Great reporting by Breitbart there, contradicting itself in back-to-back sentences.

Sure there is, when you need some monkey feces.

Blathering idiot Dawkins now says that he wants society to get over it's
disgust with cannibalism, and that cannibalism is actually discrimination against
animals.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ibalism-taboo/

Dawkins wonders about a few taboos
Discovery Institute clown puts words in his mouth
Festering Zit states it all as fact
Rinse, repeat

Is it really cannibalism if the meat is grown in a lab? That's the question you should be asking, assuming you know how to think.

I have no moral objection to eating clean meat that is genetically identical to human meat.

Lab grown meat isn't a meat from a human though. Dawkins is right, this is a taboo, we have a visceral reaction to it, but it's not actually immoral to engage in this thought experiment and conclude that eating (not) human meat is acceptable.

Blows my mind how much it enrages people when someone uses logic to challenge entrenched dogma.

Visceral is telling, and the idea that logic rules is spurious. With his logic, and accordingly yours, it (logic) can can give the "go ahead" to any digestive inputs.

There are and have been good "reasoning's" for the taboo's to which the modern "logician" denies , and some modern thinkers consider these "taboo's" to be the product of an ignorant age or time in the evolution of Man.

Not so, and any reasonable consideration will see this particular "taboo" to be a "gift" from ancient wisdom to our present times. Using the word "dogma" here is another approach to the idea "I do what i want, etc...." but remember this perspective and "religious dogma" in general is from those who had deeper and more profound perspectives and should really be looked at as "advice", thereby using our logic to comprehend, not to flip it out like the morning's garbage.

In other words we have "logic" and reasoning's in our times which , in truth, the ancient man did not have for if one goes far enough back there was an "immediate perception of truth" , no debate, for one was not needed.

When one considers the ancient tales as anthropology then they become "idols" of "fictions" of an ignorant age but consider that these men brought forth earthly comprehensions of that to which they literally "lived within", with "direct perception" or atavistic consciousness, that consciousness to which we no longer have and in the process became "thinkers".

The lugubrious "logic" of Dawkins offers nothing and certainly he has not offered, at any time, a cogent, reasonable and caring approach to the objects of his attention.

The so called "idols" of Northern Europe. Letting the world speak to us is the mantra of proper logic.

http://www.germanicmythology.com/works/EARLYART.html

Carlo, I don't really understand your narrative. You have some romanticizing about ancient tales and the wisdom they had, and how this is being dismissed by the sort of "lugubrious logic" of Dawkins et al. Ok. But I don't really follow why you think that narrative applies in this case, or really why you think that narrative is meaningful.

I think Dawkins point is basically sound. We've had these taboos historically for completely reasonable reasons. However, today, we can investigate whether the old taboos are still utterly immutable or whether the specifics of modern technology might result in versions where the taboo no longer makes sense.

My point is not so much that the ancients had insight into life and the living which we don't have nor comprehend which is true but none the less we are living in an advanced age which I clarified as our ability to "think" to which the ancient did not have.

Where we differ is that you mentioned modern technology and the ability to reason to matters which usurp the old taboos but the place to begin is to speak to the issue at hand " the taboo of cannibalism". The post I spoke to spoke of "logic" as if this "logic" usurps a good idea, grounded in reality ( modern or ancient) of any sort , such as the taboo of "cannibalism".

The difficulty is that we live in an age of "abstract thinking" which holds cold and indifferent ( more like dead) concepts as the standard of knowledge and comprehension. With these "abstract thoughts" one can approach any venue in life and prove the same, good, bad, or indifferent.

The thoughts have to touch the "real" and in this an imaginative picture of the act within and of yourself will bring some heart warmth to these thoughts which need to be ;pinned to the "real". I am not speaking metaphorically here for the thoughts and actions of abstract thinking are to be "warmed up" and in this a cogent reality will appear. Not so clear, i know but lets go back :

A man has a visceral response to "cannibalism" and the abstract thinker may say that this inner visceral response doesn't count for we believe in rational, unemotional thinking or the thinking of Kant , alike cold ice.

The visceral activity is real and cannot be dismissed and can and very often is a good way for a man to perhaps stay away from such activities. This doesn't mean he shouldn't think or mull or whatever on the matter but the visceral component must be considered . It can be a good guide throughout life .

Now the modern abstract thinker may offer that to follow an a "feeling" in life is fraught with error and he would be right . Unfortunately he might continue on and theorize into the blue the deleterious effects of following one's "feelings" or "emotions" which from what I can see are two different matters.

No doubt, truth, good, evil, beauty ,love ,hate are all comprehended through thoughts and thinking but the "feelings" are what these truths become when man takes in a "truth" . Our feelings are what individualizes the man but "truth" and comprehension is relegated to the thoughts and thinking but it is not individual but common to all men.

I have gone on and on,....

Cliff notes, warm up the thoughts and even Dawkins will become a new man. LOL

Meanwhile the whole "taboo" barely exists. Most people would eat a fake human burger for $200 and a real one (if there were no living people who suffered from it) for $1000.

I'll take "Fake polls DS made up" for $200

That is completely untrue. Exactly how does 'lab grown human meat can be morally eaten' mean, for example, 'plutonium can be safely eaten'?

The rest of your post refers a lot to ancient wisdom, I'm not seeing an actual argument though. Taboos evolve for a reason, this is true. And when that reason no longer exists, the taboo can be discarded. Taboos against eating shellfish and pork are well known and the reasons for them can be reasoned. But since we can now safely prepare such foods, there's no reason to not eat them.

I'd say taboos against cannibalism exist for good reasons, and see no reason to challenge them by growing identical meat for consumption. I would actually say that doing so is unethical.

The resources could be spent on better things.

There are of course other reasons to grow human meat / skin / organs, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm not arguing that there's any burning need to grow human burgers, I'm just saying it wouldn't be immoral to do so.

I don't really support the logic of "it is not real X, therefore it is not immoral". Like I said above, the taboo against cannibalism exists for a good reason, I see no reason to challenge it.

Nor is the general issue merely hypothetical. Many heinous behaviors can be (and indeed are) simulated digitally, mechanically or electronically. I am loath to accept that this should always be okay. While we obviously can't say no to all such things, I do not think a general principle of "it is not real, therefore okay" is healthy. The issue is more nuanced than that.

2+2s own David Sklansky wants commented on animated child pornography and argued that it should still be illegal even though it is a victimless crime. Making/keeping it illegal is society's stamp of disapproval for the depicted behavior. The same can be argued for lab grown human meat.

What's that good reason? Taboo is not in and of itself any reason to make an action illegal. At one time, interracial and gay marriage were taboo too. Society and morals are not static or absolute.

You can't think of good reasons why cannibalism should remain a taboo?

That's not an answer. And taboo isn't an on-off switch that we have any direct control over, so I don't understand what you mean by "should".

Personally, it's disgusts me, but as a vegetarian, I rather see people eat lab grown meat than murdering an animal.

If we get some of the worse possible outcomes from climate change, we'll be glad that we preserved a taboo against cannibalism, even if doesn't matter much right now.

You're saying lab-grown cannibalism will lead to greater climate change? I'm confused.

Link? "Fake" entertainment doesn't necessarily the legitimize the real thing. Society disapproves of murder, yet we're exposed to it on TV and movies everyday.

My understanding is that the utility of the taboo against cannibalism is that eating human meat is unhealthy and that cannibalistic societies are likely to be more violent. Presumably the unhealthiness and violence that could result from eating human meat are preventable for people in modern society. However, it also seems reasonable that we should keep around some old taboos in case we have a civilizational collapse (eg from climate change), and since the anti-cannibalism taboo is a low cost one, it is plausible we should attempt to preserve it even if the moral and health downsides are preventable in contemporary society.

Is it really unhealthy? At least more unhealthy than eating artery clogging, carcinogenic burger?

How would it lab-grown meat (human or not) lead to more violence?

It's a little far-fetched, but even if that were to occur and human survival were that dire, then cannibalism would actually save the species.