[Terr_]

I suppose the next step beyond vegetarianism and veganism will be mineralism: Food using molecules certified never to have been part of any known living organism.

I remember there was a fictional advertisement for such a product in a sci-fi story, but not exactly where.

[wrp]

> fictional advertisement for such a product in a sci-fi story

Beyond the Blue Event Horizon by Frederik Pohl

The artificial food was called CHON.

[ashoeafoot]

Part of the gateway trilogy

[luqtas]

veganism is about reducing suffering to a practical extend. no vegan is ditching transportation or plastic because it may contain by-products of the animal industry... thus if one day we can make food out of minerals, for sure that would be vegan; although i can't see ANY harm done to a fruit tree or a soybean/corn that dries out because of its short life cycle being a 'bad thing' but maybe minerals based food will avoid taking land of native species

[JumpCrisscross]

> veganism is about reducing suffering to a practical extend

There is genuine debate around whether plants suffer. The answer seems to be “no,” at least not in a way we’d recognise as suffering. But that ambiguity is more than enough to spawn a movement. Ethically-harvested honey doesn’t harm bees, for instance, and family dairies can blur the line between animal husbandry and petkeeping.

[aziaziazi]

"Ethically" harvested honey means not killing the bees in the process I guess, which is awesome, but there’s still stress induced by removing the food they make and stock for their hives, and the cage around the queen just to be sure she doesn’t go back to the wild. Im not sure how to define ethics anyway but surely I would’t like to be a farm bee, even an ethical one.

Familly diaries also comes with they own sets of abuse forgotten because "they love their cows". At the end it’s always a speechless being exploited to serve the dominant interest.

[JumpCrisscross]

Sure. I’m not arguing that doesn’t exist. I’m saying it’s tough to argue someone couldn’t argue that plants suffer similarly if the option not to eat them existed.

[kasey_junk]

Those are both sets of animals that are livestock. That is, animals that would not exist without their being kept for use by humans.

Which is just another data point to make the ethics tricky.

[dgfitz]

> veganism is about reducing suffering to a practical extend

I don’t think there are enough current or future vegans in the world to negate anything at all.

[shepherdjerred]

Practical for the individual

[jajko]

But there will never ever be such guarantee that could be taken seriously. How do you know that 2 star generations ago (so say roughly 10 billion years ago), in our previous neighborhood, a massive hypernova wiped out advanced civilization and you are now just consuming molecules that were once part of sentient living being, even with IQ much higher than yours?

Nah, you can never be 100% sure, its one of those situations reachable only on paper.

[Terr_]

The phrasing "any known living organism" already excludes that.

Even if it didn't, a guarantee in product marketing is a promise and quasi-legal committment, not a certification of objective universal cosmic truth.

In some cases, everybody knows that statistically there will be at least one case where the guarantee is broken, but that doesn't void anything.

[shikon7]

On that premise, knowing too much might literally starve you.

[ada1981]

I think such a technical advancement would parallel a moral one.

I’ve been vegan 25 years and would be happy to silence the “but what about plants” people once and for all.

[TaylorAlexander]

I’m vegan too. Someone will say “what about the microorganisms in your gut” or something. People often have a negative reaction to vegans and that’s not going to change.

[ethbr1]

> "but what about plants"

I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals -- I'm one because I hate plants.

[pests]

Some people do care about the plants though, such as Jainism. If you draw the line at plants - that's fine, but some others do not and are wondering why you arbitrarily drew that line where you did. Sure some may be joking around but its still a legit concern for some.

[jraph]

From what I understand, Jains are lacto-vegetarian [1]. Vegans draw that line further (because they also don't take milk).

As a human being, if you avoid eating plants, or things that eat plants, you die.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

[dr_dshiv]

Jains don’t eat foods like onions and potatoes. But, so far as I know, this is on account of the bugs that may be harmed when harvesting soil-based plants.

[pests]

I believe it's also as the onion or potatoe is the entire plant and when you eat it, it's gone. Verses eating a strawberry or Apple does not destroy the plant.

[FrustratedMonky]

What about the atoms?

[ant6n]

Not too much fission or fusion happening in your body, afaik.

[mmooss]

There's a distinction - between obvious BS that is a philosophical puzzle to rebut on one hand, and genuine issues on the other. You don't really have to play the game of the former, unless you don't like philosophical puzzles of course.

[throwawaycities]

Obviously some plants die and others don’t in harvesting.

Mostly the “even broccoli screams when you rip it from the ground” is a joke more often than actual trolling.

I think the valid moral argument is that as a result of modern agricultural practices substantially more animals are killed than animal husbandry. Usually the counter-arguments involves moving the moral goal posts by valuing farm animals over “pests and insects”, or blaming the modern agricultural practices and suggesting organic farming cures those harms.

[luqtas]

like all meat we produce is grass fed... livestock lives out of grains in a high % and if you want to take all meat production to free-roam practices, good luck destroying the entire planet for that

[spookie]

I don't think the aim would be to be able to achieve the same level of production that way :)

[luqtas]

glad you answered.

what's your opinion on the dialogue between people producing eggs in battery-cages (those classic confined chickens) vs. free-roam ones? so far the discussion points out to _way_ more disease spread in free ones, leading to more suffering and death, specially when we are doing in a commercial scale. wild animals killing those free roam animals also occurs. so far the science on battery-cages went far as: sizing perfectly the cages so you don't have cases of cannibalism between them because they are stressed, decent ventilation........ red meat is also confined for a lot of months before their death to receive proper treatment to not screw the population that's eating their meat. that's also involves tons and tons of (insectoid murder) grains & please don't forget that free-roam practices, considering the amount of land they use, i wouldn't get surprised that the pesticides/herbicides used on the grass fields prior to cows introduction kills a comparable if not more amount of insects vs. plantae/fungi production

seriously, this insect rights argument is pure bullshit from people trying to justify their holocaust-like-inducing diet

[spookie]

Look, I don't think you would want to produce at the same level. Because of the reason you stated.

[throwawaycities]

This is such a great response that perfectly reflects the moving of the moral goal posts that deflects the moral culpability. Thank you.

[polynomial]

Almost certainly Food of the Gods by Arthur C. Clarke.

[ElevenLathe]

Bruce Sterling's /Islands in the Net/ has a character that is this kind of vegan (forget what they call it). He finds the idea of agricultural food disgusting and only eats sterile synthetic food.

Edit: had the wrong Sterling book.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

I've been vegan since 2002 and would be down to go on a fully synthetic vegan diet. I used to be a heavy consumer of Soylent

[m463]

Is mined food processed food?

[jaydeegee]

Every* food is processed food the amount of processing varies.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Does that apply to to self-harvested apples and berries, too? Is washing them with water a process which changes their structure and composition of nutrients? Less proteins because of less bugs and worms?

[ch4s3]

They’re selectively bred for one thing, and they start changing the moment you pick them. Just sitting on your counter changes a piece of fruit. Touching a berry with your finger introduces millions of tiny bioreactors onto its surface, some will go to work breaking cell walls, fermenting, fighting with the local and antecedent microscopic flora, and so on.

[Cthulhu_]

Sure, if you want to be asinine about it. The term 'processed' is probably too broad, same as calling food 'healthy' or 'unhealthy'.

[Terr_]

Or cooking it, for that matter.

Plus there's the "processing" of an enormous mobile smelter-factory of nanomachines we call the human body. Chop and grind, add peptides, acid-bath, add neutralizing agent, churn with fermentation bacteria...

Yeah, I know, people usually implicitly mean "artificial" processing, but that's often more about who is doing the processing, rather than what kind of process is going on.

[InDubioProRubio]

Its definitely natural

[mr_toad]

> Food using molecules certified never to have been part of any known living organism.

Over the aeons they have almost certainly been part of some living creature. There’s only a finite supply. And humans have come to monopolise it. We should worry less about killing individual creatures and worry a lot more about wiping out entire species.

[coldtea]

>Over the aeons they have almost certainly been part of some living creature.

There are neither enough aeons (10-20 billion years of universe), nor enough living creatures for that.

>There’s only a finite supply*

Finite supply doesn't mean all possible permutations have happenned. It's also not like an infinitely old universe (and even one like that wouldn't necessarily have permutations of molecule arrangements where thats statement is true).

[Terr_]

> Over the aeons they have almost certainly been part of some living creature.

That contains a very-unproven assumption that other biological life was present prior to the ignition of our Sun and formation of the solar system... Or that there are "living creatures" in solar plasma.

[Teever]

I've wondered about this too and if in our quest to colonize the solar system and mine asteroids we will inadvertently destroy remnants of dead extraterrestrial life or artifacts of alien species such as defunct sentinel probes that were hidden in an asteroid.

It would be tragic if the only proof of alien life in the solar system was gobbled up by some automated asteroid miner that turns asteroids into shitty consumer goods.

[jorgesborges]

This actually makes sense to me in terms of logical coherence. I understand and support people who follow ethically-motivated diets but the fact is a line is always drawn somewhere. Plants are alive. Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s?

I don’t think we’re good at making claims about where particular organisms sit along a gradient of consciousness we can’t even properly define.

I like to imagine other civilizations in the universe might use this basic distinction to evaluate how sophisticated a culture is — do they still needlessly eradicate life for more convenient consumption? Akin to asking, are they still a pre-warp civilization?

[aylmao]

I know a lot of people choose to draw lines, but I personally don't think it's necessarily a "line" one has to draw. I think this is best thought of as a gradient. A rabbit is more like us, than a carrot. It has eyes, a backbone, moms take care of their babies, etc. We look at a dogs and can clearly see loyalty, happiness, longing, etc— emotions we associate a lot with humanity.

Where these animals fall in the "they're similar to a human" gradient is highly subjective, especially since it may have an emotional component to it. But we don't have to all agree on the definition of this gradient when the consequences (what to eat) are very personal.

I will say though I admire this in humans. We have achieved plentifulness to the point we can attach moral and emotional meaning to our diet if we wish to. It's a pretty unique expression of our empathy.

[Waterluvian]

Where there’s a gradient and a binary decision, there’s absolutely a line.

[tripper_27]

Hey, will say your right about "seems similar to human", but behavior such as moms taking care of their babies is found in many plant species, as is loyalty. Probably happiness and longing as well.

Ask yourself how many of these feelings arise from the rational thinking part of your brain vs how they seem to be full body sensations, and realize that the central nervous system might allow such signals/awareness to propagate at mammal speed, but why would a plant need that speed?

There really is no reason why a CNS is needed for these emotions to be active, just a way to distribute hormones/chemical signals throughout the body.

[wruza]

In my book about distant civilizations they eradicate all life except the forms that are able to function as you described. Because it’s pointless to just avoid participating in a meat grinder that life itself is naturally. The point is to stop anything that suffers from suffering. They dream about visiting every world and eradicating unascended lifes there for that same reason.

[mmooss]

> it’s pointless to just avoid participating in a meat grinder that life itself is naturally.

We've revolutionized human life over a few generations, and even more over a few hundred years. One outcome is that you can communicate freely - politically and technologically - with people all over the world. And you use that to say how pointless it is to try to improve.

Think bigger and better. People did all that work to get us to this point; what will we do? How will we pull our weight?

The only thing you have to fear is trendy contempt itself.

[actionfromafar]

You haven't even read the book, yet it enticed such commentary. Not bad. :)

[otikik]

I think the distinction has always been between "alive" and "conscious", not between "alive" and "dead". A rabbit is more self-aware than a carrot, we think (because it has a central nervous system).

If you dig deep enough, the frontier between alive and death is actually blurry. Things like viruses challenge the intuitive understanding of what alive means.

The water cycle makes it so that any water that you consume today will probably have been part of some other alive being at some point in the past.

[flysand7]

Well according to biological taxonomy, viruses aren't "life", so the terms "alive" and "dead" don't quite apply to them

[jraph]

> Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s?

A rabbit probably ate a lot of carrots, you are better off eating just the carrot directly if you want to reduce the killing :-)

[Terr_]

A trolley hurtling down the tracks towards a rabbit, and if you pull a lever it will go on to a different track that kills the same number of carrot plants that the rabbit has already eaten in its lifetime...

[labster]

And then the rabbit pulls the reverse lever, and the trolley is speeding back towards Elmer Fudd.

[PartiallyTyped]

I draw my line based on units of consciousness that I half-arbitrarily assign to different animals. I think most people do so, the assignment seems to be a sort of emergent property of the local society within which any individual is brought up.

[tialaramex]

Many years ago my lecturer, Professor Stevan Harnad drew the line at backbones, if you have a spine or similar arrangement it's not OK to eat you. These days Harnad is a Vegan, which entails prohibition against a much larger array of animals being eaten or indeed taken advantage of in any way for your benefit.

There is no reason to imagine that if there was alien life it would be able to comprehend us at all, for fictional convenience it has been usual to depict aliens as basically just humans in Halloween costume and there is every reason to assume they would be entirely incomprehensible instead. Even in soft SF, try say Iain M Banks' repeated reference to other forms of life which show essentially no interest in the scale of events that our human-like characters are engaged with. The Stellar Field Liner, a vast entity living in the magnetosphere of a star, the Excession, seemingly a living portal to other universes, or even just the Dirigible Behemothaurs which are island sized creatures that think a Galactic Cycle (225 million Earth years) is not very long.

[ben_w]

Mm.

So, are The Affront the literary equivalent of a human in a halloween costume? Extreme sadism as the only definiting trait I can recall, so they probably count as Planet of Hats* even if the physiology is too different to be a costume department's job in a TV show.

* https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats

[tialaramex]

Sure, it's really hard to do SF where you have aliens and keep them alien, because they no longer fulfil ordinary plot parameters. The key characters in the parallel story in Greg Egan's novel "Incandescence" aren't humans, never have been humans, and they live somewhere that humans would immediately die horribly and we'd need an XKCD "What if?" discussion to figure out how they die exactly 'cos they're much too close to a collapsed star and there's also no Oxygen and you can bet everything is totally saturated in radiation... They're probably... tiny? Nevertheless, they're our protagonists for fully half of a novel, so, they're going to get humanized.

[tayo42]

Some creatures are really weird too. Cutting up urchins for uni made me think what is really alive or what animals really are

[lkbm]

I'm pretty sure you draw the same line:

* Pealing a carrot: not cruel

* Skinning a rabbit alive: unnecessarily cruel

For all the nonsense about plants experiencing "pain", they, uh, don't. Animals do. Outside of bad philosophical arguments, everyone behaves broadly in accordance with that belief.

[ben_w]

I certainly behave as though plants do not experience pain.

However: plants are only noticeably animate in time-lapse footage, and have no mouth with which to scream.

I have no idea why the particular electrochemical properties of the neurotransmitter exchange membranes in my body are able to give rise to qualia, so without that I can't rule out plants doing that but very slowly.

Of course, if they do, then my skin may have an independent qualia to my kidneys let alone to what I call "me", so as you say, I don't live my life as if it were so.

[jorgesborges]

Yep, my argument isn’t grounded in whether a carrot feels pain — the comparison is to underscore the idea that in each case a living thing is extinguished from the world, and that they’re equivalent contrary to metrics like pain or “more like us”, simply for having experience.

[sharpshadow]

Well said a carrot and a rabbit are equal you can eat both.

[Terr_]

You can also take it in the opposite direction: Primitives don't have control over their own integrated ecological web.

[tzs]

> Plants are alive. Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s?

Some have indeed wondered about plant rights. There is even a vegetable rights protest song, "Carrot Juice is Murder" [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM