I’m vegan and I’ve always thought culture grown meat is a frivilous waste of time and money. It doesn’t even make sense to me from an ethical angle either. Eating meat to me is the same thing as murder and cannibalism, and the explanation I always get is: lab meat is for people who wanna be vegan but still have cravings for meat. So should there be lab grown human bodies for people who have cravings for murder? That’s genuinely how I see it.
Vegan food already exists and it’s awesome. Furthermore religious vegetarians have existed in India for thousands of years and they have a rich culinary history that didn’t have to resort to imitation meat
I was gonna argue that people like flavor and variety and while yes Indian vegetarians (important distinction since the west pushes veganism and dairy also adds a lot of variety) have a lot of variety in their cuisine, if you’re asking a society already used to a vast breadth of animal products to just give them up, most people will miss that. Indians growing up vegetarian can’t miss what they didn’t already widely experience
But then i realized we don’t need lab grown meat we just need better isolation and synthesis of the flavor compounds that are present because there’s already a lot of good work done on recreating vegan meaty textures so if you can make those taste perfect then what’s the point of actually growing it outside of, as you said, to engage in a profane necromantic ritual
So should there be lab grown human bodies for people who have cravings for murder?
I’m going to say that yes, if there was a rehabilitation program in an non-capitalist/ethical state that integrated this after confirming the lab grown cadaver was truly not alive, I’d be fine with this.
This seems similar to the “all coal is bad” stance people take with China, without recognizing that there will likely be some coal around for a long time and if it’s inevitable, might as well try to make it as non-harmful to animals as possible.
If anyone starts growing full human bodies then I personally will kill everyone involved and burn down the facility. We’re not doing profane rituals to create undead monstrosities and I feel like I shouldn’t have to say that. No one is allowed to be frankenstein and if anyone tries I’m gonna kill them with a gun.
isn’t lab grown meat something that straight up wasn’t alive and thus couldn’t suffer. what’s wrong with that, if the issues with meat consumption are climate harm and the suffering of living animals in its creation /genq. for what it’s worth if i could eat imitation human meat that didn’t come from previously alive human i’d fuck that meal up
What’s wrong with it is that I think it’s weird to want to viscerally simulate something I regard as immoral. I’d also feel the same thing about virtual reality r*pe or whatever. I’m not someone who wants to eat meat though, real or artificial, so I don’t understand the impulse.
Culture grown meat is literally unholy necromancy for the sake of satiating bloodlust. I don’t know what other words to use. There are probably hundreds of better uses for growing flesh in a petri dish, like making stem cells or replacement organs or something, but there’s something inherently evil about wanting to do it for food.
Eating meat to me is the same thing as murder and cannibalism
It requires killing an animal at some point to do it with any consistency yes, unless you were to only seek out animals that die of natural causes or something. Is eating deer meat cannibalism though? No. Cannibalism has a very specific meaning and it’s trivializing of that meaning to say that a human eating a deer, for example, is cannibalism.
It’s a very “I live in an industrial world of abundance of food production” view to be able to look at human history and judge the majority of people in it as cannibals because they ate other animals as food sometimes. Odds are you are descended from people who at times had no choice but to do that to survive. Now does this mean those people all used factory farming? No. That part is a recent invention. Treating wildlife like nothing more than a mindless industrial resource is a recent cultural invention and factory farming practices are twisted. I have no problems agreeing with a judgment like that.
The problem with your view is that it shoves indigenous peoples who treat wildlife with respect but still use it as a source of food sometimes, and societies that mass consume factory farmed animals raised in horrific conditions, into the same narrow box. It’s the same type of thinking that leads people to saying all states are bad, even AES states. The form something takes can matter a lot.
I believe non-human animals are people on the same level as a human and should have the same rights as humans. Eating a deer is cannibalism because it’s consumption of a person’s flesh.
I’m also do actually agree that large industrial meat production is a worse thing than subsistence hunting and small-scale agriculture. I know the difference and yeah, one is preferable to the other. Unfortunate realities are better than mass exploitative death. I’m still a vegan though and believe in promoting non-human personhood and all the legal rights that comes with.
I believe non-human animals are people on the same level as a human and should have the same rights as humans.
Not sure how you’d manage that logistically because plenty of animals do not have societies anything like the way that humans do and can’t be communicated with like equals via spoken or written language, with only minor successes at times in figuring out ways to communicate with them. There are domesticated animals that can be trained to respond to keywords, but I wouldn’t call that a conversation.
So as far as I can tell, we’re either looking at major advances in science to be able to communicate with non-human animals, at which point the form of communication and the way they perceive the world may still be very alien to us and hard to contextualize in our societies, or we’re looking at anthropomorphizing things about them that aren’t human, which is a problem in its own way as it presumes that surface level appearance of human-like traits are deriving from the same basis as that of humans. And anthro’izing is not the same as respecting as a unique species. It’s saying “you must be doing this because [it reminds me of something I’d do].” It also means creating some pretty arbitrary lines as to what constitutes intelligent enough life to be deserving of these “rights”. Else-wise we can end up with somebody going to prison for killing ants in their home, which I would hope you agree would be an absurd end result of pursuing such rights.
To reiterate though, I would agree that animals should not be mistreated, like as in factory farming. That is a concrete issue with well documented problems and can be actioned upon in a way that this abstraction about rights and personhood cannot be actioned upon.
When I say afford animals the same legal rights as a human I do seriously mean it in that way. If a human attacks you, then yeah you defend yourself. If ants are in your home without being invited, then yes you get them to leave and if that fails you use violence. You’d do the same with a human. I’m a vegan, not a pacifist. And if a legal group wants to represent the ants and say they have squatters’ rights then I actually think that would be kinda fun and we should have those discussions.
I don’t know what level of communication is really necessary to say non-human animals deserve human rights. There are nonverbal humans and they still have full legal rights despite not being capable of communicating.
Like a coworker of mine once asked if since I believe animals are people, if a duck should be allowed to drive a car. And I replied that if a duck is able to pass a driving test and line up at the DMV to get a license, then yeah let that duck drive. Same as any other person. I’ll give any duck who learns how to drive a 1994 Toyota corolla.
And if a legal group wants to represent the ants and say they have squatters’ rights then I actually think that would be kinda fun and we should have those discussions.
I think that’d be a sure way to worsen the reputation of vegans and make mockery of concerns about things like factory farming.
There are nonverbal humans and they still have full legal rights despite not being capable of communicating.
Nonverbal humans can learn other ways to communicate (such as sign) and they are born human, so it’s easy to understand them as belonging to the human species and thus deserving of the same rights. It’s a world of difference between that and trying to understand why any given non-human species does what it does, how it perceives the world, and so on.
I’m vegan and I’ve always thought culture grown meat is a frivilous waste of time and money. It doesn’t even make sense to me from an ethical angle either. Eating meat to me is the same thing as murder and cannibalism, and the explanation I always get is: lab meat is for people who wanna be vegan but still have cravings for meat. So should there be lab grown human bodies for people who have cravings for murder? That’s genuinely how I see it.
Vegan food already exists and it’s awesome. Furthermore religious vegetarians have existed in India for thousands of years and they have a rich culinary history that didn’t have to resort to imitation meat
I was gonna argue that people like flavor and variety and while yes Indian vegetarians (important distinction since the west pushes veganism and dairy also adds a lot of variety) have a lot of variety in their cuisine, if you’re asking a society already used to a vast breadth of animal products to just give them up, most people will miss that. Indians growing up vegetarian can’t miss what they didn’t already widely experience
But then i realized we don’t need lab grown meat we just need better isolation and synthesis of the flavor compounds that are present because there’s already a lot of good work done on recreating vegan meaty textures so if you can make those taste perfect then what’s the point of actually growing it outside of, as you said, to engage in a profane necromantic ritual
I’m going to say that yes, if there was a rehabilitation program in an non-capitalist/ethical state that integrated this after confirming the lab grown cadaver was truly not alive, I’d be fine with this.
This seems similar to the “all coal is bad” stance people take with China, without recognizing that there will likely be some coal around for a long time and if it’s inevitable, might as well try to make it as non-harmful to animals as possible.
If anyone starts growing full human bodies then I personally will kill everyone involved and burn down the facility. We’re not doing profane rituals to create undead monstrosities and I feel like I shouldn’t have to say that. No one is allowed to be frankenstein and if anyone tries I’m gonna kill them with a gun.
Don’t worry they’ll just grow a person’s thighs for that Bostonian Butt and only a few neurons (all taught to play DOOM) will be involved
isn’t lab grown meat something that straight up wasn’t alive and thus couldn’t suffer. what’s wrong with that, if the issues with meat consumption are climate harm and the suffering of living animals in its creation /genq. for what it’s worth if i could eat imitation human meat that didn’t come from previously alive human i’d fuck that meal up
What’s wrong with it is that I think it’s weird to want to viscerally simulate something I regard as immoral. I’d also feel the same thing about virtual reality r*pe or whatever. I’m not someone who wants to eat meat though, real or artificial, so I don’t understand the impulse.
Culture grown meat is literally unholy necromancy for the sake of satiating bloodlust. I don’t know what other words to use. There are probably hundreds of better uses for growing flesh in a petri dish, like making stem cells or replacement organs or something, but there’s something inherently evil about wanting to do it for food.
Youre just kink shaming
It requires killing an animal at some point to do it with any consistency yes, unless you were to only seek out animals that die of natural causes or something. Is eating deer meat cannibalism though? No. Cannibalism has a very specific meaning and it’s trivializing of that meaning to say that a human eating a deer, for example, is cannibalism.
It’s a very “I live in an industrial world of abundance of food production” view to be able to look at human history and judge the majority of people in it as cannibals because they ate other animals as food sometimes. Odds are you are descended from people who at times had no choice but to do that to survive. Now does this mean those people all used factory farming? No. That part is a recent invention. Treating wildlife like nothing more than a mindless industrial resource is a recent cultural invention and factory farming practices are twisted. I have no problems agreeing with a judgment like that.
The problem with your view is that it shoves indigenous peoples who treat wildlife with respect but still use it as a source of food sometimes, and societies that mass consume factory farmed animals raised in horrific conditions, into the same narrow box. It’s the same type of thinking that leads people to saying all states are bad, even AES states. The form something takes can matter a lot.
I believe non-human animals are people on the same level as a human and should have the same rights as humans. Eating a deer is cannibalism because it’s consumption of a person’s flesh.
I’m also do actually agree that large industrial meat production is a worse thing than subsistence hunting and small-scale agriculture. I know the difference and yeah, one is preferable to the other. Unfortunate realities are better than mass exploitative death. I’m still a vegan though and believe in promoting non-human personhood and all the legal rights that comes with.
Not sure how you’d manage that logistically because plenty of animals do not have societies anything like the way that humans do and can’t be communicated with like equals via spoken or written language, with only minor successes at times in figuring out ways to communicate with them. There are domesticated animals that can be trained to respond to keywords, but I wouldn’t call that a conversation.
So as far as I can tell, we’re either looking at major advances in science to be able to communicate with non-human animals, at which point the form of communication and the way they perceive the world may still be very alien to us and hard to contextualize in our societies, or we’re looking at anthropomorphizing things about them that aren’t human, which is a problem in its own way as it presumes that surface level appearance of human-like traits are deriving from the same basis as that of humans. And anthro’izing is not the same as respecting as a unique species. It’s saying “you must be doing this because [it reminds me of something I’d do].” It also means creating some pretty arbitrary lines as to what constitutes intelligent enough life to be deserving of these “rights”. Else-wise we can end up with somebody going to prison for killing ants in their home, which I would hope you agree would be an absurd end result of pursuing such rights.
To reiterate though, I would agree that animals should not be mistreated, like as in factory farming. That is a concrete issue with well documented problems and can be actioned upon in a way that this abstraction about rights and personhood cannot be actioned upon.
When I say afford animals the same legal rights as a human I do seriously mean it in that way. If a human attacks you, then yeah you defend yourself. If ants are in your home without being invited, then yes you get them to leave and if that fails you use violence. You’d do the same with a human. I’m a vegan, not a pacifist. And if a legal group wants to represent the ants and say they have squatters’ rights then I actually think that would be kinda fun and we should have those discussions.
I don’t know what level of communication is really necessary to say non-human animals deserve human rights. There are nonverbal humans and they still have full legal rights despite not being capable of communicating.
Like a coworker of mine once asked if since I believe animals are people, if a duck should be allowed to drive a car. And I replied that if a duck is able to pass a driving test and line up at the DMV to get a license, then yeah let that duck drive. Same as any other person. I’ll give any duck who learns how to drive a 1994 Toyota corolla.
I think that’d be a sure way to worsen the reputation of vegans and make mockery of concerns about things like factory farming.
Nonverbal humans can learn other ways to communicate (such as sign) and they are born human, so it’s easy to understand them as belonging to the human species and thus deserving of the same rights. It’s a world of difference between that and trying to understand why any given non-human species does what it does, how it perceives the world, and so on.