Matrix-style vertical chicken farms

[Vanilla]

Firstly, the link is broken. :)

Fixed

Ethical problems have no fixed answers. Everybody could give a different one based on the environment and education.

That's also what I'm trying to achieve - To create some more activity on the board.

[*]Is splitting or disabling certain parts of a living animal more moral, or killing them ("All or Nothing!") is? We don't consider brain yet here.
[*]Is removing the thinking ability of an animal moral? Should brain be treated differently?
[*]What is more important for an animal? To be alive, or to be able to think? Is killing an animal moral, or killing his brain moral?
[*]Which one is better, death (from overgrowth), living painfully with thinking ability, or living without the thinking ability?
[*]Even if we think to live without thinking ability is better, do humans have the right to decide which choice is better for an animal who has the ability to think itself, when there's no way could we learn how it feels?
[*]Could an animal be considered "died" or transformed to "plant" if its brain is removed or disabled? Does the state of the brain decide an animal's identity?
[*]Is torturing an animal who cannot perceive moral? This is closed tied to the previous question of the animal's "identity".
[*]Where is the border between a human and another kind animal, when they both have thinking ability? Are animal's "thinking" and human's "reasoning" really different?
[*]What is different between different kinds of animals? We eat chickens, but why not dogs? If we could remove brains from chickens, could we do the same on dogs?
[*]If someday our population grow too much that to keep humans alive we must remove/disable brain of the chickens, does it become moral?
[/list]
Note, many questions are not limited to other kinds of animals, but humans could be considered, too. Like, is torturing a human moral if he cannot feel it at all? Could we decide on whether we could cut off the brain of another human? Is a human still different from other kinds of animals if he loses his brain?

We could keep arguing for each issue for a whole year, without getting any results, because they truly depends on what you have seen, what you have done, what you have learned, in your life. And even worse, since we answer these questions mostly based on our feelings instead of logic, it's quite possible we could eventually get contradicting answers from the same person's mouth.

As if questions to questions wasn't enough, I almost feel obliged to create even more questions (like how do you actually define an animal, considering a jellyfish is considered an animal, yet doesn't have a brain nor a central nervous system. On the other hand, some microbes/cells aren't usually considered animals, yet doesn't differ than much from jellyfishes). But to keep the topic from becoming too complex, I'll refrain from asking more questions :)

Anyway, as you were unto, it's all about experiences and opinions, and you can create an unending vast array of ethical paradoxes, or the contradiction answers as you say. But that doesn't make the topic less interesting and valid as the subject of a discussion.

If we decided to perceive it all from a strict cynical view:
- All organisms (cells, animals, humans, etc) are made out of chemically bounded substances one way or another.
- By default, all organisms merely want their species to survive (maybe with the exception of some humans; misanthropy).
- A human without a brain isn't really a sentient being, or with other words, a chunk of meat/vegetable - Yet, this way of thinking (despite being simply logical) often results in people calling you a fascist. In other words, It's a cemented taboo.

As for the picking out the brain a human, well...since it's an action of a sentient being, the logical aspect comes out of place. Which is where ethics takes over.

Oh, well, and my personal opinion about the ethical problem is, I don't know. I made the question way too complicated and I am lost. :D

Heh, :D
Yeah, I have the same feeling. But you've made some very good questions, nonetheless.

- I hope more people will join this interesting discussion.

The economical problem is left for the scientists and businessmen. Not something we should care about.

I find it, that the economic output is also something which is worth debating, as it's closely related to the ethical question. But then again, you're probably right (as the answers I was searching for here, was more related to ethics or sociology, rather than strict economics).

For the "rationally" part, if it exists, it is reasonable.

Well, the rationally thing/question was a bit blurred, I admit, but the way I meant it was how it correlates to human nature and how we perceive ourselves as species (which again, resembles the questions you were unto).

Anyway, I forgot to give my own opinion about this. I wouldn't really mind if these factories were put to function. Humans need meat (not biologically, since those nutrients can be found elsewhere), but because we are consumers. Humans have eaten meat since the dawn of time (just like other carnivorous animals), and functioning meat vats doesn't currently exist (AFAIK). This change of production pipeline not only makes the life less miserable for these animals, it also optimizes the productivity.