4 ms·
I don't think they were claiming that it increases suffering. But it doesn't decrease it either. We should at least decrease suffering, or ideally, eliminate it
by Timwi 5y ago
I don't think they were claiming that it increases suffering. But it doesn't decrease it either. We should at least decrease suffering, or ideally, eliminate it. CRISPR does not constitute any progress in that regard. If anything, it gives more people more excuses to continue supporting the suffering.
- DeWilde 5y agoThat is correct. Ideally we will move to lab grown meat or just lab grown edibles/drinkables that contain all the nutrients you need and you get to choose the ratio of nutrients for each meal.
- bigDinosaur 5y agoMy thinking was that it allows us to continue to improve yields without corresponding costs being paid by the consumers. In other words, people will just keep buying huge quantities of cheap meat. I do not consider this a good thing because meat is a luxury. In this case, it's keeping meat cheap(er) despite screwing the planet with climate change.