Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: It's said, we are what we eat

  1. #1 It's said, we are what we eat 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    I don't really know what that means, but what I do know is that from the beginning of life on Earth, just about all animal life feeds on other life. Usually by killing it first. So, because we eat, we are killers. It doesn't matter if we pay others to do our killing for us, we are still killers, with the exception of those that choose to eat only vegetarian and non killed animal products.

    As we become more advanced, I can see a time when we will be able to synthesize better food than we have now without ever killing an animal. We could become the first species ever to ascend past the need to kill other life forms in order to sustain our own lives. What would that mean to us as a species? How would that change how we see ourselves? How would we feel about those primitive humans we had for our ancestors that use to eat animal flesh?

    If an advanced alien species was monitoring us, how would that change how they would think of us?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman E(i)lusiveReality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Meerut,India
    Posts
    17
    To correct it, we are cannot be the first to eat without the kill since so many plants out there are doing there. they are feeding u too directly or indirectly.
    Now i dont want to label myself as killer. see those organisms are not killers, they are survivors in the harsh environment so we can be called the survivors too.


    Import > Export. That the favourable Economic Ratio for the human mind .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by E(i)lusiveReality
    To correct it, we are cannot be the first to eat without the kill since so many plants out there are doing there. they are feeding u too directly or indirectly.
    Now i dont want to label myself as killer. see those organisms are not killers, they are survivors in the harsh environment so we can be called the survivors too.
    If I understand you correctly, you want to place plants into the same category as animals. Not sure I can do that. Technically, killing a plant is not the same as killing an animal. No one has ever earned the title of predator by eating a vegetable.

    Survivor is very general and can be used to describe anything that is alive regardless of what it eats.

    My concept requires us not to eat any animal products that require the death of those animals. However I think that will not be an easy thing to do as many humans take a great deal of pride in being considered a predator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: It's said, we are what we eat 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I don't really know what that means, but what I do know is that from the beginning of life on Earth, just about all animal life feeds on other life. Usually by killing it first. So, because we eat, we are killers. It doesn't matter if we pay others to do our killing for us, we are still killers, with the exception of those that choose to eat only vegetarian and non killed animal products.

    As we become more advanced, I can see a time when we will be able to synthesize better food than we have now without ever killing an animal. We could become the first species ever to ascend past the need to kill other life forms in order to sustain our own lives. What would that mean to us as a species? How would that change how we see ourselves? How would we feel about those primitive humans we had for our ancestors that use to eat animal flesh?

    If an advanced alien species was monitoring us, how would that change how they would think of us?
    Your claim is unfounded. There are many more herbivores than carnivores in our world. Since only about ten-percent of energy is passed down to each trophic level, than there are about ten times as many herbivorse as there are carnivores. In other words, most animals do not feed by "eating other animals" or "usually by killing." Rather, most animals feed on plant matter, and a small-collection of other animals feed on other animals, usually by killing (and sometimes kleptoparasitism, i.e., usurping).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: It's said, we are what we eat 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I don't really know what that means, but what I do know is that from the beginning of life on Earth, just about all animal life feeds on other life. Usually by killing it first. So, because we eat, we are killers. It doesn't matter if we pay others to do our killing for us, we are still killers, with the exception of those that choose to eat only vegetarian and non killed animal products.

    As we become more advanced, I can see a time when we will be able to synthesize better food than we have now without ever killing an animal. We could become the first species ever to ascend past the need to kill other life forms in order to sustain our own lives. What would that mean to us as a species? How would that change how we see ourselves? How would we feel about those primitive humans we had for our ancestors that use to eat animal flesh?

    If an advanced alien species was monitoring us, how would that change how they would think of us?
    Your claim is unfounded. There are many more herbivores than carnivores in our world. Since only about ten-percent of energy is passed down to each trophic level, than there are about ten times as many herbivorse as there are carnivores. In other words, most animals do not feed by "eating other animals" or "usually by killing." Rather, most animals feed on plant matter, and a small-collection of other animals feed on other animals, usually by killing (and sometimes kleptoparasitism, i.e., usurping).
    Sorry I wasn't more clear about that, but I do consider plants as a life form also. All life is part of the biosphere we live in, an we depend on each other for survival in many ways that are not obvious to casual thinking.

    I guess the point I really wanted to make has more to do with an intelligent species such as humans becoming non-predators and at the same time eat better than they ever did in the past. However, I have to say I don't believe it will happen, because one of the great pleasures in life is eating good food. Changing ones eating habits is not easy to do. A lot of people can't do it even when a doctor tells them they will die if they don't. So it's pretty much a non issue anyway. I was just being curious and wanted to know what others might think about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Okay, in that case you make a reasonable point, however you should refrain from calling plants animals; they belong to different kingdoms, and while animal cells are eukaryotic and lack a cell wall, plant cells are also eukaryotic and possess cell walls and plasmodesmata that allow adjacent cells to share cytosol (in addition, plant cells contain chloroplasts, which are made up of granum or "thylakoids" that flow in stroma fluid in a double membrane layer). Chloroplast allow plants to preform photosymthesis (that is, harvesting energy from light radiating from the sun). As I'm sure you know, animals are incapable of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    however you should refrain from calling plants animals
    Can you please point out where I called plants animals? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Quite sure I didn't make that mistake. Maybe you interpreted life form to be animal. Pretty much all life lives off other life one way or another. But please let's not get stuck on that point.

    Through the course of evolution species have evolved from being herbivore to carnivore and carnivore to herbivore. I'm not clear if scientists know why that has happened or not. But humans can go either way and have a brain capable of making that choice and sticking to it as a way of life. Some people have made that choice. I don't think I would even want to try myself. But if humans could synthesize the proteins we need and make them presentable and tasty, I would be willing to give it a go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    however you should refrain from calling plants animals
    Can you please point out where I called plants animals? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Quite sure I didn't make that mistake. Maybe you interpreted life form to be animal. Pretty much all life lives off other life one way or another. But please let's not get stuck on that point.
    You said that life feeds on other life forms. Plants and animals fall under the category of life. Light does not. While plants "feed" on light, animals do not. For plants to feed on other life, they would need to be animals. Therefore, you placed plants as a subset of the set of animals. They are not.

    I am not placing a great emphasis on this mistake; you simply confused me as to what exactly you were saying. When I found out where the error is, I decided to scantly mention it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    however you should refrain from calling plants animals
    Can you please point out where I called plants animals? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Quite sure I didn't make that mistake. Maybe you interpreted life form to be animal. Pretty much all life lives off other life one way or another. But please let's not get stuck on that point.
    You said that life feeds on other life forms. Plants and animals fall under the category of life. Light does not. While plants "feed" on light, animals do not. For plants to feed on other life, they would need to be animals. Therefore, you placed plants as a subset of the set of animals. They are not.

    I am not placing a great emphasis on this mistake; you simply confused me as to what exactly you were saying. When I found out where the error is, I decided to scantly mention it.
    Plants also have roots to absorb nutrients that they simply can't live without. Many of those nutrients come from decaying plant and animal material that recycles itself. Again where's the error on my part?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    however you should refrain from calling plants animals
    Can you please point out where I called plants animals? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Quite sure I didn't make that mistake. Maybe you interpreted life form to be animal. Pretty much all life lives off other life one way or another. But please let's not get stuck on that point.
    You said that life feeds on other life forms. Plants and animals fall under the category of life. Light does not. While plants "feed" on light, animals do not. For plants to feed on other life, they would need to be animals. Therefore, you placed plants as a subset of the set of animals. They are not.

    I am not placing a great emphasis on this mistake; you simply confused me as to what exactly you were saying. When I found out where the error is, I decided to scantly mention it.
    Plants also have roots to absorb nutrients that they simply can't live without. Many of those nutrients come from decaying plant and animal material that recycles itself. Again where's the error on my part?
    This is your error:

    "You said that life feeds on other life forms. Plants and animals fall under the category of life. Light does not. While plants "feed" on light, animals do not. For plants to feed on other life, they would need to be animals. Therefore, you placed plants as a subset of the set of animals. They are not."

    Plants have two main transport tissue, that being the xylem and phloem. The function of the xylem is to transport water and minerals up the plant. The rising of effect of the water is due to the cohesive properties of water, and requires no energy. The phloem tissue is responsible for the transportation of organic nutrients, such as sugars throughout the plant. This process requires the use of energy. This "energy," that is sugars, are derived from photosynthesis, and not through animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    [This is your error:

    "You said that life feeds on other life forms. Plants and animals fall under the category of life. Light does not. While plants "feed" on light, animals do not. For plants to feed on other life, they would need to be animals. Therefore, you placed plants as a subset of the set of animals. They are not."
    Ellatha, if you are going to indulge in pedantic semantics, then at least try to get it right. Life does not simply consist of animals and plants. There are other 'Kingdoms', so your claim that Lance placed plants in the Plant 'Kingdom' cannot be substantiated. His casual statement (not sensuo stricto a mistake) may have placed it in fungi, or archaea, or bacteria, etc.

    Secondly, there are many plants, Dionaea muscipula for example, which do feed on animal life.

    I repeat, if you are going to indulge in nitpicking criticism, it would be useful if you had your facts straight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    if you are going to indulge in pedantic semantics, then at least try to get it right.
    "I am not placing a great emphasis on this mistake; you simply confused me as to what exactly you were saying. When I found out where the error is, I decided to scantly mention it."

    I would recommend reading my posts from now on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I read your post. You mentioned the issue. You got it wrong. If you thought this was a minor point, don't mentiont it at all, but if you are going to mention it then get it right.

    I read your post. I read it carefully. I re-read it. I made certain I had grasped as much meaning from it as was possible. It alters nothing I have said. You were wrong. I have no problem with nitpicking posts - they can be interesting, but for ****'s sake if you nitpick, get it right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I read your post. You mentioned the issue. You got it wrong. If you thought this was a minor point, don't mentiont it at all, but if you are going to mention it then get it right.
    There was a reason for me mentioning it; it was the cause of the misunderstanding. In order to clear up the misunderstanding I had to mention it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I read your post. I read it carefully. I re-read it. I made certain I had grasped as much meaning from it as was possible. It alters nothing I have said. You were wrong. I have no problem with nitpicking posts - they can be interesting, but for ****'s sake if you nitpick, get it right.
    So the point of your post was to show that if someone wants to nitpick they should get it right? I don't believe you, again; rather, it seems to be another classical case of Ophiolite trolling another poster frequent in the philosophy sub-forum and defending this trolling with trivial excuses that he or no one else truly cares about.

    The poster that designed this thread only made mention of plants and animals; there is no reason to suggest that he was referring to protists, fungi, or bacteria. I was never nitpicking to begin with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Friggin hell man. You got the point frigging wrong. Clearly you are one of those insecure assholes incapable of admitting to a mistake. Fortunately I no longer have to deal with your feeble posts. Your my first Ignore for a year.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    171
    This is always making me crazy when I see people transposing western 21st century 'ethical' concerns to the rest of human kind and then by extension to aliens...

    From what we see and know from life, from animals, from intelligent life, I don't believe that aliens will care at all about 'eating other life'. A lot of animals are even eating their own species.

    This is, to my opinion, an almost ridiculous thread. It makes me think about the 19th century description of animals which are viewed as "generous", "ferocious", "selfish", "treacherous" etc...

    What does it mean to become "more advanced" ? You think this is to be advanced to eat a synthetic food ? Food is a part of our art. Do you want as well to condemn painting or dancing as it might represent women as only sexual objects ?

    Look a bit more widely around you, around the world, in the past, to forget your westerner ethical concerns and look at the fundamentals of life and humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Makandal
    This is always making me crazy when I see people transposing western 21st century 'ethical' concerns to the rest of human kind and then by extension to aliens...

    From what we see and know from life, from animals, from intelligent life, I don't believe that aliens will care at all about 'eating other life'. A lot of animals are even eating their own species.
    You could be right about the aliens, but then that's why they are so useful. However, I'm not sure you should confuse my concerns with western 21st century 'ethical' concerns. Some of the other posters might have a problem with that.

    This is, to my opinion, an almost ridiculous thread. It makes me think about the 19th century description of animals which are viewed as "generous", "ferocious", "selfish", "treacherous" etc...
    I don't know where this is coming from as I don't attribute any animal emotions in human terms.

    What does it mean to become "more advanced" ? You think this is to be advanced to eat a synthetic food ? Food is a part of our art. Do you want as well to condemn painting or dancing as it might represent women as only sexual objects ?
    You have to admit, humans are learning a great deal about what nutrients we need for a better longer life. We may not be there yet, but what if every cell in your body could have the exact nutrient it needed at the exact time it needed it, from the moment you were born? Would you consider that more advanced or do I need to throw in a replicator too?

    Look a bit more widely around you, around the world, in the past, to forget your westerner ethical concerns and look at the fundamentals of life and humans.
    Hey when it comes to food, I'm really glad to have the rest of the world around. Not sure what I'd do if I couldn't eat Mexican, Chinese, Italian, middle eastern, Japanese,,,etc., when I had the cravings for them.[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •