3 ms·

Some people in western culture choose not to eat animal products or meat, and have historically referred to themselves as vegans or vegetarians, respectively.

Some people in western culture choose not to eat animal products or meat, and have historically referred to themselves as vegans or vegetarians, respectively. Some of these people make the choice due to their ethical concerns about the food producing animals involved in the process. In this comment, they will be lumped into the group of "ethivegs". In my experience, a fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites and technophobes, and vanishingly few of the technology embracing ethivegs are generally interested in science. Absolutely no ethivegs that I have met has been aware of in vitro meat research. Which is odd, since in vitro meat research meat has the ability to almost completely remove ethical concerns for an animal from the production of food. Interestingly, PETA has heard of the technology and did a little advertising stunt for the research. Anecdotally, none of my NPR listening or PETA supporting acquaintances have ever heard of this stunt (which was on NPR) or the concept of in vitro meat. Happily, every single ethiveg that I have introduced to the concept of in vitro meat has felt very positive and excited about it. So in my experiences with ethivegs, the consequence of in vitro meat research coming to fruition is this: eating meat will no longer require an animal to be treated unethically. Interestingly, many ethivegs have lamented that currently "unethical meat eaters" will no longer be punished with mad cow disease, high prices, or nutrient imbalances. However, they are generally more concerned with the ethical treatment of animals than they are with punishing humans who currently eat meat. I find this interesting because some groups are less interested in correcting the sin, and more interested in punishing the sinner: http://i.imgur.com/Irgo2.gif http://i.imgur.com/Irgo2.gif

jicksta2 14y ago
I'm a highly technical "ethiveg" vegan and every vegan I've met have not only heard of in vitro meat but strongly supports it.
- tossacct 14y ago
  I am not an ethiveg. I ask literally every ethiveg I meet if they have heard of in vitro meat, because asking them is an incredibly easy thing to do, and if they spread awareness and generate support for the science then the world will be a measurably better place. I am impressed that you ask literally every ethiveg you meet if they have heard of in vitro. Keep up the good work, improving the world is the responsibility of all those who can help improve the world.
  - jicksta2 14y ago
    Vegans have their own social circles and social media groups. In vitro meat is one of the biggest discussion topics of contemporary vegan politics and philosophy. Yes, I have discussed in vitro meat with all of my vegan friends, as many of them have with their other friends. I would say vegans are overwhelmingly supportive of it -- anyone who says the contrary instantly discredits himself/herself and will only get an eye roll from someone who knows this community. Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line.
    - tossacct 14y ago
      summary: I am hoping for some clarification >>>Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line. It seems to me that you are offended. If you would like to give me some specific examples of what offended you, I would love to read them and potentially change the way that I post comments here. Disclaimer: The rest of this comment further explains my confusion and desire for specifics, it is not necessary for you to read it. If you choose to read it, note that it is likely written in a tone that will offend you. I ask you to be as civil as you feel you are capable of being, as you are posting this on a public forum, and Poe's Law is in full effect :D(this smiley face is to indicate a lighthearted mood as opposed to some sarcasm that may offend you). Until you can help me understand what offended you, I can not intentionally stop offending you, since I did not intend to write anything offensive and you have not cited specific examples about what was offensive to you. I honestly don't know what you think needs changing. I would recommend not reading the rest of this comment since it will likely have the same tone, and serves only to offer some academic frameworks designed to explain why we are having conflict. -------academic communications issues--------- It is interesting that what I meant to say (thingA), what I actually said(thingB) and what jicksta2 voluntarily chose to infer(thingC) are at the very least two completely different things, related only by the pixels that jicksta2 saw on their screen. It is unfortunate that they were not all identical. The relationship between thingA, thingB, and thingC has been studied by many very famous academians, and is often lumped into a field known as "communications", more specifically "linguistics." More specific to the issue at hand is "semiotics", which concerns the relationship between the "signifier" (pixels on a screen) and the signified (what I actually meant). Obviously the relationship is very complicated and there is another issue about the relationship between what I said and what I meant(thingA & thingB), which opens up a bunch of epistemological, existential, and quite frankly solipsistic waffling that Dagmar :D Descartes famously reduced to 'cogito ergo sum', Latin for "QED - Trust me, this proof proves it :D." Lojban and other engineered languages are attempts at alleviating some of these issues. There is a conversation about Lojban elsewhere in this thread. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
dizzystar 14y ago
Choosing food on ethical grounds is a load of crap. Here's a counter-example discussing the slavery on California strawberry farms: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-the-strawberry-fields/305754/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-the-s... >>> Migrants are among the poorest workers in the United States. The average migrant worker is a twenty-eight-year-old male, born in Mexico, who earns about $5,000 a year for twenty-five weeks of farm work. His life expectancy is forty-nine years. <<< I'm hoping some things changed since 1995, but as someone used to to construction in California and had to compete against dry-wallers earning $3/hour, I am doubtful. One would have to be very careful in choosing "ethical food," lest they have tunnel vision in only protecting animals, and by their pure nature of replacing lost calories with more vegetables, they encourage more human slavery in the world, and yes... in America.
- paupino_masano 14y ago
  I understand what you're trying to say, but it's hardly the same thing. Getting paid vs being "caged" then killed is a very different argument.
  - dizzystar 14y ago
    This is an ethical bounds area. Although I am against murder of any human, I also think that locking a 20-year-old in prison for 60 years is a far more inhumane punishment than a hanging. In my opinion, slavery is far worse than death. Could you imagine working under a hot sun for 15 hour days only to wake up and do it all over again everyday for the rest of your life? Supposedly, this stuff was banned throughout the whole world but it is still ubiquitous. People and politicians actively encourage it by looking the other way, not caring, or justifying the use of slavery because of a pretty contract. I do feel some pity for the animals dying for my own health, but in the same token, if I was not dependent on the local super-market, I would end up hunting it myself. For certain, America treats its animals far better than other countries. I won't eat veil, shark fin, or foie gras. There is a huge difference between inflicting outright suffering and growing an animal for the purposes of slaughter.
- rflrob 14y ago
adrianhoward 14y ago
In my experience, a fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites and technophobes, and vanishingly few of the technology embracing ethivegs are generally interested in science. Absolutely no ethivegs that I have met has been aware of in vitro meat research. Possibly it's a US/UK thing - but that's pretty much 100% the opposite of my experience.
- tossacct 14y ago
  It makes me very happy to hear that there are parts of the world where my anecdotal experiences are not representative of the real statistics. Note, I expressed that among technologically inclined ethivegs there was universal acceptance of the idea among those that I introduced it to, meaning that their hearts and minds still work...they just aren't hackers or engineers that see a problem and then try to fix it using whatever technology possible, extant or not :D. RE luddites: there is a vast number of luddite ethivegs that reject any technology that they didn't create themselves - including metal, medicines, making paper, and etc. It can be a brutal life and I imagine it is only possible in some areas of the world. They also acknowledge that they only survive due to law enforcement protecting them with armaments that they do not allow themselves to use. The real crazies do all that and then refuse to use domesticated animals! Fruitarianism, eat your heart out :D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

jicksta2 14y ago

I'm a highly technical "ethiveg" vegan and every vegan I've met have not only heard of in vitro meat but strongly supports it.

tossacct 14y ago
I am not an ethiveg. I ask literally every ethiveg I meet if they have heard of in vitro meat, because asking them is an incredibly easy thing to do, and if they spread awareness and generate support for the science then the world will be a measurably better place. I am impressed that you ask literally every ethiveg you meet if they have heard of in vitro. Keep up the good work, improving the world is the responsibility of all those who can help improve the world.
- jicksta2 14y ago
  Vegans have their own social circles and social media groups. In vitro meat is one of the biggest discussion topics of contemporary vegan politics and philosophy. Yes, I have discussed in vitro meat with all of my vegan friends, as many of them have with their other friends. I would say vegans are overwhelmingly supportive of it -- anyone who says the contrary instantly discredits himself/herself and will only get an eye roll from someone who knows this community. Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line.
  - tossacct 14y ago
    summary: I am hoping for some clarification >>>Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line. It seems to me that you are offended. If you would like to give me some specific examples of what offended you, I would love to read them and potentially change the way that I post comments here. Disclaimer: The rest of this comment further explains my confusion and desire for specifics, it is not necessary for you to read it. If you choose to read it, note that it is likely written in a tone that will offend you. I ask you to be as civil as you feel you are capable of being, as you are posting this on a public forum, and Poe's Law is in full effect :D(this smiley face is to indicate a lighthearted mood as opposed to some sarcasm that may offend you). Until you can help me understand what offended you, I can not intentionally stop offending you, since I did not intend to write anything offensive and you have not cited specific examples about what was offensive to you. I honestly don't know what you think needs changing. I would recommend not reading the rest of this comment since it will likely have the same tone, and serves only to offer some academic frameworks designed to explain why we are having conflict. -------academic communications issues--------- It is interesting that what I meant to say (thingA), what I actually said(thingB) and what jicksta2 voluntarily chose to infer(thingC) are at the very least two completely different things, related only by the pixels that jicksta2 saw on their screen. It is unfortunate that they were not all identical. The relationship between thingA, thingB, and thingC has been studied by many very famous academians, and is often lumped into a field known as "communications", more specifically "linguistics." More specific to the issue at hand is "semiotics", which concerns the relationship between the "signifier" (pixels on a screen) and the signified (what I actually meant). Obviously the relationship is very complicated and there is another issue about the relationship between what I said and what I meant(thingA & thingB), which opens up a bunch of epistemological, existential, and quite frankly solipsistic waffling that Dagmar :D Descartes famously reduced to 'cogito ergo sum', Latin for "QED - Trust me, this proof proves it :D." Lojban and other engineered languages are attempts at alleviating some of these issues. There is a conversation about Lojban elsewhere in this thread. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

dizzystar 14y ago

Choosing food on ethical grounds is a load of crap. Here's a counter-example discussing the slavery on California strawberry farms: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-the-strawberry-fields/305754/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-the-s... >>> Migrants are among the poorest workers in the United States. The average migrant worker is a twenty-eight-year-old male, born in Mexico, who earns about $5,000 a year for twenty-five weeks of farm work. His life expectancy is forty-nine years. <<< I'm hoping some things changed since 1995, but as someone used to to construction in California and had to compete against dry-wallers earning $3/hour, I am doubtful. One would have to be very careful in choosing "ethical food," lest they have tunnel vision in only protecting animals, and by their pure nature of replacing lost calories with more vegetables, they encourage more human slavery in the world, and yes... in America.

paupino_masano 14y ago
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's hardly the same thing. Getting paid vs being "caged" then killed is a very different argument.
- dizzystar 14y ago
  This is an ethical bounds area. Although I am against murder of any human, I also think that locking a 20-year-old in prison for 60 years is a far more inhumane punishment than a hanging. In my opinion, slavery is far worse than death. Could you imagine working under a hot sun for 15 hour days only to wake up and do it all over again everyday for the rest of your life? Supposedly, this stuff was banned throughout the whole world but it is still ubiquitous. People and politicians actively encourage it by looking the other way, not caring, or justifying the use of slavery because of a pretty contract. I do feel some pity for the animals dying for my own health, but in the same token, if I was not dependent on the local super-market, I would end up hunting it myself. For certain, America treats its animals far better than other countries. I won't eat veil, shark fin, or foie gras. There is a huge difference between inflicting outright suffering and growing an animal for the purposes of slaughter.
rflrob 14y ago

adrianhoward 14y ago

In my experience, a fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites and technophobes, and vanishingly few of the technology embracing ethivegs are generally interested in science. Absolutely no ethivegs that I have met has been aware of in vitro meat research. Possibly it's a US/UK thing - but that's pretty much 100% the opposite of my experience.

tossacct 14y ago
It makes me very happy to hear that there are parts of the world where my anecdotal experiences are not representative of the real statistics. Note, I expressed that among technologically inclined ethivegs there was universal acceptance of the idea among those that I introduced it to, meaning that their hearts and minds still work...they just aren't hackers or engineers that see a problem and then try to fix it using whatever technology possible, extant or not :D. RE luddites: there is a vast number of luddite ethivegs that reject any technology that they didn't create themselves - including metal, medicines, making paper, and etc. It can be a brutal life and I imagine it is only possible in some areas of the world. They also acknowledge that they only survive due to law enforcement protecting them with armaments that they do not allow themselves to use. The real crazies do all that and then refuse to use domesticated animals! Fruitarianism, eat your heart out :D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism