- #36
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,126
- 10,303
Could you elaborate? Is that for health reasons, animal ethics reasons, political reasons, etc?Monique said:I wouldn't, I like my diet without meat.
Could you elaborate? Is that for health reasons, animal ethics reasons, political reasons, etc?Monique said:I wouldn't, I like my diet without meat.
The point isn't that society should eliminate animal suffering. The point is that some people wish to eliminate animal suffering, and for those people, in vitro meat might be an option. Some of the feedback already posted supports this desire.gravenewworld said:Zebras suffer too when lions eat them in the wild. Should we feed lions synthetic meats so zebras and anteloupes etc. don't suffer? Why is it so inhumane for humans to kill animals for food when all other carnivores in the animal kingdom do?
I would definitely buy in vitro created meat rather than an animal slaughtered. Even if the taste and texture wasn't quite the same, I wouldn't mind.Q_Goest said:The point isn't that society should eliminate animal suffering. The point is that some people wish to eliminate animal suffering, and for those people, in vitro meat might be an option. Some of the feedback already posted supports this desire.
It's real meat, not synthetic.ThomasT said:Sure. Synthetic meats, veggies, fruits, and especially, yummy desserts. I'm all for it.
Well that's even better. Sign me up.Evo said:It's real meat, not synthetic.
gravenewworld said:So tell me how one could exactly replicate the entire lifespan of an animal in this reductionist fairy tale land that in vitro meat scientists live in. How an animal lives its entire life has a significant impact on the flavor and texture of a meat. Pigs in Spain are fed a diet entirely of acorns and roots to produce Jamon Iberico which tastes light years different than Italian proscuitto. Everyone knows the 'gamey' flavor and texture meats that come from wild animals have vs. meat from the grocery store. Tell me exactly how science could ever recapitulate the different lifespans of every type of breed of animal we eat and not only that, copy the flavor of different breeds of animals within the same species. Good luck.
Pythagorean said:that you grow submissive and dormant from not hunting your prey on foot! Safety IS the problem!
gravenewworld said:Zebras suffer too when lions eat them in the wild. Should we feed lions synthetic meats so zebras and anteloupes etc. don't suffer? Why is it so inhumane for humans to kill animals for food when all other carnivores in the animal kingdom do?
feathermoon said:The entire act of hunting in 'Merica now is finding a comfortable tree stand to sit in and wait. Hardly a masculine activity. Where are you from?
I honestly can't see hunting as a battle of wits and cunning anymore. Join the armed forces if you want to shoot things and be able to say it took bravery or skill.
feathermoon said:Because we do it on a scale that is unheard of in the history of this planet. Or, if you want to be more honest, because it isn't the animals death that is 'inhumane', its the life we force it to live up until that point.
Pythagorean said:Alaska. I track my kills. Moose are about the only thing you sit and wait for... it's really boring. And there's nothing to do with masculinity, that's derived from sexuality. Hunting is for cheap food (i.e. survival).
Naw, that would be pathetic to prove masculinity by shooting people... besides it's a strawman. Cunning, wits, bravery, skill... nobody brought that up but you : )
You want to be brave? Speak out against homophobia in a red state.
feathermoon said:I was comparing modern hunting to the sort-of cliche hunter-gatherer society where men hunt as a rite of passage. Nothing wrong with cheap food!
Jasongreat said:I don't understand your point, there are more humans on the planet now than at anytime in history, isn't it a given that we would kill more animals for food, than at any other time in history?
The in-humane life where we supply their food, doctor them when sick, provide for their protection from predators, then give them the honor of fullfilling there niche in life?
turbo said:Nothing can be "proven safe", so let's get away from that idea right away.
It is an assumption used for the sake of discussion and a perfectly reasonable one even if slightly oversimplified so not technically completely scientifically accurate. If we could modify it slightly to be "as safe as or safer than butchered meat", that would make it better and I think that's what the OP was going for.Jasongreat said:The problem I have with the OP is the assumption of 100% safe, there is nothing in the world that is 100% safe, even too much water can hurt us. I would never eat test tube meat, unless it was the only meat available.
Pengwuino said:This thread makes me hungry.
Monique said:It's funny to see that so many people will switch to eating the meat. In discussions about vegetarianism always the first arguments against a meatless diet it is that eating meat is "natural" and that it is required for vitamin B12. Apparently people are open to other options if they think they're still eating meat.
Monique said:It's funny to see that so many people will switch to eating the meat. In discussions about vegetarianism always the first arguments against a meatless diet it is that eating meat is "natural" and that it is required for vitamin B12. Apparently people are open to other options if they think they're still eating meat.
SHISHKABOB said:isn't this meat essentially the exact same thing as "regular" meat? It should have the same nutrients. The only difference is that it was grown in a petri dish or whatever.
Quite, let's not turn this into a vegetarian vs meat eater discussion.Monique said:We were talking about in vitro meat.
Ryan_m_b said:Quite, let's not turn this into a vegetarian vs meat eater discussion.
Which I didn't do. I was warning the thread against going down that path, not suggesting that it had. If the conversation does go off track like this it will be locked.Pythagorean said:Let's not mischaracterize people's positions either, ok?
In vitro meat, also known as lab-grown meat or cultured meat, is meat that is grown in a laboratory setting using animal cells instead of being harvested from a live animal.
Based on current research, in vitro meat has been proven to be 100% safe for consumption. It is produced in a controlled environment without the use of antibiotics or hormones, reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses.
In vitro meat is produced without the need for raising and slaughtering animals. It also has a lower environmental impact and does not contribute to animal welfare issues. However, in terms of taste and nutritional value, it is similar to traditional meat.
In vitro meat is produced by taking a small sample of animal cells and placing them in a nutrient-rich solution in a bioreactor. The cells are then allowed to grow and form muscle tissue, which is then harvested and processed into meat products.
While in vitro meat has been successfully produced in small quantities, it is not yet commercially available. Further research and development is needed to make it more cost-effective and scalable for mass production. However, some companies are working towards making it available for purchase in the near future.