Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordnacho | Hacker News Reader

Just because science says Denisovans are a subspecies of humans doesn't mean human societies would see it like that.

Women have only been allowed to vote for about 100 years. It's not that long ago that you could go to an advanced country where people could be bought and sold.

We are good at defining the boundary socially, rather than scientifically. Who knows, perhaps we'll also decide that eating animals is wrong sometime. Certainly, there's some hope in that violence has lessened over recent decades.

View on HN

> It's not that long ago that you could go to an advanced country where people could be bought and sold.

I believe this can be done in Libya today

That is also true in most of Europe, but not legally, and lybia is not generally considered an advanced country.

>lybia is not generally considered an advanced country

true. Second world, maybe? And where in Europe would one go to buy a human?

The Second World was the Soviet block.

But I understand what you mean.

Well, the status of quite some illegal immigrants, who owe the smugglers a lot, who need to work and who therefore cannot refuse a work and who cannot go to the police - is probably quite close to that of original slaves.

third world, the second one was the soviet block (it was an alignment thing, not a poverty thing).

Human trafficking is the 3rd largest crime industry in the world, and to find slaves you just need to go wherever there are prostitutes in your area.

Yes, even when prostitution is legal, for example Germany is one of the main destinations in Europe.

EDIT: Some useful FAQ from the EU website on the matter are here https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/citizens-corner/traffi...

> third world, the second one was the soviet block (it was an alignment thing, not a poverty thing).

> Yeltsin, then 58, "roamed the aisles of Randall's nodding his head in amazement," wrote Asin. He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, "there would be a revolution."[0]

The difference between the first and second world was a objective distinction in prosperity experienced by inhabitants in the different systems.[0] The first world capital allocation was several orders of magnitude more efficient than the Soviet block.

[0] https://www.nhregister.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article...

Sure, I leave in a former communist country, this isn't news to me.

But the expression "third world" arose to mean "neither NATO nor Warsaw pact" and only later started to mean "poor" because most of the countries in this group were. See wikipedia's references[0]. There were poorer countries in the communist block, and richer non-aligned ones.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World#Etymology

Still can via adoption and surrogacy.

Some women voted 100 years ago. Not all women. As an example US born Japanese Americans got to vote in 1952

Just Japanese women or all Japanese?

They aren’t talking about Japanese women but Japanese Americans in general. There point is just because women got to vote doesn’t mean they were allowed to. Furthermore a big reason women got to vote, initially, is that married men thought they were getting an extra vote out of the deal (luckily women are individuals and that wasn’t the case.)

> perhaps we'll also decide that eating animals is wrong sometime.

At some point, there's the very real possibility that vat-grown meat may become a main staple.

It sounds a bit icky, but think about it: We could have flavors and textures of meat that were never available in nature (and maybe also some horrific mistakes). It's entirely possible that we could have "top-shelf vat" brands that sell for more than farm-raised.

Of course, the biomass to create the foodstuff needs to come from somewhere...Soylent Green?

I wonder how this would affect some vegetarians.

Well, they still start from real animal cells, from what I understand. As a vegan, I'd have that dilemma. If I was an utilitarian, I'd probably justify it more clearly.

In the meanwhile, I'm quite happy with vegetable based "meat". It was definitely harder to be vegan 10 years ago (social interaction somehow demands a certain diet), and especially here in Spain. Now it's really easy and confinement makes it easier too.

What's the vegan reason to not eat lab grown meat? No animal was harmed or even involved in the production of the meat. It's morally equivalent to greenhouse grown plants IMO.

Not the op, but not all vegans have animal cruelty as their primary concern. Many do it for health reasons and avoid ingesting animal proteins in general, regardless of how they were produced.

Take in consideration that being vegan is considered something that goes beyond diet. It takes you to decide on pretty much anything you buy or consume (it took me some time, for instance, finding a strap for my 6 strings bass guitar that wasn't made out of leather). (Btw, do you call it strap or did I just make that out?)

Sorry to nitpick, but if someone chooses to not eat animal products for a reason other than animal welfare, they are not vegan, but rather "eating plant based" or whatever they want to call it. Being vegan is more than about what you eat, it's trying to live in a way that reduces as much as possible the cruelty to other animals from one's own lifestyle. e.g. don't eat animal products, don't wear animal products, don't use products tested on animals.

Yes, that's correct.

I'd argue that the majority of vegans do it, at least partially, for animal reasons. I started to see how it would affect health but quickly enjoyed the peace I felt from not harming animals

It's where those initial cells were taken from, that's all. It's not that labs create cells from scratch but rather they efficiently reproduce then. It would demand a constant source of reliable cells from animals, from what I understand. Now, personally, do I think this is better than the current situation? Probably yes, but it's an utilitarian reasoning, which tends to justify the misery of few for the wellbeing of many.

Ok, but... a few cells? You're shedding hundreds of millions of cells daily if not hourly? It's not like you're feeling pain, right?

It's not any cell and this is what I mean by utilitarian thinking, my friend :)

So by this logic, blood transfusions are cannibalism.

The key is the consent.

If it was produced initially from an animal, there's still harm done, although I'd argue it's infinitely small compared to what it achieves. There's also the fact that many vegan people try not to purchase vegan products if they come from a "non-vegan company". So if a meat producer also starts peddling tofu, vegans will buy from a different brand simply so they don't line the pockets of the meat or dairy industry. With the way things are going, I'd imagine the first to achieve lab-grown top-quality meat would be an agricultural/farm corporation, which wouldn't sit well with many vegans.

As far as I am aware they don't need to harm the origin animal when they take the cell, and they only need to do it once at the start and can then reproduce the cells from the lab grown meat. But I could be very wrong. I am perfectly happy with plant based "meat" myself, too. By the way, I had a really hard time finding vegan food in Spain (outside of Barcelona) when I visited. Out of desperation I tried to get a veggie burger in McDonald's (I know not vegan, I was desperate) and they didn't have one! Barcelona however was awesome for vegan food.

I understand your pain finding vegan food outside from Barcelona (where I live, btw). Even in Madrid is not that easy, despite being the capital and biggest city. I'm sure not harming is better than harming, I agree. Nevertheless, they are used as tools. I know this might sound like a tree hugger, hippy argument but, would anyone like to be in that situation against their will when it's really not necessary? That's my moral dilemma :)

Not at all, I completely agree. I personally wont be eating lab meat, partly for that reason and partly because I don't feel like I need to. At this point real meat, even if lab grown, would probably seem to disgusting to me.

That's a question I do to myself. Can I detach a flavour from what it used to mean? When I think about it rationally I come to the conclusion that I should be able to enjoy a flavour, any flavour, if it carries no harm. But we both know there's also an emotional component, which I might share too. It's an interesting topic I don't think I have yet reached a conclusion about.

Related to this interesting thread, especially your point about utilitarian thinking:

"one of the most important cell lines in medical research"

"Lacks was the unwitting source of these cells"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

Well, I guess that's a hope outside the timescale of individual lives, after hundreds of thousands of years of preventing individuals from florishing. I understand your point but somehow it sounds like a romantic idea only. Nevertheless, I hope you are right. :)

Great apes can behave in ways that are stunningly similar to humans

Reply on news.ycombinator.com