15 ms·

I'm curious if the lab-grown meat will truly be ethical, which I suppose depends on your definition of ethics with regard to preserving life. What exactly are

I'm curious if the lab-grown meat will truly be ethical, which I suppose depends on your definition of ethics with regard to preserving life. What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in... If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis? Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource? I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats (at least we do in the NW of USA) and I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat. Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves? I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species[0]... is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet? So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's really my main question here. I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly larvae, etc) which provide comparable protein/nutrient profiles to farm meats while requiring a fraction of the inputs (notably water and land) and a massive decrease in the sentient suffering of the protein source (most are just put into hibernation and don't wake up). I haven't made one yet, but I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and still provide comparable nutrition. [0] http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/ http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/im...

samirillian 9y ago
In the words of Aristotle, "it is necessary to stop." You start with empathy and common sense, and remain open to new information, but realize at some point you gotta sign off and just make whatever you consider the most ethical choice; this includes balancing how much you feel it worthwhile to worry about an essentially "negative" decision vs. other positive possibilities. With respect to environmental harm, these are usually accidents of bad practices more than necessities of, say, eating tofu. Thus far, killing animals has been pretty closely tied to eating their flesh. Separating those two is also exciting to me.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
burke 9y ago
It seems to me that there are a few ethical dimensions to analyze this on: 1. Suffering caused to conscious beings directly to produce a meal; 2. Suffering caused to conscious beings indirectly (e.g. crop monocultures impacting biodiversity; animal products used in the production of a "vegetarian" meal). 3. Total biomass required per calorie. "Clean meat" seems likely a better performer in all three categories, unless animal-derived amino acids are required — but that feels like a non-starter. Why bother to liquefy and reconstitute a cow muscle? Unrelatedly, this strikes me as one of those things where economies of scale will develop surprisingly quickly. Meat is a huge industry, and it costs a lot of money to actually raise animals. There's a lot of incentive to make cheaper meat. The fact that it can get bootstrapped by guilt-inclined non-vegetarians is just bonus runway.
cies 9y ago
> I'm curious if the lab-grown meat will truly be ethical, which I suppose depends on your definition of ethics with regard to preserving life. Yups. But for most definitions it is going to be a heck of a lot more ethical! > What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in... Ethically, growing it in a sentient being, thereby commodified, often made part of an industrial production process, is EXTREMELY unethical. The animals that we produce for food know concepts like "family", "pain" and "danger". While they may have the children taken from them, or may be "raped" in order to force reproduction. > If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis? We're going to find out. I find this more to be part of the economic viability question then the ethical question. I know economics can provide many ethical dilemmas, but in my view they rarely stack up to justify enclosing/hurting/raping/child-robbing/killing sentient beings. > Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource? If you are concerned with this: you can switch to a plantbased diet! http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article19970922.html http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article19970922.... To my understanding all you give up when going plant-based is some taste bud pleasure and the convenience of not having to change your habits. And the taste bud pleasure "gap" is being closed by initiatives like the one described in the linked article. > I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption? Also, while non-factory-farmed is better for the animals, it is still not nice to transport and kill them. Heck, they still need to be fenced! > I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat. $2 burgers is not something sustainable. We should aim for $2 salads or $2 falafels or $2 <be creative with plants>. > Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves? Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product? And why only rich people? The has the potential to be lots cheaper on the long run. > I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species... About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet. [1] http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed > is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet? Farm animals have nothing to do with biodiversity. Nothing. They are like the mono-crop field in plant agriculture. If you want to preserve biodiversity, preserve forests. And the major reason to cut forests is for (directly or indirectly) animal agriculture. > So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's really my main question here. As I mentioned time will tell. It is likely to be much more efficient than animal agriculture. > I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly larvae, etc) Great! Did you try to eat them? I'm also concerned with ethics/environment/health, and started a WFPB diet. A major improvement. > I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and still provide comparable nutrition. There is no "ethical beef", just "more ethical than the current appalling situation". Nutrition wise, a well balanced plant-based diet is superior to eating a regular amount of animal-based product alongside your plants. https://nutritionfacts.org/book/ https://nutritionfacts.org/book/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjmIJHZRWXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjmIJHZRWXw

samirillian 9y ago

In the words of Aristotle, "it is necessary to stop." You start with empathy and common sense, and remain open to new information, but realize at some point you gotta sign off and just make whatever you consider the most ethical choice; this includes balancing how much you feel it worthwhile to worry about an essentially "negative" decision vs. other positive possibilities. With respect to environmental harm, these are usually accidents of bad practices more than necessities of, say, eating tofu. Thus far, killing animals has been pretty closely tied to eating their flesh. Separating those two is also exciting to me.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

burke 9y ago

It seems to me that there are a few ethical dimensions to analyze this on: 1. Suffering caused to conscious beings directly to produce a meal; 2. Suffering caused to conscious beings indirectly (e.g. crop monocultures impacting biodiversity; animal products used in the production of a "vegetarian" meal). 3. Total biomass required per calorie. "Clean meat" seems likely a better performer in all three categories, unless animal-derived amino acids are required — but that feels like a non-starter. Why bother to liquefy and reconstitute a cow muscle? Unrelatedly, this strikes me as one of those things where economies of scale will develop surprisingly quickly. Meat is a huge industry, and it costs a lot of money to actually raise animals. There's a lot of incentive to make cheaper meat. The fact that it can get bootstrapped by guilt-inclined non-vegetarians is just bonus runway.

cies 9y ago

> I'm curious if the lab-grown meat will truly be ethical, which I suppose depends on your definition of ethics with regard to preserving life. Yups. But for most definitions it is going to be a heck of a lot more ethical! > What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in... Ethically, growing it in a sentient being, thereby commodified, often made part of an industrial production process, is EXTREMELY unethical. The animals that we produce for food know concepts like "family", "pain" and "danger". While they may have the children taken from them, or may be "raped" in order to force reproduction. > If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis? We're going to find out. I find this more to be part of the economic viability question then the ethical question. I know economics can provide many ethical dilemmas, but in my view they rarely stack up to justify enclosing/hurting/raping/child-robbing/killing sentient beings. > Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource? If you are concerned with this: you can switch to a plantbased diet! http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article19970922.html http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article19970922.... To my understanding all you give up when going plant-based is some taste bud pleasure and the convenience of not having to change your habits. And the taste bud pleasure "gap" is being closed by initiatives like the one described in the linked article. > I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption? Also, while non-factory-farmed is better for the animals, it is still not nice to transport and kill them. Heck, they still need to be fenced! > I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat. $2 burgers is not something sustainable. We should aim for $2 salads or $2 falafels or $2 <be creative with plants>. > Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves? Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product? And why only rich people? The has the potential to be lots cheaper on the long run. > I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species... About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet. [1] http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed > is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet? Farm animals have nothing to do with biodiversity. Nothing. They are like the mono-crop field in plant agriculture. If you want to preserve biodiversity, preserve forests. And the major reason to cut forests is for (directly or indirectly) animal agriculture. > So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's really my main question here. As I mentioned time will tell. It is likely to be much more efficient than animal agriculture. > I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly larvae, etc) Great! Did you try to eat them? I'm also concerned with ethics/environment/health, and started a WFPB diet. A major improvement. > I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and still provide comparable nutrition. There is no "ethical beef", just "more ethical than the current appalling situation". Nutrition wise, a well balanced plant-based diet is superior to eating a regular amount of animal-based product alongside your plants. https://nutritionfacts.org/book/ https://nutritionfacts.org/book/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjmIJHZRWXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjmIJHZRWXw