William Saletan in Slate makes a good case that eating animals is unnecessarily cruel behavior, once justified by a lack of other good protein sources, but now something that we can and should leave behind.
He undermines his own argumentvrimjMay 27 2006, 14:38:40 UTC
If meat is immoral then cultured meat is also immoral, his argument on that point is as silly as americans who sought to "end" slavery by forbiding importation.
On the other hand I like the idea of cultured meat, it would help prevent noxious bacteria, viruses, and prions. In addtion such a process would use less land and quite possibly result in better conversion ratios. I wonder about quality, on one hand it would likely be quite tender, veal instead of beef, but it might be hard to get decent muscle without any exercise, then again maybe they would use electrical impulses to exercize the meat.
If this becomes popular it could really change food, we might just have meat growing compartments in the fridge and pick up cultures.
Re: He undermines his own argumentvrimjMay 27 2006, 14:48:34 UTC
Side point, it seems like part of the problem is creating a good culture and scaffolding materal. Why wouln't you use gelitan? It is fairly cheap, hold suspendedn materal well, and can be strached to stimulate cell growth.
Also would you eat cultured fish? It seems like any fish cultured from embrynic cells would be inhernetly scaleless.
Re: He undermines his own argumenttevarinMay 29 2006, 03:38:06 UTC
Scaffolding material does seem like an issue. I'm not sure how you would control the texture to get a steak rather than a mcnugget.
I haven't followed in detail the arguments for the application of kosher rules to cultured meat. My dim understanding is that one faction argues that the cultured material takes it's kosher/treif status from it's original source. If the original fish had scales and fins, then any cultured portion of that fish is ok to eat. This makes the most sense to me.
There's another faction that argues that cultured meats are far enough removed from their source that they no longer count as "meat", and therefore are pretty much automatically ok, even cultured pork or lobster.
There are surely ultra-orthodox as well who say "We can't find a specific command on this in the Torah or Talmud, so avoid it entirely to stay on the safe side".
There is a way clutured meat could be ethical if uncultured meat is not. If the meat was grown from you own tissues or freely offered to you by the person from whose cells it was cultured.
I can see it now, a culture of high-tech cannabals, eating meat grown in culture from steam cells cultured from cord blood. You would probably not eat meat out, but sharing meat might be a part of weddings. Then again maybe people with really tasty meat would become chefs...
I'm really tired of authors shoving their religionesque ideas at me without demonstrating why I should share them.
This guy never stops to consider whether or not it is immoral to eat meat. Instead, he resorts to name calling ("That's the thing about humans: We're half-evolved beasts"), which isn't very compelling.
If there is some great awakening in store for us, it could be learning to accept death. Whether or not we kill animals, death isn't going anywhere.
Neither is life. Oh, except for the bazillion animals that will never live because we will not breed them. (Sure, there are dozen holes in that argument, but to me it's about on the same banal level as his argument.)
Re: two questions for curiositytevarinMay 30 2006, 03:27:22 UTC
1. Are there any conditions under which you would not want your life prolonged?
A very few. One would be the Terri Schiavo situation. If the essential "me" was already permanently, irretrievably dead, I wouldn't see much point in using machines to keep various organs going for sentimental reasons. Just cut my body up for spare parts.
I also think I'd prefer a fast death to a slow, painful one. Given the choice between being decapitated and being beaten to death with a baseball bat, I'd rather just get it over with, even if it meant living a few minutes less.
There might be some situation in which I'd want to commit suicide, to avoid something even worse. It seems unlikely, but I can't entirely rule it out.
2. Do you insinuate that the way to be kind to animals is to treat them as if they were human?Hmph. I imply, I never insinuate :) :p Maybe I went too far in citing the Golden Rule. I'd agree that animals aren't human, they have different minds, different senses, different morals and attitudes than we do. Treating an
( ... )
Comments 19
On the other hand I like the idea of cultured meat, it would help prevent noxious bacteria, viruses, and prions. In addtion such a process would use less land and quite possibly result in better conversion ratios. I wonder about quality, on one hand it would likely be quite tender, veal instead of beef, but it might be hard to get decent muscle without any exercise, then again maybe they would use electrical impulses to exercize the meat.
If this becomes popular it could really change food, we might just have meat growing compartments in the fridge and pick up cultures.
Reply
Also would you eat cultured fish? It seems like any fish cultured from embrynic cells would be inhernetly scaleless.
Reply
I haven't followed in detail the arguments for the application of kosher rules to cultured meat. My dim understanding is that one faction argues that the cultured material takes it's kosher/treif status from it's original source. If the original fish had scales and fins, then any cultured portion of that fish is ok to eat. This makes the most sense to me.
There's another faction that argues that cultured meats are far enough removed from their source that they no longer count as "meat", and therefore are pretty much automatically ok, even cultured pork or lobster.
There are surely ultra-orthodox as well who say "We can't find a specific command on this in the Torah or Talmud, so avoid it entirely to stay on the safe side".
Reply
I can see it now, a culture of high-tech cannabals, eating meat grown in culture from steam cells cultured from cord blood. You would probably not eat meat out, but sharing meat might be a part of weddings. Then again maybe people with really tasty meat would become chefs...
Reply
I'm really tired of authors shoving their religionesque ideas at me without demonstrating why I should share them.
This guy never stops to consider whether or not it is immoral to eat meat. Instead, he resorts to name calling ("That's the thing about humans: We're half-evolved beasts"), which isn't very compelling.
If there is some great awakening in store for us, it could be learning to accept death. Whether or not we kill animals, death isn't going anywhere.
Neither is life. Oh, except for the bazillion animals that will never live because we will not breed them. (Sure, there are dozen holes in that argument, but to me it's about on the same banal level as his argument.)
Reply
Reply
2. Do you insinuate that the way to be kind to animals is to treat them as if they were human?
I enjoy feeling the diverging lines in the way that we think.
Reply
A very few. One would be the Terri Schiavo situation. If the essential "me" was already permanently, irretrievably dead, I wouldn't see much point in using machines to keep various organs going for sentimental reasons. Just cut my body up for spare parts.
I also think I'd prefer a fast death to a slow, painful one. Given the choice between being decapitated and being beaten to death with a baseball bat, I'd rather just get it over with, even if it meant living a few minutes less.
There might be some situation in which I'd want to commit suicide, to avoid something even worse. It seems unlikely, but I can't entirely rule it out.
2. Do you insinuate that the way to be kind to animals is to treat them as if they were human?Hmph. I imply, I never insinuate :) :p Maybe I went too far in citing the Golden Rule. I'd agree that animals aren't human, they have different minds, different senses, different morals and attitudes than we do. Treating an ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment