(February 23, 2016 at 10:55 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 10:54 am)KUSA Wrote: Hmmmm. I wonder if they can make human meat for consumption.

I wondered that as well. I think it's far too soon to even talk about that, though, even jokingly. I am curious how we taste though, if no one gets killed over it.

Pork.





Apparently.

(February 23, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Mathilda Wrote: We've already switched to Quorn. We have a chilli every Friday and don't notice enough of a difference to care whether the mince is from a real animal or not.

Holy fuck that sounds nasty. Can't you afford real meat?

(February 23, 2016 at 12:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 12:16 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: 1) It doesn't? How do you figure? Don't you agree that the way we get our meat now raises health concerns as well as environmental and economical ones?

I do.

I don't know. It seems to me that you don't.

Quote:I wouldn't, no.  For reasons already mentioned but..apparently, less than digestible.  

How is meat grown in a lab going to cause problems, exactly? And how is it not mitigating the already existent problems by removing the need for consumption of the other sort of meat, provided directly by farm animals, that is?

Quote:No, I don't.  I think that you can find many examples of bad practices.  

Bad practices? Ok, let's assume for even a second that we could ethically prepare animals for slaughter, which is insane, but ok. Would you agree to being slaughtered for your meat by a superior race from space that conquered earth, if said race could reasonably survive and preserve their comfort by eating something else other than you, merely because they treated you right before chopping you up for your meat? Can you see how insane this sounds, or not?

Quote:None, right? 

 I recant. It would seem some think we're doing other animals a favor by sacrificing them for their meat(/sarcasm). I didn't imagine it would be possible to even hold such a view.

Quote:Environmental goods, economic goods, health goods, long term sustainability goods, a validation of your ideological position........and a law?  

I think they'll deliver meat, and just that.  Frozen in vitro salisbury steaks.  20% Cellulose.  Corn starch in vitro gravy in a microwaveable paper casserole dish.

All of those goods are simply delivered by virtue of the in vitro meat becoming a better alternative to directly animal-based meats.

My ideological position is that we shouldn't let sentient creatures suffer/die for no good reason. What would constitute good reasons? You might argue that comfort and food are, which I would agree with to a certain extent. Take care of those reasons in a different manner, however, and the need for slaughtering animals disappears altogether.

Now, I can't imagine that you disagree with that. So do we really disagree here, or are we simply pretending to do so for argument's sake?

(February 23, 2016 at 12:43 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Mathilda Wrote: We've already switched to Quorn. We have a chilli every Friday and don't notice enough of a difference to care whether the mince is from a real animal or not.

Holy fuck that sounds nasty. Can't you afford real meat?

What's wrong with Quorn? The stuff is nom. It could never replace my deeply-entrenched love for dead animal flesh, but I could have it once a week or so as a meal. :3

(February 23, 2016 at 10:41 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 10:35 am)c172 Wrote: I voted "yes", just because it would be interesting to try. But if I don't like it, that's all she wrote. I have no moral stance on this issue. It's just cool technology in my book.

And if you liked it and in fact couldn't tell the difference(in any bad way)?

Well, then, when the time comes, I have one more choice at the supermarket.

(February 23, 2016 at 12:56 pm)c172 Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 10:41 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: And if you liked it and in fact couldn't tell the difference(in any bad way)?

Well, then, when the time comes, I have one more choice at the supermarket.

I would argue that if my premise becomes true you should only be allowed to have the one choice, without the other.

Argue away. But that won't happen as easily as you think. Because politics. Right or wrong.

(February 23, 2016 at 12:50 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 12:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I do.

I don't know. It seems to me that you don't.

Okay?

Quote:How is meat grown in a lab going to cause problems, exactly? And how is it not mitigating the already existent problems by removing the need for consumption of the other sort of meat, provided directly by farm animals, that is?

Oh, you mean...post 17?

Quote:Bad practices? Ok, let's assume for even a second that we could ethically prepare animals for slaughter, which is insane, but ok.

We can.

Quote:Would you agree to being slaughtered for your meat by a superior race from space that conquered earth, if said race could reasonably survive and preserve their comfort by eating something else other than you, merely because they treated you right before chopping you up for your meat? Can you see how insane this sounds, or not?

I doubt that the first cattle went willingly into the pens any more than I would.  We do know how to survive and preserve the comfort of livestock, it's incredibly lucrative business.  Happy animals have a tendency to be docile and plump....

It sounds like we'd have been dealt a shitty hand by the cosmos...not really insane since it;s in the business of handing out shitty hands..and we're headed the way of the dodo or the cow.  

Of course...it all sounds like fantasy..........so I'm not sure how informative it would be. We're not aliens from space... just human beings, subject to limitations and necessity.

Quote: I recant. It would seem some think we're doing other animals a favor by sacrificing them for their meat(/sarcasm). I didn't imagine it would be possible to even hold such a view.

We're doing ourselves a favor.  It benefits the animals, but as you repeatedly point out, strings are attached.  

Quote:All of those goods are simply delivered by virtue of the in vitro meat becoming a better alternative to directly animal-based meats.

They're an alternative to meat for a subset of consumer, that they're "better" is only a different way to say they aren't made out of cow.  I think that the significance of this is being blown entirely out of proportion.  
 

Quote:My ideological position is that we shouldn't let sentient creatures suffer for no good reason. What would constitute good reasons? You might argue that comfort and food are, which I would agree with to a certain extent. Take care of those reasons in a different manner, however, and the need for slaughtering animals disappears altogether.

Sure, but this manner doesn't actually do that.  What it does,  is provide a niche consumer with a label on a product they can feel good about.   I'm not sure why you expect it to be anything more?

Quote:Now, I can't imagine that you disagree with that. So do we really disagree here, or are we simply pretending to for the sake of the argument(/raised eyebrow)?

You want me to contribute...but my posts are too long, you feel bad for the reader, and you worry that just maybe..I'm pretending.  Anything else?  Get it all out.

Douglas Adams came up with this (to be funny), but I think there is a serious discussion waiting on this topic; Doug imagines a delicious animal being bred that actually desires to be eaten, and has the ability to say so clearly and distinctly.

I seem to recall, the animal also has the capability of euthanizing itself when it's time.

There was a little discussion in the novel around Philip Arthur Dent's objection to eating something that sincerely wanted to be eaten instead of an animal that did not wish to be eaten.


Now, would such a creature on earth be derived from human, porcine, bovine, or 'other' genetic stock, Idunno . . .

Failed post. To be edited presently.