One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Would you eat human meat???
Page 1 of 2 next>
Mar 13, 2018 20:01:46   #
badbobby Loc: texas
 
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat will eradicate the taboo against cannibalism.

In a tweet on March 3, the outspoken evolutionary biologist linked to an article about the possible commercialization of meat grown in a laboratory by the end of 2018. Dawkins was practically drooling, but it wasn't over the food: "I've long been looking forward to this," he wrote. "What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?"

Lab-grown meat, he continued, would be an "interesting test case" pitting consequentialist morality against "yuck reaction" absolutism. In other words, lab-grown human meat might be ethical in the sense that no one experiences any bad consequences — no k*****g, no desecrating corpses — but humans might still instinctually recoil at the idea of eating it. [9 D********g Things That the FDA Allows in Your Food]

Dawkins' question isn't a new one, though research suggests that getting people to eat lab-grown meat at all might be a challenge — and that the market for lab-grown human meat would probably be vanishingly small.

"You'll hear trend pieces, 'Kids today are eating their friends!'" predicted Owen Schaefer, a professor at the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at the National University of Singapore. But in reality, he said, synthetic-human-meat eating "is going to be extremely rare."

Meat in a petri dish
Lab meat, also known as "in vitro" meat or clean meat, is grown from just a few stem cells taken from a living animal. The first lab-grown meat was consumed in 2013 at a news conference in London. It was a burger made by Mark Post, a pharmacologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, and the two tasters reported that it was a bit dry.

In general, people are kind of grossed out about any sort of meat grown in the lab, researchers have found. A survey of potential lab-meat customers in the United States, published last year in the journal PLOS ONE, found that two-thirds of people would be willing to try the stuff, but only one-third could see themselves eating it regularly.

"On average, people see clean meat as more ethical and environmental than farmed meat, but less natural, tasty and appealing," said study co-author Matti Wilks, a doctoral student in psychology at the University of Queensland, Australia.

Only 16 percent of respondents to Wilks' survey said they'd eat lab-grown meat if it were more expensive than typical meat, suggesting that people generally don't put too much monetary value on the ethical and environmental benefits of the product.

That study found a very small number of people who reported that they'd be more willing to eat meat from animals like dogs, horses and cats if that meat were grown in the lab. But the numbers were so small they wouldn't be noticeable if scaled up to the whole population of consumers, Wilks told Live Science. What's more, she noted, the study found that vegetarians who already didn't eat meat were among the least likely to say they'd start eating meat if it were lab-grown. Similarly, people who don't see the appeal of cannibalism aren't likely to change their minds just because the meat was never part of a living person, she said.

"I can't imagine that people who don't want to eat human meat now would suddenly feel motivated to eat human meat when produced via cellular agriculture," Wilks said. [7 Ways Food Needs to Change]

Is lab-meat cannibalism ethical?
Still, there are almost certainly going to be a few people who want to try synthetic human meat, Schaefer said, including performance artists who might want to serve a derivative of themselves to make a statement, or celebrities who might want to cash in by selling their fans the opportunity to taste their flesh. [Eating Brains: Cannibal Tribe Evolved Resistance to Fatal Disease]

"You're going to get some people out there that will do it," he said. "The question is, 'Should we object to that? Should we ban people from synthesizing human flesh into something consumable?'"

In a 2014 paper in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Schaefer and his co-author, Julian Savulescu, tried to work through the ethics of eating lab-grown human meat. They couldn't find any convincing philosophical arguments to call it unethical, Schaefer said. In his tweet, Dawkins mentioned consequentialism, which is the idea that the ends justify the means. In that sense, no one is directly harmed by lab-grown cannibalism, because no one has to die and no one's corpse gets desecrated.

Nor was there a good deontological argument against the practice, Schaefer said. In philosophy, deontology is the idea that the means do matter — for example, if you can save five people by k*****g one, k*****g that one person still may not be the ethical thing to do. Deontological arguments are usually based in notions of disrespect for persons, but again, there doesn't seem to be anyone disrespected by eating synthetic human meat, Schaefer said.

One possible argument against cannibalism via clean meat could stem from virtue ethics, he said, the idea that humans should cultivate attitudes that are virtuous for their own sake.

"There you could say this is a disposition toward humanity to shift from seeing people as people, and maybe this would push us more to seeing people as meat," he said. But that shift doesn't seem particularly likely, he said.

While cannibalism is fun to talk about, Schaefer said, the real question is how clean meat will change humanity's relationship with food from something that requires animal suffering to something made in a lab. If clean meat can be as tasty and safe as regular meat and be sold at cheaper prices, it will probably become widespread, he said. (Post's 2013 burger cost a whopping $300,000, but the technology is improving.) Wilks agreed that people will likely become more open to clean meat once it hits the grocery store shelves.

"Right now, I believe it is seen somewhat as a future technology, but once it's tangible I think that will change," she said, "and I am optimistic that people will engage with it."

Reply
Mar 13, 2018 20:02:38   #
badbobby Loc: texas
 
badbobby wrote:
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat will eradicate the taboo against cannibalism.

In a tweet on March 3, the outspoken evolutionary biologist linked to an article about the possible commercialization of meat grown in a laboratory by the end of 2018. Dawkins was practically drooling, but it wasn't over the food: "I've long been looking forward to this," he wrote. "What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?"

Lab-grown meat, he continued, would be an "interesting test case" pitting consequentialist morality against "yuck reaction" absolutism. In other words, lab-grown human meat might be ethical in the sense that no one experiences any bad consequences — no k*****g, no desecrating corpses — but humans might still instinctually recoil at the idea of eating it. [9 D********g Things That the FDA Allows in Your Food]

Dawkins' question isn't a new one, though research suggests that getting people to eat lab-grown meat at all might be a challenge — and that the market for lab-grown human meat would probably be vanishingly small.

"You'll hear trend pieces, 'Kids today are eating their friends!'" predicted Owen Schaefer, a professor at the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at the National University of Singapore. But in reality, he said, synthetic-human-meat eating "is going to be extremely rare."

Meat in a petri dish
Lab meat, also known as "in vitro" meat or clean meat, is grown from just a few stem cells taken from a living animal. The first lab-grown meat was consumed in 2013 at a news conference in London. It was a burger made by Mark Post, a pharmacologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, and the two tasters reported that it was a bit dry.

In general, people are kind of grossed out about any sort of meat grown in the lab, researchers have found. A survey of potential lab-meat customers in the United States, published last year in the journal PLOS ONE, found that two-thirds of people would be willing to try the stuff, but only one-third could see themselves eating it regularly.

"On average, people see clean meat as more ethical and environmental than farmed meat, but less natural, tasty and appealing," said study co-author Matti Wilks, a doctoral student in psychology at the University of Queensland, Australia.

Only 16 percent of respondents to Wilks' survey said they'd eat lab-grown meat if it were more expensive than typical meat, suggesting that people generally don't put too much monetary value on the ethical and environmental benefits of the product.

That study found a very small number of people who reported that they'd be more willing to eat meat from animals like dogs, horses and cats if that meat were grown in the lab. But the numbers were so small they wouldn't be noticeable if scaled up to the whole population of consumers, Wilks told Live Science. What's more, she noted, the study found that vegetarians who already didn't eat meat were among the least likely to say they'd start eating meat if it were lab-grown. Similarly, people who don't see the appeal of cannibalism aren't likely to change their minds just because the meat was never part of a living person, she said.

"I can't imagine that people who don't want to eat human meat now would suddenly feel motivated to eat human meat when produced via cellular agriculture," Wilks said. [7 Ways Food Needs to Change]

Is lab-meat cannibalism ethical?
Still, there are almost certainly going to be a few people who want to try synthetic human meat, Schaefer said, including performance artists who might want to serve a derivative of themselves to make a statement, or celebrities who might want to cash in by selling their fans the opportunity to taste their flesh. [Eating Brains: Cannibal Tribe Evolved Resistance to Fatal Disease]

"You're going to get some people out there that will do it," he said. "The question is, 'Should we object to that? Should we ban people from synthesizing human flesh into something consumable?'"

In a 2014 paper in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Schaefer and his co-author, Julian Savulescu, tried to work through the ethics of eating lab-grown human meat. They couldn't find any convincing philosophical arguments to call it unethical, Schaefer said. In his tweet, Dawkins mentioned consequentialism, which is the idea that the ends justify the means. In that sense, no one is directly harmed by lab-grown cannibalism, because no one has to die and no one's corpse gets desecrated.

Nor was there a good deontological argument against the practice, Schaefer said. In philosophy, deontology is the idea that the means do matter — for example, if you can save five people by k*****g one, k*****g that one person still may not be the ethical thing to do. Deontological arguments are usually based in notions of disrespect for persons, but again, there doesn't seem to be anyone disrespected by eating synthetic human meat, Schaefer said.

One possible argument against cannibalism via clean meat could stem from virtue ethics, he said, the idea that humans should cultivate attitudes that are virtuous for their own sake.

"There you could say this is a disposition toward humanity to shift from seeing people as people, and maybe this would push us more to seeing people as meat," he said. But that shift doesn't seem particularly likely, he said.

While cannibalism is fun to talk about, Schaefer said, the real question is how clean meat will change humanity's relationship with food from something that requires animal suffering to something made in a lab. If clean meat can be as tasty and safe as regular meat and be sold at cheaper prices, it will probably become widespread, he said. (Post's 2013 burger cost a whopping $300,000, but the technology is improving.) Wilks agreed that people will likely become more open to clean meat once it hits the grocery store shelves.

"Right now, I believe it is seen somewhat as a future technology, but once it's tangible I think that will change," she said, "and I am optimistic that people will engage with it."
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat w... (show quote)


dunno if even Slat would eat this stuff

Reply
Mar 13, 2018 20:11:18   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
badbobby wrote:
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat will eradicate the taboo against cannibalism.

In a tweet on March 3, the outspoken evolutionary biologist linked to an article about the possible commercialization of meat grown in a laboratory by the end of 2018. Dawkins was practically drooling, but it wasn't over the food: "I've long been looking forward to this," he wrote. "What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?"

Lab-grown meat, he continued, would be an "interesting test case" pitting consequentialist morality against "yuck reaction" absolutism. In other words, lab-grown human meat might be ethical in the sense that no one experiences any bad consequences — no k*****g, no desecrating corpses — but humans might still instinctually recoil at the idea of eating it. [9 D********g Things That the FDA Allows in Your Food]

Dawkins' question isn't a new one, though research suggests that getting people to eat lab-grown meat at all might be a challenge — and that the market for lab-grown human meat would probably be vanishingly small.

"You'll hear trend pieces, 'Kids today are eating their friends!'" predicted Owen Schaefer, a professor at the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at the National University of Singapore. But in reality, he said, synthetic-human-meat eating "is going to be extremely rare."

Meat in a petri dish
Lab meat, also known as "in vitro" meat or clean meat, is grown from just a few stem cells taken from a living animal. The first lab-grown meat was consumed in 2013 at a news conference in London. It was a burger made by Mark Post, a pharmacologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, and the two tasters reported that it was a bit dry.

In general, people are kind of grossed out about any sort of meat grown in the lab, researchers have found. A survey of potential lab-meat customers in the United States, published last year in the journal PLOS ONE, found that two-thirds of people would be willing to try the stuff, but only one-third could see themselves eating it regularly.

"On average, people see clean meat as more ethical and environmental than farmed meat, but less natural, tasty and appealing," said study co-author Matti Wilks, a doctoral student in psychology at the University of Queensland, Australia.

Only 16 percent of respondents to Wilks' survey said they'd eat lab-grown meat if it were more expensive than typical meat, suggesting that people generally don't put too much monetary value on the ethical and environmental benefits of the product.

That study found a very small number of people who reported that they'd be more willing to eat meat from animals like dogs, horses and cats if that meat were grown in the lab. But the numbers were so small they wouldn't be noticeable if scaled up to the whole population of consumers, Wilks told Live Science. What's more, she noted, the study found that vegetarians who already didn't eat meat were among the least likely to say they'd start eating meat if it were lab-grown. Similarly, people who don't see the appeal of cannibalism aren't likely to change their minds just because the meat was never part of a living person, she said.

"I can't imagine that people who don't want to eat human meat now would suddenly feel motivated to eat human meat when produced via cellular agriculture," Wilks said. [7 Ways Food Needs to Change]

Is lab-meat cannibalism ethical?
Still, there are almost certainly going to be a few people who want to try synthetic human meat, Schaefer said, including performance artists who might want to serve a derivative of themselves to make a statement, or celebrities who might want to cash in by selling their fans the opportunity to taste their flesh. [Eating Brains: Cannibal Tribe Evolved Resistance to Fatal Disease]

"You're going to get some people out there that will do it," he said. "The question is, 'Should we object to that? Should we ban people from synthesizing human flesh into something consumable?'"

In a 2014 paper in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Schaefer and his co-author, Julian Savulescu, tried to work through the ethics of eating lab-grown human meat. They couldn't find any convincing philosophical arguments to call it unethical, Schaefer said. In his tweet, Dawkins mentioned consequentialism, which is the idea that the ends justify the means. In that sense, no one is directly harmed by lab-grown cannibalism, because no one has to die and no one's corpse gets desecrated.

Nor was there a good deontological argument against the practice, Schaefer said. In philosophy, deontology is the idea that the means do matter — for example, if you can save five people by k*****g one, k*****g that one person still may not be the ethical thing to do. Deontological arguments are usually based in notions of disrespect for persons, but again, there doesn't seem to be anyone disrespected by eating synthetic human meat, Schaefer said.

One possible argument against cannibalism via clean meat could stem from virtue ethics, he said, the idea that humans should cultivate attitudes that are virtuous for their own sake.

"There you could say this is a disposition toward humanity to shift from seeing people as people, and maybe this would push us more to seeing people as meat," he said. But that shift doesn't seem particularly likely, he said.

While cannibalism is fun to talk about, Schaefer said, the real question is how clean meat will change humanity's relationship with food from something that requires animal suffering to something made in a lab. If clean meat can be as tasty and safe as regular meat and be sold at cheaper prices, it will probably become widespread, he said. (Post's 2013 burger cost a whopping $300,000, but the technology is improving.) Wilks agreed that people will likely become more open to clean meat once it hits the grocery store shelves.

"Right now, I believe it is seen somewhat as a future technology, but once it's tangible I think that will change," she said, "and I am optimistic that people will engage with it."
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat w... (show quote)

Not even if my life would depend on it!!!!

Reply
 
 
Mar 13, 2018 20:50:01   #
JW
 
badbobby wrote:
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat will eradicate the taboo against cannibalism.

In a tweet on March 3, the outspoken evolutionary biologist linked to an article about the possible commercialization of meat grown in a laboratory by the end of 2018. Dawkins was practically drooling, but it wasn't over the food: "I've long been looking forward to this," he wrote. "What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?"

Lab-grown meat, he continued, would be an "interesting test case" pitting consequentialist morality against "yuck reaction" absolutism. In other words, lab-grown human meat might be ethical in the sense that no one experiences any bad consequences — no k*****g, no desecrating corpses — but humans might still instinctually recoil at the idea of eating it. [9 D********g Things That the FDA Allows in Your Food]

Dawkins' question isn't a new one, though research suggests that getting people to eat lab-grown meat at all might be a challenge — and that the market for lab-grown human meat would probably be vanishingly small.

"You'll hear trend pieces, 'Kids today are eating their friends!'" predicted Owen Schaefer, a professor at the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at the National University of Singapore. But in reality, he said, synthetic-human-meat eating "is going to be extremely rare."

Meat in a petri dish
Lab meat, also known as "in vitro" meat or clean meat, is grown from just a few stem cells taken from a living animal. The first lab-grown meat was consumed in 2013 at a news conference in London. It was a burger made by Mark Post, a pharmacologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, and the two tasters reported that it was a bit dry.

In general, people are kind of grossed out about any sort of meat grown in the lab, researchers have found. A survey of potential lab-meat customers in the United States, published last year in the journal PLOS ONE, found that two-thirds of people would be willing to try the stuff, but only one-third could see themselves eating it regularly.

"On average, people see clean meat as more ethical and environmental than farmed meat, but less natural, tasty and appealing," said study co-author Matti Wilks, a doctoral student in psychology at the University of Queensland, Australia.

Only 16 percent of respondents to Wilks' survey said they'd eat lab-grown meat if it were more expensive than typical meat, suggesting that people generally don't put too much monetary value on the ethical and environmental benefits of the product.

That study found a very small number of people who reported that they'd be more willing to eat meat from animals like dogs, horses and cats if that meat were grown in the lab. But the numbers were so small they wouldn't be noticeable if scaled up to the whole population of consumers, Wilks told Live Science. What's more, she noted, the study found that vegetarians who already didn't eat meat were among the least likely to say they'd start eating meat if it were lab-grown. Similarly, people who don't see the appeal of cannibalism aren't likely to change their minds just because the meat was never part of a living person, she said.

"I can't imagine that people who don't want to eat human meat now would suddenly feel motivated to eat human meat when produced via cellular agriculture," Wilks said. [7 Ways Food Needs to Change]

Is lab-meat cannibalism ethical?
Still, there are almost certainly going to be a few people who want to try synthetic human meat, Schaefer said, including performance artists who might want to serve a derivative of themselves to make a statement, or celebrities who might want to cash in by selling their fans the opportunity to taste their flesh. [Eating Brains: Cannibal Tribe Evolved Resistance to Fatal Disease]

"You're going to get some people out there that will do it," he said. "The question is, 'Should we object to that? Should we ban people from synthesizing human flesh into something consumable?'"

In a 2014 paper in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Schaefer and his co-author, Julian Savulescu, tried to work through the ethics of eating lab-grown human meat. They couldn't find any convincing philosophical arguments to call it unethical, Schaefer said. In his tweet, Dawkins mentioned consequentialism, which is the idea that the ends justify the means. In that sense, no one is directly harmed by lab-grown cannibalism, because no one has to die and no one's corpse gets desecrated.

Nor was there a good deontological argument against the practice, Schaefer said. In philosophy, deontology is the idea that the means do matter — for example, if you can save five people by k*****g one, k*****g that one person still may not be the ethical thing to do. Deontological arguments are usually based in notions of disrespect for persons, but again, there doesn't seem to be anyone disrespected by eating synthetic human meat, Schaefer said.

One possible argument against cannibalism via clean meat could stem from virtue ethics, he said, the idea that humans should cultivate attitudes that are virtuous for their own sake.

"There you could say this is a disposition toward humanity to shift from seeing people as people, and maybe this would push us more to seeing people as meat," he said. But that shift doesn't seem particularly likely, he said.

While cannibalism is fun to talk about, Schaefer said, the real question is how clean meat will change humanity's relationship with food from something that requires animal suffering to something made in a lab. If clean meat can be as tasty and safe as regular meat and be sold at cheaper prices, it will probably become widespread, he said. (Post's 2013 burger cost a whopping $300,000, but the technology is improving.) Wilks agreed that people will likely become more open to clean meat once it hits the grocery store shelves.

"Right now, I believe it is seen somewhat as a future technology, but once it's tangible I think that will change," she said, "and I am optimistic that people will engage with it."
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat w... (show quote)


Good grief, Soylent green...

Reply
Mar 13, 2018 21:21:51   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
JW wrote:
Good grief, Soylent green...


That is the ultimate goal, break down all the barriers that make us human. That will make it easier to control and reprogram humans to do exactly as they are told to do. Humans as lab animals promoted by the same group of l*****ts that demand that rats should not ever be used as experiments. How long before the idea of using humans to provide research which will help wild animals survive?

Reply
Mar 13, 2018 21:26:15   #
JW
 
no propaganda please wrote:
That is the ultimate goal, break down all the barriers that make us human. That will make it easier to control and reprogram humans to do exactly as they are told to do. Humans as lab animals promoted by the same group of l*****ts that demand that rats should not ever be used as experiments. How long before the idea of using humans to provide research which will help wild animals survive?


The world has turned upside down.

Reply
Mar 14, 2018 05:16:11   #
PeterS
 
no propaganda please wrote:
That is the ultimate goal, break down all the barriers that make us human. That will make it easier to control and reprogram humans to do exactly as they are told to do. Humans as lab animals promoted by the same group of l*****ts that demand that rats should not ever be used as experiments. How long before the idea of using humans to provide research which will help wild animals survive?

And you know what the ultimate goal is?

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2018 06:42:13   #
out of the woods Loc: to hell and gone New York State
 
JW wrote:
Good grief, Soylent green...

That was my first thought too. Perhaps this is the desensitizing phase.

Reply
Mar 14, 2018 08:42:08   #
JW
 
out of the woods wrote:
That was my first thought too. Perhaps this is the desensitizing phase.


I seriously hope we're not going in that direction.

Reply
Mar 14, 2018 08:48:38   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
PeterS wrote:
And you know what the ultimate goal is?


THE NAKED C*******T: 45 C*******T GOALS
On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 C*******t goals into the Congressional
Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked C*******t.” These principles are well
worth revisiting toda
y in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so
-
called liberal elite:
1.
U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2.
U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic wa
r. [Note: These encapsulate the Kennan Doctrine, which
advocated for the "containment" of c*******m. Establishment figures supporting the amoral containment policy at least
implicitly worked with the c*******ts in scaring the wits out of the American peopl
e concerning atomic war. President Ronald
Reagan undid the doctrine when he took an aggressive stand against the Evil Empire by backing freedom fighters from around th
e
world that were struggling against the left
-
wing c*******t jackboot. As a result, the S
oviet Union and its satellites imploded, a
considerable and unexpected setback to the international c*******t edifice.]
3.
Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of "moral strength." [Note: The nuclear free
ze
advo
cates supported a freeze on American nuclear development only. Rarely were Soviet nukes or those of other nations
mentioned in their self
-
righteous tirades. The same advocates now call for reducing American military might, claiming that there is
something
immoral about America preserving its military pre
-
eminence in the world.]
4.
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of C*******t affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be use
d for
war. [Note: Today, there are calls to end the
embargo on the s***e island of Cuba, there were complaints about the embargo
against Iraq, and the U.S., not Saddam Hussein, was blamed for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Would they have advocated f
or
free trade with Hitler and his National Socialist r
egime?]
5.
Extend long
-
term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6.
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of C*******t domination. [Note: Such aid and trade over decades contributed
greatly to the left
-
wing c*******t liquidation of over 100
million people worldwide, according to the well
-
documented "Black
Book of C*******m." This aid and trade marks a shameful chapter in American history. Without the aid and trade, the left
-
wing
international c*******t behemoth would have imploded on its own
rot a lot sooner and umpteen millions would have been saved
from poverty, misery, starvation and death.]
7.
Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N. [Note: Not only did President Jimmy Carter fulfill this
goal but he also bet
rayed America’s allies in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Afghanistan, Angola and elsewhere.]
8.
Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by fr
ee
e******ns under supervision of
the U.N.
9.
Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progr
ess.
10.
Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11.
Promote the U.N. as the only hope
for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one
-
world government with
its own independent armed forces. [Note: There are still American intellectuals, and elected members of Congress, who dream o
f
an eventual one world governmen
t and who view the U.N., founded by c*******ts such as Alger Hiss, the first secretary
-
general,
as the instrument to bring this about. World government was also the dream of Adolf Hitler and J.V. Stalin. World government
was the dream of Osama bin Laden an
d the 9/11 hijackers.]
12.
Resist any attempt to outlaw the C*******t Party. [Note: While the idea of banning any political party runs contrary to notio
ns of
American freedom and liberty, notions that are the exact opposite of those held by the left
-
wing
c*******ts themselves,
nevertheless these goals sought to undermine the constitutional obligation of Congress to investigate subversion. The weakeni
ng of
our government’s ability to conduct such investigations led to the attack of 9/11.]
13.
Do away wit
h loyalty oaths. [Note: It is entirely proper and appropriate for our government to expect employees, paid by the
American taxpayer, to take an oath of loyalty.]
14.
Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15.
Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S. [Note: In his book, "Reagan’s War," Peter Schweizer demonstrates th
e
astonishing degree to which c*******ts and c*******t sympathizers have penetrated the Democratic Party. In his book,
Schweize
r writes about the p**********l e******n of 1979.]
16.
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil right
s. [Note:
This strategy goes back to the founding of the American Civil Li
berties Union by Fabian Socialists Roger Baldwin and John
Dewey and C*******ts William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn among others.]
17.
Get control of the schools. Use them as t***smission belts for Socialism and current C*******t propaganda. Soft
en the
curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18.
Gain control of all student newspapers.
19.
Use student r**ts to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under C*******t attack. [No
te:The success
of these goals, from a c*******t perspective, is obvious. Is there any doubt this is so?]
20.
Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy
-
making positions.
21.
Gain control of key positions in
radio, TV & motion pictures.
22.
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American C*******t cell was told to
"eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and mean
ingless forms.
23.
Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24.
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio
and TV. [Note: This is the Gramscian agenda of the "long march through the institutions" spelled out explicitly: gradual take
over
of the "means of communication" and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to
resist.]
26.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy." [Note: Today those few wh
o still have the
courage to advocate public morality are denounced and viciously attacked. Most Americans are entirely unwitting regarding the
motives behind this agenda.]
27.
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion.
Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for
intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch." [Note: This has been largely accomplished through the commun
ist
infiltration of the National Council of Churches, Conservative and Reform Judais
m, and the Catholic seminaries.]
28.
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separa
tion of
church and state"
29.
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to
cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30.
Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocr
ats who had no concern for the "common man."
31.
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor
part
of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Comm
unists took over. [Note: Obliterating the American
past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the c*******ts then and
now.]
32.
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any
part of the culture

education, social agencies, welfare
programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33.
Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the C*******t apparatus.
34.
Eliminate the House Committee on Un
-
American Activi
ties.
35.
Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36.
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37.
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38.
T***sfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behaviora
l problems as psychiatric disorders
which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat. [Note: The Soviets used to send "social misfits" and those deemed
politically incorrect to massive mental institutions called gulags. The Red Chinese call them lao
gai. Hitler called them
concentration camps.]
39.
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose
c*******t goals. [Note: Psychiatry remains a bulwark of the c*******t agenda of
fostering self
-
criticism and docility.]
40.
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. [Note: Done! The sovereign family is the sing
le
most powerful obstacle to authoritarian control.]
41.
Emphasize the need to rais
e children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and
r****ding of children to suppressive influence of parents. [Note: Outcome
-
based education, values clarification or wh**ever they’re
calling it this year.]
42.
Create the impression that violence and i**********n are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and spec
ial
interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems. [Note: This describ
es the
dialectical fostering of group consciousness and conflict, which furthers the interests of authoritarianism.]
43.
O*******w all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self
-
government.
44.
Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45.
Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems.
Give the World Court jurisdiction over all countries and their laws.

this is from Skousen, one of the most informed writers on the subject.

Reply
Mar 14, 2018 10:16:53   #
Justsss Loc: Wisconsin
 
badbobby wrote:
dunno if even Slat would eat this stuff


I’m so glad that Jew hating lying piece of crap is gone. He now knows that he was lied to and was stupid enough to believe the lie.
Enjoy Hell small fry !

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2018 10:20:05   #
bahmer
 
badbobby wrote:
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat will eradicate the taboo against cannibalism.

In a tweet on March 3, the outspoken evolutionary biologist linked to an article about the possible commercialization of meat grown in a laboratory by the end of 2018. Dawkins was practically drooling, but it wasn't over the food: "I've long been looking forward to this," he wrote. "What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?"

Lab-grown meat, he continued, would be an "interesting test case" pitting consequentialist morality against "yuck reaction" absolutism. In other words, lab-grown human meat might be ethical in the sense that no one experiences any bad consequences — no k*****g, no desecrating corpses — but humans might still instinctually recoil at the idea of eating it. [9 D********g Things That the FDA Allows in Your Food]

Dawkins' question isn't a new one, though research suggests that getting people to eat lab-grown meat at all might be a challenge — and that the market for lab-grown human meat would probably be vanishingly small.

"You'll hear trend pieces, 'Kids today are eating their friends!'" predicted Owen Schaefer, a professor at the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at the National University of Singapore. But in reality, he said, synthetic-human-meat eating "is going to be extremely rare."

Meat in a petri dish
Lab meat, also known as "in vitro" meat or clean meat, is grown from just a few stem cells taken from a living animal. The first lab-grown meat was consumed in 2013 at a news conference in London. It was a burger made by Mark Post, a pharmacologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, and the two tasters reported that it was a bit dry.

In general, people are kind of grossed out about any sort of meat grown in the lab, researchers have found. A survey of potential lab-meat customers in the United States, published last year in the journal PLOS ONE, found that two-thirds of people would be willing to try the stuff, but only one-third could see themselves eating it regularly.

"On average, people see clean meat as more ethical and environmental than farmed meat, but less natural, tasty and appealing," said study co-author Matti Wilks, a doctoral student in psychology at the University of Queensland, Australia.

Only 16 percent of respondents to Wilks' survey said they'd eat lab-grown meat if it were more expensive than typical meat, suggesting that people generally don't put too much monetary value on the ethical and environmental benefits of the product.

That study found a very small number of people who reported that they'd be more willing to eat meat from animals like dogs, horses and cats if that meat were grown in the lab. But the numbers were so small they wouldn't be noticeable if scaled up to the whole population of consumers, Wilks told Live Science. What's more, she noted, the study found that vegetarians who already didn't eat meat were among the least likely to say they'd start eating meat if it were lab-grown. Similarly, people who don't see the appeal of cannibalism aren't likely to change their minds just because the meat was never part of a living person, she said.

"I can't imagine that people who don't want to eat human meat now would suddenly feel motivated to eat human meat when produced via cellular agriculture," Wilks said. [7 Ways Food Needs to Change]

Is lab-meat cannibalism ethical?
Still, there are almost certainly going to be a few people who want to try synthetic human meat, Schaefer said, including performance artists who might want to serve a derivative of themselves to make a statement, or celebrities who might want to cash in by selling their fans the opportunity to taste their flesh. [Eating Brains: Cannibal Tribe Evolved Resistance to Fatal Disease]

"You're going to get some people out there that will do it," he said. "The question is, 'Should we object to that? Should we ban people from synthesizing human flesh into something consumable?'"

In a 2014 paper in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Schaefer and his co-author, Julian Savulescu, tried to work through the ethics of eating lab-grown human meat. They couldn't find any convincing philosophical arguments to call it unethical, Schaefer said. In his tweet, Dawkins mentioned consequentialism, which is the idea that the ends justify the means. In that sense, no one is directly harmed by lab-grown cannibalism, because no one has to die and no one's corpse gets desecrated.

Nor was there a good deontological argument against the practice, Schaefer said. In philosophy, deontology is the idea that the means do matter — for example, if you can save five people by k*****g one, k*****g that one person still may not be the ethical thing to do. Deontological arguments are usually based in notions of disrespect for persons, but again, there doesn't seem to be anyone disrespected by eating synthetic human meat, Schaefer said.

One possible argument against cannibalism via clean meat could stem from virtue ethics, he said, the idea that humans should cultivate attitudes that are virtuous for their own sake.

"There you could say this is a disposition toward humanity to shift from seeing people as people, and maybe this would push us more to seeing people as meat," he said. But that shift doesn't seem particularly likely, he said.

While cannibalism is fun to talk about, Schaefer said, the real question is how clean meat will change humanity's relationship with food from something that requires animal suffering to something made in a lab. If clean meat can be as tasty and safe as regular meat and be sold at cheaper prices, it will probably become widespread, he said. (Post's 2013 burger cost a whopping $300,000, but the technology is improving.) Wilks agreed that people will likely become more open to clean meat once it hits the grocery store shelves.

"Right now, I believe it is seen somewhat as a future technology, but once it's tangible I think that will change," she said, "and I am optimistic that people will engage with it."
MRichard Dawkins wants to know if lab-grown meat w... (show quote)


Gross even for Slats.

Reply
Mar 14, 2018 14:40:36   #
boatbob2
 
NOPE,I wouldnt eat HUMAN MEAT,BUT,obozo will,( or already has)

Reply
Mar 14, 2018 15:42:53   #
bahmer
 
boatbob2 wrote:
NOPE,I wouldnt eat HUMAN MEAT,BUT,obozo will,( or already has)


I think that he started doing that in Hawaii didn't He?

Reply
Mar 15, 2018 05:12:47   #
Iamdjchrys Loc: Decatur, Texas
 
bahmer wrote:
I think that he started doing that in Hawaii didn't He?


Y'all are ridiculous!

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.