I'm not sure what you find nauseating about this. If you want muscle and skin cells frog embryos are as fine source as any, I suppose.
There's the issue. I prefer to see us pursue technologies that don't require the harvesting of parts from intelligent life, even if we deem that intelligence to be low or embryonic. Yes, I am aware that we are omnivores, but I believe we can make ourselves into something better. I see this kind of experimentation as a step backwards.
How do you define "intelligent life"? If frogs and embryos are considered intelligent life, then you really are painting yourself into a corner.
> Yes, I am aware that we are omnivores, but I believe we can make ourselves into something better.
What's better than omnivores? Evolutionarily speaking, that's the best out there. Not sure we can do better, but I'd love to hear what you had in mind.
Currently, my simplest definition is "any self-aware organism capable of predicting the future to some degree."
> What's better than omnivores?
Previous omnivores.
I think we are rapidly getting to the point where we will be able to sustain ourselves effectively with non-animal foods in a way that will be more nutritious, more sustainable, and more environmentally friendly.
I want humankind to prosper longterm and I think our most immediate challenge to that is our violence towards each other and towards our environment; either one of which may very well destroy us in the next 100 years. If the majority of us adopted a view that intelligent life at all levels should be protected, I believe that our violence towards each other and towards our environment will abate. I hope this will allow us to address the next major challenge, which I see as a mass extinction event similar to one of the many we see written in Earth's geological record. To overcome this, we will need to become more intelligent, we will need to dramatically advance our technologies, and we will probably need to populate other worlds. But first, we need to not destroy ourselves.
Frogs and certainly embryos are not self-aware.
> I think we are rapidly getting to the point where we will be able to sustain ourselves effectively with non-animal foods in a way that will be more nutritious, more sustainable, and more environmentally friendly.
Nothing more nutritious than animal foods. This is basic science and evolutionary truth. The only other alternative to fit your description is the environmentally ruinous vegan diet which is terrible for humans.
> I want humankind to prosper longterm and I think our most immediate challenge to that is our violence towards each other and towards our environment;
I want humankind to prosper as well. Look how virtuous, caring and good we both are. Aren't we great? The immediate danger is the messianic lunacy being spread by traditional media and social media.
> If the majority of us adopted a view that intelligent life at all levels should be protected
Sadly, I don't think you could convince those militant and violent vegans set on destroying as much intelligent plant life as possible. But maybe you, caring as you are, can single-handedly stop them.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-in...
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-...
If intelligent life must be protected then I guess we have to take dogs and cats from their owners since these animals require meat to be healthy ( for cats to live since they are obligate carnivores ). I don't know how you sleep at night knowing that trillions of animals are being killed and eaten by other animals every day.
Also, the most environmentally friendly diet is the hunter-gatherer diet, which you in your immense wisdom probably reject in support of mass agriculture - the worst thing for the environment.
The evidence indicates that frogs are most certainly self-aware[1]. Embryos are potential intelligent life.
> Nothing more nutritious than animal foods.
Maybe I was unclear. I believe we will create better alternatives.
> Sadly, I don't think you could convince those militant and violent vegans set on destroying as much intelligent plant life as possible.
While there are indications of a degree of plant intelligence and even some self-awareness, edible plants generally rely on being consumed in order to proliferate. I do think it is in our best interest to protect plant life though.
> I don't know how you sleep at night knowing that trillions of animals are being killed and eaten by other animals every day.
I have no problem with animals eating each other.
> Also, the most environmentally friendly diet is the hunter-gatherer diet,
I agree. Unfortunately, it's not practical for 8 billion people to forage this earth. Also, it doesn't leave much time for advancing ourselves.
Uh, what? you think eating veg instead of meat is bad for the environment? you're wrong.
> nothing is more nutritious than animal foods
look, I like meat, but this is expicitly wrong, and it doesn't even really make sense.