Religious Prohibitions Leading to Safe-tech

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Religions are kinda infamous for having prohibitions for all sorts of natural things. Including eating. Consider: prohibition against eating certain animals (e.g. pigs), against eating certain foods together.

sorry the probation isn't any more a prohibition against eating than eating poison. the when and where those prohibition where developed, eating such thing was very likely to make you sick, it's only developments in food preparation and storage that actually makes them far less unhealthy.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

sorry the probation isn't any more a prohibition against eating than eating poison. the when and where those prohibition where developed, eating such thing was very likely to make you sick, it's only developments in food preparation and storage that actually makes them far less unhealthy.

Bullsnot. You don't need a law to keep from eating poison. Other people ate shellfish and pork without dying. It was most likely prohibited to keep "us" from becoming like "them".

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Bullsnot. You don't need a law to keep from eating poison. Other people ate shellfish and pork without dying. It was most likely prohibited to keep "us" from becoming like "them".

Umm, that what i said where as when... Someplaces its safe to eat shelfish other it's not. asw for Pork, you are wear that after chicken is probably one of the hardest meat to safely prepare even with modern tech?

[Lamech]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Bullsnot. You don't need a law to keep from eating poison. Other people ate shellfish and pork without dying. It was most likely prohibited to keep "us" from becoming like "them".

You sort of did for most of history. People would ate all sorts of stuff that they had no business eating. Its why concepts like germ theory, and Pasteurization where so wonderful.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Lamech

You sort of did for most of history. People would ate all sorts of stuff that they had no business eating. Its why concepts like germ theory, and Pasteurization where so wonderful.

People ate what they could find to avoid starving. Putting more dangerous foods on the lower rung of "eat this only when there's nothing else" is far more sensible than an overly simplistic eat or don't dichotomy.
It doesn't take advanced science to know to cook/boil everything when remotely possible.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

People ate what they could find to avoid starving. Putting more dangerous foods on the lower rung of "eat this only when there's nothing else" is far more sensible than an overly simplistic eat or don't dichotomy.
It doesn't take advanced science to know to cook/boil everything when remotely possible.

As I commented before, their environment and lifestyle wasn't conducive to pig farming anyway.

[Genesis]

Completely ignoring the various potential health reasons for pork/shellfish consumption (which are undoubtedly blown out of proportion by a blanket "don't eat" policy), what about the prohibition against milk/meat mixing? That stems from a rather broad interpretation of a law that specifically forbids cooking a kid (baby goat, not child human) in its mother's milk as being cruel. This is certainly not a health issue - it's bizzarre to claim that all religious dietary restrictions are health-based.

[samd6]

The restrictions need to make sense for the time and place where they occur.

I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that a religion might prohibit true AI on the grounds that it thinks as well as a man, but lacks a soul.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by samd6

The restrictions need to make sense for the time and place where they occur.

I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that a religion might prohibit true AI on the grounds that it thinks as well as a man, but lacks a soul.

The thing is, I can buy a religious proscription on SAIs because their utility is limited. It takes a lot of processing power and the result is something that is both unsafe and unconscionable to use as a tool.

But without some kind of horrible traumatizing historical event, I can't see any reason why a future civilisation would abandon technology that is already widespread.

[Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2]

One of my favorite historical accounts is when the great Sequoya Guess first tried to give the gift of the written Cherokee language to his people. before it could be accepted, the Cherokee authorities devised an elaborate test to make sure that it was really writing and not magical transference of information.

|Very little rationalization is needed for a safetech prohibition. Many societies have been willing to label any technology they themselves did not create as black magic. Simply slap the label of "black magic" on any unauthorized technology, with elaborate decades-long procedures by religious authorities on releasing new technologies to be sure they are not "unholy", with most technologies failing the test.

Another advantage of this would be that the religious authorities would have their own secret tech base to use against the "unholy black magicians" who manage to get their own advanced gear. Not to mention having a church that can work "miracles". (In Heinlien's Revolt in 2100, the theocracy ruling America refers to advanced science as "applied miracles").