Monty Python Chocolates

27 responses to “Monty Python Chocolates”

1. 

   msamaclean ©

   Dec 16, 2009 at 4:34 am

   I prefer them crunchy & salted! yum…=}

   Reply
2. 

   Leino88

   Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 am

   how many…did …we eat?

   Reply
3. 

   angry shock

   Dec 16, 2009 at 4:49 am

   Todd Todd Todd!!! 😀

   Great t see you, man. I wish I had been there eating grasshoppers with you two, or perhaps, not eating, just looking…

   Reply
4. 

   Vanita

   Dec 16, 2009 at 5:07 am

   It’s those stickery little legs that give me pause.

   I’ve heard termites taste like nuts which makes sense in a way.

   Reply
5. 

   jurvetson

   Dec 16, 2009 at 5:57 am

   Yeah, the legs are a special kind of aftertaste. Like residual roughage after a good bout of fingernail chewing.

   If someone told me to expect a rice krispy bar, I would have had less anxiety about the experience. They are quite desiccated. A squishy beetle would freak me out.

   The goodie bag:

   

   Reply
6. 

   Todd Huffman

   Dec 16, 2009 at 5:58 am

   Omnomnom!

   Reply
7. 

   -fCh-

   Dec 16, 2009 at 6:29 am

   One more sign that we are entering the Chinese Century?

   Reply
8. 

   Dr DAD (Daniel A D’Auria MD)

   Dec 16, 2009 at 10:44 am

   There are some things in this world that I don’t mind missing out on! Bon appetite!

   Reply
9. 

   Mr Kiki

   Dec 16, 2009 at 10:55 am

   I’m afraid karmically size really doesn’t matter. Insect or elephant, they are both equal of respect, and a right to life. In fact you’d be much better off eating an elephant than an insect, as you’d get many more meals from an elephant in a food/karma ratio kind of way.

   Reply
10. 

    TomiTapio

    Dec 16, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    Great viking beard, oh my!

    Reply
11. 

    jurvetson

    Dec 16, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    Mr Kiki: That’s one perspective, and one might ask if the right to life extends to plants.

    I think Todd is looking at sentience as a continuum. Low-neuron count organisms operating off reflexes might garner less respect than organisms capable of thought, or organisms with a centralized brain capable of feeling pain. Another perspective.

    As a thought experiment, consider the sea squirt. It is a fine animal, but when it becomes sessile, it digests its own brain. Does it then become a vegetarian delight for purists?

    Reply
12. 

    Mr Kiki

    Dec 16, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    It’s a fair question, and one I’ve heard before (you do get Fruitarians who eat nothing but nuts and fruit that fall to the ground), but at the end of the day you can eat a plant then plant it’s seeds and more will grow (in fact some plants need to be eaten to flourish).

    I suppose it’s just down to where you draw the line, and ultimately we’ve got to eat something, I just meant if we’re talking karma I don’t think there’s a hierarchical list of what to eat first.

    As for the sea squirt, you’ve got me there. :o)

    Reply
13. 

    Shoshin Seishu

    Dec 16, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Instead of referencing "karma," decidedly religious concept, I would refer to physical science in recognizing & acknowledging that everything I (all human animals & other inhabitants of the physical world in which we live) think, say or do has consequences.

    If I acquiesce to the tug of mysticism (short of supernaturalism), I might term the above-referenced physical-scientific phenomenon as "The Great Law of Cause & Effect."

    So, although I no longer avail myself ( I once did in the days when I identified myself as a practicing & lay-ordained Zen Buddhist) of religious metaphors, I would (in the main) come down on the side (in the space) where Mr. Kiki’s perspective abides.

    I profess belief in & fidelity to (approximately 99.5% of the time) Veganism (were I a religionist & believed in supernaturalism, I would be a follower of Jainism).

    As you can read in my profile, as a Vegan, I believe in & to the best of my capability live a life of non-violence.

    More than that–& in light of recent speciesistic diatribes about Climate Change (which has a lot to do with what many human animals eat, namely, the flesh of dead non-human animals) & how the bigotry of speciesism compels some to brand those seeking real & substantive curbs on reproduction & population growth of human animals as "anti-human," I am inspired to post the following:

    Homo sapiens, a member of Kingdom Animalia, has proven itself to be the most dominating predatory animal species Planet Earth has ever experienced.

    That’s not mere opinion.

    The worldview that permits the domination of Planet Earth by one animal species, a domination that includes the subordination of & self-justified prerogative to kill other species (animal & plant) has been designated as speciesism.

    Speciesism is a particularly virulent form of bigotry (bigotry = stubborn & complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own).

    Richard Ryder (1973) created/coined the term "speciesism" to describe a prejudice held by humans against non-humans based on morally irrelevant physical differences (between & among human & non-human animal species).

    Dr. Ryder observed (1975) that "speciesism…(is a word used) to describe the widespread discrimination that is practiced by (humans) against other (animal) species…(s)peciesism is racism, and both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."

    Apart from superstition or any form of belief in the supernatural (read: religions & other irrational belief systems), there is no justification–apart from, I would suggest, what Nietzsche termed the "raw will to power", for assigning Homo sapiens the “privileged” status & prerogative to subordinate & kill/murder other animal species (for any “reason”).

    The underlying "ethic"–if the term can be used at all, of speciesism (once one limits an examination of its justifiability to rational & natural domains of inquiry & knowledge) is that because Homo sapiens is the most successful predatory animal species ever to exist on Planet Earth it is "entitled" to subordinate & kill others simply because it can (the raw will to power, subordination, & killing/murder).

    Those of us who question & challenge speciesism are NOT “anti-human” & do not think it "anti-humanistic" to identify explosive human animal population growth & the attendant carbon emission by human animals as not only the proximate but also as the primary cause in the degradation & disintegration of the natural world & Planet Earth–& the massive death & extinction of thousands of species of non-human animals.

    Speciesism not only permits but indeed encourages unrestrained human animal population growth. The extraordinary growth of homo sapiens is directly & robustly correlated with (& I would argue causes) rising levels & mass extinctions of other (non-human) animal species, so much so that essential biodiversity is imminently at risk & is driving the development/manifestation of Earth’s Sixth (great) Extinction event.

    Planet Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year (this rate of mass extinction has been observed since 1993). What distinguishes the imminent Sixth Extinction from the previous five mass extinction events is that the Sixth Extinction is/will be patently a human-caused event.

    What is/will be the Sixth Extinction?

    I quote (see: http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html) :

    We can divide the Sixth Extinction into two discrete phases:

    •Phase One began when the first modern humans began to disperse to different parts of the world about 100,000 years ago.
    •Phase Two began about 10,000 years ago when humans turned to agriculture.

    The first phase began shortly after Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and the anatomically modern humans began migrating out of Africa and spreading throughout the world. Humans reached the Middle East 90,000 years ago. They were in Europe starting around 40,000 years ago.

    Neanderthals, who had long lived in Europe, survived our arrival for less than 10,000 years, but then abruptly disappeared — victims, according to many paleoanthropologists, of our arrival through outright warfare or the more subtle, though potentially no less devastating effects, of being on the losing side of ecological competition.

    Everywhere, shortly after modern humans arrived, many (especially, though by no means exclusively, the larger) native species typically became extinct. Humans were like bulls in a China shop:

    •They disrupted ecosystems by overhunting game species, which never experienced contact with humans before.
    •And perhaps they spread microbial disease-causing organisms as well.
    The fossil record attests to human destruction of ecosystems:
    •Humans arrived in large numbers in North America roughly 12,500 years ago-and sites revealing the butchering of mammoths, mastodons and extinct buffalo are well documented throughout the continent. The demise of the bulk of the La Brea tar pit Pleistocene fauna coincided with our arrival.
    •The Caribbean lost several of its larger species when humans arrived some 8000 years ago.
    •Extinction struck elements of the Australian megafauna much earlier-when humans arrived some 40,000 years ago. Madagascar-something of an anomaly, as humans only arrived there two thousand years ago-also fits the pattern well: the larger species (elephant birds, a species of hippo, plus larger lemurs) rapidly disappeared soon after humans arrived.

    Indeed only in places where earlier hominid species had lived (Africa, of course, but also most of Europe and Asia) did the fauna, already adapted to hominid presence, survive the first wave of the Sixth Extinction pretty much intact. The rest of the world’s species, which had never before encountered hominids in their local ecosystems, were as naively unwary as all but the most recently arrived species (such as Vermilion Flycatchers) of the Galapagos Islands remain to this day.

    There is no moral (or ethical) basis for the assertion & worldview that homo sapiens has the “right” & prerogative to subordinate, instrumentalize, & kill/murder other animal species . Anne Applebaum’s column & branding of the movement to remedy the degradation & imminent destruction of Planet Earth caused by human animal “activity” are nothing more than common instances & expressions of the bigotry of speciesism.

    It is not “anti-human” or “anti-humanistic” to confront the bigotry of speciesism. And it is not “anti-human” or “anti-humanistic” to recognize the predatory & destructive nature of Homo sapiens.

    Unless & until Homo sapiens sees itself as simply a part of the natural world– & not as some categorical exception (speciesism is sometimes referred to as “human exceptionalism”), all non-human animal life is relegated to (inevitable) subordination, death, & mass extinction…

    …including sea squirts!

    Reply
14. 

    angry shock

    Dec 16, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    Without intending to enter into the debate, I would just like to correct Shoshin’s statement on "karma" as a "decidedly religious" concept. It’s not. Misinterpretation and misuse of it, perhaps.

    The etymology follows:

    karma
    1827, in Buddhism, the sum of a person’s actions in one life, which determine his form in the next; from Skt. karman- "action, fate," related to krnoti, Avestan kerenaoiti "makes," O.Pers. kunautiy "he makes;" from PIE base *kwer- "to make, form," related to the second element in Sanskrit.
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Karma

    FYI, just in case, Buddhism is NOT a religion. It’s a philosophy or a way of life.

    So, what you refer as to: "physical science in recognizing & acknowledging that everything I (all human animals & other inhabitants of the physical world in which we live) think, say or do has consequences." is indeed the meaning KARMA.

    I would have not eaten the grasshoppers anyway, I actually more fond of petting them:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gi/3072013708/

    But… it’s strange that they didn’t taste like chicken, isn’t it? 😉

    Reply
15. 

    Mr Kiki

    Dec 16, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    intent certainly has a bearing on things. for example, if you accidentally stood on an ant then you probably wouldn’t accrue any karma for that.

    but also it’s interesting to note that Buddha would eat meat if it was presented to him as a guest in someone’s house. where he objected was when an animal was to be killed ‘in his honour’ (ie: to provide a meal for him).

    what’s important is that you do what you can, as you feel you must (which is up to the individual – there are no steadfast rules, only actions and results).

    Reply
16. 

    Mr Kiki

    Dec 16, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    chill vennettaj. you’re not responsible for the whole universe (man, imagine how heavy that’d be, lol ;o). sometimes things just happen.

    Reply
17. 

    jurvetson

    Dec 16, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    I think I found a den of plant haters.

    😉

    If we don’t make a neuronal distinction, then a speciest dichotomy at the Kingdom level – plants vs. animals – begs some interesting questions.

    and Venetta: just think how many organisms your immune system is killing every second… Don’t gulp!

    Reply
18. 

    Dr DAD (Daniel A D’Auria MD)

    Dec 17, 2009 at 11:11 am

    One grasshopper has inspired so many thought provoking comments. There are likely many politicians who would be very envious and yet much less effective!

    Reply
19. 

    Vanita

    Dec 17, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Well, I’d like a chocolate without so much grasshopper in it.
    ‘-}

    Reply
20. 

    Shoshin Seishu

    Dec 17, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Alieness:

    Buddhism is most certainly a religion–& has been included in every major comparative religious catalogue (including Huston Smith’s seminal work [1958], updated periodically, "The World’s Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions")

    Religion defined (as a dictionary item, a subject of systematic study, & as an existential practice) = 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

    I understand that for you it may not be a "religion." An instance of subjectivity (i.e., your view that Buddhism is not a religion), however, does not establish a substantive demonstration of a definitional (or logical) violation.

    Reply
21. 

    Shoshin Seishu

    Dec 17, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    Furthermore:

    The concept of karma originated–& remains, in religion.

    For example:

    Karma (Sanskrit: कर्म ) kárman- "act, action, performance"[1]; Pali: kamma) in Indian religions is the concept of "action" or "deed", understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle called saṃsāra) originating in ancient India and treated in Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist philosophies.[2].

    ‘Karma’ is an Eastern religious concept in contradistinction to ‘faith’ espoused by Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which view all human dramas as the will of God as opposed to present – and past – life actions. In theistic schools of Hinduism, humans have free will to choose good or evil and suffer the consequences, which require the will of God to implement karma’s consequences, unlike Buddhism or Jainism which do not accord any role to a supreme God or gods. In Eastern beliefs, the karmic effects of all deeds are viewed as actively shaping past, present, and future experiences. The results or ‘fruits’ of actions are called karma-phala.[3]

    No "reading" of the etymology or the use of the term "karma" identifies it as anything but a religious concept.

    There is no need to argue about the etymology of the word: There is no dispute about its origins in religion & its religious (surplus) meaning.

    Reply
22. 

    Mr Kiki

    Dec 17, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    I have to say, though Buddhism can be described as a religion by the above definitions, I prefer to refer to it as a philosophy (defined as: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct) as it has no deity, no dogma, and it encourages you to question everything; but I do see how it fits into both categories. :o)

    Reply
23. 

    Resh B.

    Dec 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Oh no! I’m a chocoholic and thought this post was all about the happy chemicals in chocolate. I don’t even like contaminants like walnuts and raspberries in my chocolate (unless there is no other kind available, in which case..) but grasshoppers – that seems so wrong.

    I’m on a trial period (a coupla months into it now) towards becoming a Pescetarian, and all this talk makes me want to become a vegetarian.

    As a Hindu, we sometimes like to say the same thing about Hinduism as well – Hinduism is not a religion, it is a way of life. I don’t care whether it is or isn’t a religion. But I do find Karma to be very convenient sometimes. Blame it all on Karma! 🙂

    Reply
24. 

    jurvetson

    Jan 8, 2010 at 6:11 am

    fascinating discussion… but the plot thickens…. Todd has now brought the bad boys to the office, and we are in the process of converting a vegetarian

    

    stay tuned… bad karma everywhere

    Reply
25. 

    Vanita

    Jan 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Getting stung by a scorpion is bad, but it’s okay to eat one… I’m confused.

    Reply
26. 

    jurvetson

    Aug 3, 2012 at 5:04 am

    Just don’t eat several stingers, as Courtney’s replacement learned…

    

    Reply
27. 

    jurvetson

    Dec 4, 2012 at 6:54 am

    P.S.S. Todd’s framework still echoes in my mind… leading to my fB post just now on the inevitability of synthetic meat…

    And a fun tribute to bacon…

    Reply