8 ms·

The most significant gain for animal rights will be the day, when we can produce inexpensive lab-grown meat (including fish) that is indistinguishable from live

• jtdev 5y ago
  The farms that grow the inputs to your lab goo will have permits to shoot wild animals on these properties… it’s called a “block permit” and farmers in my area are known to kill so many deer through these permits that bulldozers are needed to handle the disposal/burial of the masses of animals they kill… and why do they do this? Because feeding humans is actually a rather important task. Step off the concrete sometime… the solutions to the worlds problems and injustices are often far more complex and nuanced than what is proposed by the modern left.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • sinsterizme 5y ago
    The scale of these "block permit" killings and the amount of suffering this would cause is incomparable to industrial farming. This is not worth worrying about
    • jtdev 5y ago
      Okay, how do you feel about monocultures of soybean doused in glyphosate and multi-annual applications of synthetic fertilizers (which create radioactive leachate as a manufacturing byproduct)?
      • nobodyknowsyoda 5y ago
        Obviously not great, therefore doing less of it holistically is useful. You do realize most of that soy goes to feeding livestock...
        • jtdev 5y ago
          The primary ingredients in the fake meats being proselytized are plant proteins… meaning massive monocultures, pesticide and herbicide application, fertilizer application and manufacturing, and decimation of many thousands of acres of natural ecosystems. This doesn’t seem like a clear net positive change to me.
          • sinsterizme 5y ago
            I would be interested to hear a comparison on this, but from what I’ve heard the resources that go into growing and feeding livestock is orders of magnitude more intensive than a plant based meal. I honestly don’t know if that would change with something like beyond but I would highly doubt it
            • jtdev 5y ago
              Define “intensive” in this context. Do you realize that much of American beef cattle actually graze on natural grasses for most of their lives… in largely natural settings that support complex natural ecosystem? That will not be the case for “Beyond/Impossible/Soylent” burgers; they will be composed of plant proteins that require toxic monocultures to produce.
  • berkes 5y ago
    You need 15 such farms to create the food for 1 equivalent of beef. So the argument would be for any those goo-creating farms, because we need far less of them, than we need when creating goo that feeds cows which we then eat.
• craig_livpl 5y ago
  Possibly, but this could also be the day that animals we now eat are considered useless to us and so not worth caring about. They could be driven to extinction if we decide to use the land for other purposes, such as building huge labs to produce the meat. So we'll need to think about keeping areas available for animals. And enough people will need to care.
  • h0l0cube 5y ago
    This is true. Conservation and reducing animal suffering aren't perfectly coincident, and some times they are at odds with each other
• notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  No it won't because lab grown meat is going to be far more expensive than its animal-based meat counterparts for decades after it actually becomes available. Animal rights is just always going to be second fiddle to human comforts. I'm sorry to say that, but it's true.
• the8472 5y ago
  lab-grown meat may be a net-negative if it takes too much energy to produce or requires other animal inputs (currently fetal bovine serum). It'll need a lot of improvement to beat chicken or insects in terms of feed conversion factor or carbon footprint.
• berkes 5y ago
  The far simpler first step, while lab grown meat is being developed, is eating much less meat. We really don't need the amounts of meat (if at all), averagely consumed in the US, EU or many other places nowadays. Not by far. And if you insist: there are plant based products today, that are often tastier and offer better nutrients than large swaths of the meat products they replace. There certainly is no lab-grown alternative for a tasty slab of expensive beef (I presume, I haven't looked for it), but there certainly is a tastier and healthier plant-based alternative for that €2,99 bucket of fried chicken things. Or for 6 of the 10 cheap burgers at your supermarket. Point: we really don't have to wait for lab grown meat. Not if you are a meat lover, nor if you are a habitual meat eater.
  • EvilEy3 5y ago
    > We really don't need the amounts of meat (if at all), averagely consumed in the US, EU or many other places nowadays. Not by far. Define need. I don't live to be a drone guided by some moral principles of other human who has the same rights as I do. If I want meat - I will eat it regardless of whether I need it or not. > And if you insist: there are plant based products today, that are often tastier and offer better nutrients than large swaths of the meat products they replace. I hear the same mantra for last 10 years. > There certainly is no lab-grown alternative for a tasty slab of expensive beef (I presume, I haven't looked for it), but there certainly is a tastier and healthier plant-based alternative for that €2,99 bucket of fried chicken things. Or for 6 of the 10 cheap burgers at your supermarket. You forgot psychological factor. While the bucket of fried chicken is rarely as pretty before cooking as they display it, but in the end it is 100% meat. If we're talking about some plant surrogate, most people would probably puke at the thought of eating this. I certainly wouldn't enjoy it.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • hrayn3 5y ago
      The 'need' part you're missing isn't some moral declaration - physically, it isn't healthy to eat as much meat as many people do