?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Meat without murder?

Linkage - Guardian article on the production of meat in a petri dish.

I don't know what to make of it, and i'm not talking in recipe terms. Technically, it is irrelevant to me, since the fact that an animal cell is used at the start of the process makes it not vegan. On the other hand, it is vegetarian since the animal is not killed (or, allegedly, harmed) to get the cells. (also chances are it will be produced by some biotech company that conducts animal research, which would put a lot of animal rights folks off buying it)
Maybe it is a good move. However the original cells are extracted (and you can take cells fairly non-invasively, including from humans) it is likely to cause less animal suffering than the meat industry if it replaces meat as part of the Western standard diet. It would also provide a source of protein (apparently - corporate assholery being what it is i'm not convinced) for people in developing countries. (remember GM crops were supposed to do that, hmmm...) A problem with campaigning for veg(etari)anism has hitherto been that there are always some people who would never give up meat, either because they regard it as necessary to their health (i'm so not getting into that debate right now) or because they just don't think they can live without the taste or do something they perceive as limiting their diet. Lab-grown meat might be a solution there - except that many meat-eaters wouldn't eat it. Ok, maybe i'm extrapolating solely from my own family who might be the only people in England with this view, but i know some folks are grossed out by the idea. (which is always a good opportunity to point out how gross meat is to a vegetarian, but anyway) So really, as i said, i don't know where i stand with this.
Oh yeah, and someone has suggested you could also grow human meat that way. Uh huh...

Tags:

Comments

( 2 ducky chirps — Quack quack )
(Anonymous)
Aug. 13th, 2005 09:24 pm (UTC)
"Technically, it is irrelevant to me, since the fact that an animal cell is used at the start of the process makes it not vegan"

Would you eat it 20 years after it had hit the mainstream? Each new piece of meat would come only from copying the old; meaning that you eating it would not lead to any animals being harmed.

Alternatively, is it the actual act of eating meat that you think is unethical, regardless of the fact that the meat would be produced without harming any animals? (hypothetically speaking)

I'm just interested since I'd of presumed that most vegans are vegan since they don't want animals to be harmed, but since in this case the first bits would be produced for the non-vegans anyway, you wouldn't actually be making a difference to any animal's welfare by eating it.

Alex
http://atopian.org
nelsolidarida
Aug. 13th, 2005 10:14 pm (UTC)
"Would you eat it 20 years after it had hit the mainstream? Each new piece of meat would come only from copying the old; meaning that you eating it would not lead to any animals being harmed."

Hey, i was just thinking this a little after making the post! To be honest, i don't know. Does the process eliminate the need to get more animal cells later? I wasn't clear on that - if so then i wouldn't necessarily have an ethical problem. The issues would be:
a) i don't think i'd trust the suppliers to give me lab-grown meat rather than the normal murdered-animal variety: 20 years isn't that long
b) my body will by then have had 30 years to adjust to not ingesting meat, so i'm not convinced the effects would be beneficial
c) plus, i'm not keen on GM foods because we don't know 100% what the effects are, so this wouldn't be a lot different to GM soy or tomatoes.

I guess the short answer would be ask again in 20 years...
( 2 ducky chirps — Quack quack )

Latest Month

January 2016
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Golly Kim