…

I would say that if it were determined that a specific gene caused one to exhibit a tendency toward mass murder, and if it were determined that altering that gene would not have any adverse effects (e.g. eradicating the urge for self-defense), then in that specific case, I personally would have no more objection to mandatory gene modification, than I have to mandatory vaccinations. (Which, by the way, I do have some objections to.)

But those “determinations” would have to be absolute proofs. The legal “reasonable doubt” would be nowhere near enough.

For me to agree with gene manipulation would require those determinations to be proved with the same degree of certainty as a mathematical proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.

And with the way that “mental illness” is currently (cough) diag… (cough) …nosed (cough) (cough), I think anyone associated in any way with “the mental health industry” should be specifically banned from having any input whatsoever into the decision.