A book that I shall never write
Jan. 31st, 2006 01:27 amÀpropos of nothing, I whipped up this comment:

( continue dreaming )
Suppose we could genetically modify bovines so we could communicate with
them about abstractions like the meaning of life. Then we could offer
them a choice: live on the open prairie, where they could be attacked by
wolves at any time, or live on a farm, where they will be free from
predators for two years but then humans will definitely eat them. We
could then let natural selection run for a few generations, until we have a
herd whose members all choose free-range grass-fed farm life of their own
free will, because their brain wiring causes them to conclude that it is the
better option for them. Is it permissible to eat them as agreed, or
are we still manipulating them?
Now suppose that for the first few generations of the experiment, the cows that chose "open prairie" were not actually released. Instead they were killed immediately and their meat fed to perma-caged factory chickens. Then there was a scandal and the horrid practice was stopped. Would this change the acceptability of the choices that their non-descendants later make to live on the farm? Why?
Now suppose some cows were allowed to live on the prairie with wolf predation. Cows born on prairie and those born on farm were allowed to switch places if desired at age of one year. Is it more acceptable to eat the cow that actually experienced wild life and rejected it, or does this discriminate against the cow that was born on a farm through no fault of its own? And what about the 1.9 year old farm cow who suddenly decides the deal isn't so good anymore? Should we offer a way out for it?
On my website I say, "I daydream a lot, but I rarely write them down, so
most of them are lost forever, unindexed in the slushpile of my mind."
The story suggested above seems destined for the slushpile because I can't
possibly write it, having a grand total of perhaps 60 minutes of lifetime
experience with bovines, but here is a bit of a dream:
Now suppose that for the first few generations of the experiment, the cows that chose "open prairie" were not actually released. Instead they were killed immediately and their meat fed to perma-caged factory chickens. Then there was a scandal and the horrid practice was stopped. Would this change the acceptability of the choices that their non-descendants later make to live on the farm? Why?
Now suppose some cows were allowed to live on the prairie with wolf predation. Cows born on prairie and those born on farm were allowed to switch places if desired at age of one year. Is it more acceptable to eat the cow that actually experienced wild life and rejected it, or does this discriminate against the cow that was born on a farm through no fault of its own? And what about the 1.9 year old farm cow who suddenly decides the deal isn't so good anymore? Should we offer a way out for it?
Cow herd in farm pasture, grazing after dark. Wolf appears. Cows
raise alarm. Farmhand comes out and shoots the wolf (sorry lupine
furs). Cows show him where the hole in the electric fence is.
They complain about the poor predator-protection they're getting.
Farmhand radios in, finds out (somehow) that the fence has obviously not
been electrified for several days, can't be fixed until morning.
Farmhand stuffs wolf carcass in fence-hole, applies first aid to
flesh-wounds in a cow's leg (difficulties in explaining germs as "very small
predators"), tells cows they should hide out in barn for tonight.

( continue dreaming )