Carnivorous Clock Eats Bugs 197
Designers James Auger and Jimmy Loizeau have created a clock that is powered by "eating" bugs. The clock traps insects on flypaper stretched across a roller system and then drops them into a vat of bacteria. The insects are then "digested" and the ensuing chemical reaction is transformed into power that keeps the rollers moving and the LCD clock working. The two offer another version that is powered by mice and an even cooler machine that picks insect fuel from spiderwebs with the help of a robotic arm and a video camera.
Re:Ethical Treatment of Flies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ethical Treatment of Flies (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ethical Treatment of Flies (Score:2, Insightful)
"The universe is hostile, so impersonal; devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been."
There is a moral difference between "devour to survive" and "killing living things to power your clock".
disclaimer: I have no connection, nor do I wish to have any connection, with PETA or any of its members.
A.
(who chases flies out the window, where they can meet their demise in some spider's web)
Re:Ethical Treatment of Flies (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm of the general opinion that if you manage to piss off PETA, you know you're doing something right.
Well...I'm of the general opinion that if PETA manages to piss you off then you are uncomfortable with nuance and ambiguity - not because PETA, itself, embraces nuance and ambiguity but because deep down you realize that your rigid beliefs are just as difficult to defend as PETA's rigid beliefs.
PETA believes that animals should be treated better and apparently, in some sense, you disagree. The thing is, there almost certainly is not a "should". That is, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that life has a purpose - at least in an absolute fundamental sense. Sure, we've evolved certain feelings - certain desires - and we act on those feelings (often after have made complex predictions about how our actions are likely to affect our feelings). But there is no inherent law of nature that we "should" feel good - or that we "should" not feel bad.
One of the most profound insights into the nature of human existence was the Milgram Experiment [wikipedia.org]. Basically, most people don't have an internal moral compass: they don't have any inherent aversion to inflicting pain, suffering, and death on others. This explains why Hitler had such broad support in Germany, why the USA (the greatest democracy in the world) had slavery, and pretty much why there is so much suffering in the world generally.
The fact that there is no absolute morality (no "purpose" to life) and furthermore that most people do not individually have a fundamental moral compass either is deeply unsettling. Given that an organization like PETA confronts you with these facts, it's not unsurprising that you dislike PETA (killing the messenger, so to speak).
But, ultimately, your discomfort with PETA says more about you - and your insecurity regarding your personal (rigid) world view - than it does about PETA.
Re:Ethical Treatment of Flies (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the most profound insights into the nature of human existence was the Milgram Experiment [wikipedia.org]. Basically, most people don't have an internal moral compass: they don't have any inherent aversion to inflicting pain, suffering, and death on others.
Wrong. Even though the participants in the Milgram experiment complied, they all raised questions about it. Clearly they recognized it as wrong - the findings only say that we, as a species, will submit to authority, NOT that we lack a moral compass.