Question for vegans/vegetarians

[barbad0s]

If they grew meat in petri dishes that never had lives or souls or whatnot, would you eat it (and so stop being vegetarian/vegan through only eating petri dish meats)?

This is assuming that petri dish grown meats would also be cleaner and healthier than regular meat too.

Why or why not?

@AKM @Lerxst

 

[Faye]

Are we also assuming that the meat could be made to taste good? I've heard that it doesn't taste so good, but it isn't available for common consumption yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

I'm thinking some people still might not use it if the environmental cost of producing it is too high, but I know nothing about its production process.

 

[barbad0s]

Are we also assuming that the meat could be made to taste good? I've heard that it doesn't taste so good, but it isn't available for common consumption yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

I'm thinking some people still might not use it if the environmental cost of producing it is too high, but I know nothing about its production process.

Let's say they eventually developed it to taste at least as good, if not better than "fake meat" that we have now. Let's say the environmental toll is equal to, if not lower than that of the "fake meat" we have now.

 

[AKM]

I'd still have some issues with eating it, but if for some reason I needed to eat meat, I'd consider it. (I don't currently eat any of the "fake meats" because they all have soy and/or gluten in them, neither of which I should eat.) The fact that an animal didn't actually die for the product is appealing, but since I try to avoid GMO vegetables and grains, I have a hard time looking at this as something other than GMO meat...and I'd probably have to do more research on it to find out how much intervention is needed to "grow" meat. It does seem a bit frankenstein-esque too which is disconcerting. It would depend on the circumstances I was living in I guess. I think I'd still prefer to eat my plant based diet anyway.


(and for full disclosure, though I mentioned it in my blog, since I'm supposed to be avoiding all tree nuts and legumes, I am eating fish now, but I will stop if I get these food allergies and sensitivities under control.)

 

[Lerxst]

Last I heard, the "test tube" meat still used an original sample of animal flesh to create the copy, so therefor, it's still an animal-based product

 

[AhSver]

I've been going two days without any meat and if I continue and join the ranks of people who don't eat flesh period I would not eat meat synthesized in a lab..

 

[toska]

I've gotten to the point now where anything that is even made to resemble meat is "not food" and completely unappetizing, so no I wouldn't eat it.

 

[Blind Bandit]

I've gotten to the point now where anything that is even made to resemble meat is "not food" and completely unappetizing, so no I wouldn't eat it.

I've found a lot of people don't like meat much in the first place and so they change their beliefs to fit their eating choices. So pretty much a feedback loop. There will always be people who won't eat meat just cause.

 

[arbygil]

My fear is, even if they were able to mass produce this "meatlette" test tube clone, there's no way they could make it taste like the real thing without a lot of additives. And you can't keep cloning - copies of copies aren't infinite sources. After a while it'll degrade too much to be a viable product, and they'll have to find a cow or something to begin the process again. On top of that, science doesn't know how to make nutritious food without adding manufactured things to make fake food nutritious.

We don't need as much meat in our diets - we need more (tamper-free) fruits and vegetables. I'm not averse to eating meat - or others eating meat (some people function best with animal protein). I've been alternately vegan, vegetarian, raw foodist and omnivore. But from what I've seen the healthiest food is always the freshest. Any tampering, and you lose food quality. So IMHO, manufactured meat would be sacrificing quality for quantity. Sure, you'll feed everyone. But they could die from cancer and heart disease instead.

My two cents.

 

[hush]

For some reason this

doesn't really appeal to me. Even if I ate meat, I wouldn't eat it (unless I happened to be really desperate and needed some form of nutrition and this was all I had available).

[MENTION=442]mia kulpah[/MENTION]'s post hit the nail on the head for me.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

If you could have steaks grown from your own cells, would you eat them?

It's almost like self-cannibalism, but obviously not, because it does not involve the destruction/injury/violation of an actual human body.

 

[invisible]

it surprises me that i seem to be the only person who would eat it. if it tasted really disgusting, well then maybe not. but otherwise yes, i would eat it!

in response to meat not being delicious. i go back and forth on this one. sometimes im like, MEAT IS DELICIOUS AND I WISH I COULD HAVE IT RIGHT NOW! and other times if ive accidentally been served meat in a meal im like MEAT TASTES SO OVERWHELMINGLY POWERFULLY OF DECOMPOSING FORMERLY LIVING AND FEELING ANIMAL CORPSE!. it kind of depends. but i did not become a vegetarian because i disliked the taste of meat, and honestly, i think that saying that this is the reason why vegetarians become vegetarian is nothing more than a low down and dirty way of dismissing the legitimate arguments for vegetarianism. most people who become vegetarians do it not because meat tastes gross to them, but because of reasons to do with animal welfare, or the damage that the meat industry does to the environment.

in response to the idea that it is still an animal based product. nothing in this world is black and white. i am screwing up this planet and the other life forms on it just by existing. who are we kidding here? i dont think a fleck of genetic material would take a meaningful additional toll.

in response to the matter of avoiding things that have been genetically modified on principle, every crop we eat has been genetically modified by humans through selecting models for reproduction. the only difference is that now the modifications can be properly scientifically controlled.

other arguments that my mind registered on this thread struck me as "oh noes, that is unnatural and could only result in disaster!" irrational type arguments.

so yes! give it to me! but having said that, my actual preference for futuristic dietary meat replacer is Soylent.

 

[sprinkles]

Eh. I'd be more interested if they were doing that with fish.

The meat industry is cruel to the animals and environment but I think the fishing industry is even worse ecologically. A lot of people don't think about it but there's a lot of harmful overfishing and by-catch of endangered species - catching things they aren't trying to by accident - especially sea turtles.

 

[invisible]

i agree the environmental outcomes of fishing are also disastrous.

 

[sprinkles]

i agree the environmental outcomes of fishing are also disastrous.

Yeah. This is why I'd prefer to catch fish myself. I love to eat fish but who knows where it came from when it's in a box.

If I catch fish myself I can research the fishery and look up stuff from the department of natural resources and see what I'm actually going to catch and eat and how that's going to effect the environment. Plus I get the challenge of selectively aiming for my fish and trying to catch it, and then I have to clean it so I connect with the life I'm taking in that way. If I don't catch my fish then it has lucked out and will live and stay a part of the environment and make more fishies for me to catch when the time is right maybe.

 

[invisible]

that sounds like a more responsible way of consuming meat!!!

 

[apemon]

If you could have steaks grown from your own cells, would you eat them?

It's almost like self-cannibalism, but obviously not, because it does not involve the destruction/injury/violation of an actual human body.

Yes I would eat myself!

[video=youtube;8Cs5O0PEnYs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cs5O0PEnYs[/video]

 

[Lerxst]

Yeah. This is why I'd prefer to catch fish myself. I love to eat fish but who knows where it came from when it's in a box.

If I catch fish myself I can research the fishery and look up stuff from the department of natural resources and see what I'm actually going to catch and eat and how that's going to effect the environment. Plus I get the challenge of selectively aiming for my fish and trying to catch it, and then I have to clean it so I connect with the life I'm taking in that way. If I don't catch my fish then it has lucked out and will live and stay a part of the environment and make more fishies for me to catch when the time is right maybe.

I have caught and eaten my own fish, which is the same day I also stopped catching and eating fish to any degree. Seeing a fish struggling in a net, or bleeding with a hook through its mouth is the same as seeing a hen crammed in a cage or a cow hung upside down to bleed out. One of the Buddhist Sutras also explains:

"A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature.


"As a Buddha's disciple, he ought to nurture a mind of compassion and filial piety, always devising expedient means to rescue and protect all beings. If instead, he fails to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy, he commits a major offense."

I consider fish as sentient as the next species. Now, petri dish meat, on the other hand...?

 

[sprinkles]

I have caught and eaten my own fish, which is the same day I also stopped catching and eating fish to any degree. Seeing a fish struggling in a net, or bleeding with a hook through its mouth is the same as seeing a hen crammed in a cage or a cow hung upside down to bleed out. One of the Buddhist Sutras also explains:

"A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature.


"As a Buddha's disciple, he ought to nurture a mind of compassion and filial piety, always devising expedient means to rescue and protect all beings. If instead, he fails to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy, he commits a major offense."

I consider fish as sentient as the next species. Now, petri dish meat, on the other hand...?

What? You didn't have an idea what was going to happen when you caught the fish? Why the hell were you out there doing it then?

I will still catch and eat fish. They are delicious. I will catch them and fight them and then cut their guts out and cook the fish up.

I consider the fish sentient too. I have no compunction against killing sentient beings if I'm going to eat them. Everything dies. What I'm against is making something spend the life it has cooped up with broken legs and unable to move.

I take a life after a good life. Meat industry gives a bad life so that it can keep track of the lives it can take then and there.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION]

Also you're killing just by being alive.

If you've ever used antibacterial soap then you're murdering millions. If you take antibotics then you're endorsing killing. If you wash your fruit, you are killing. If you cook your fruit or vegetables you are definitely killing many.

If you eat farmed vegetables and grains you are involved in proxy killing of millions of lives from bacteria to earth worms to plant parasites to field mice and other mammals that get chopped up in the process.

This is why I don't do dogma because it's ridiculous. You cannot be alive without killing. All you can try to do is not unnecessarily murder things carelessly. The only way to stop killing is to kill yourself which is still killing, so you're screwed in that department. The only way to get by is to exempt some forms of killing at which point you're justifying yourself just like everyone else.