dragonblaze

If technology advances enough to make in vitro growing of meat
possible (that is meat grown from a cell sample), would vegans have
any ethnical objections to such meat? After all, once the initial cell
sample is taken, no animals would be involved in such production of
meat.

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

rupert

It depends on the vegan. Here is one view.

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/a...ube-meat.shtml

I myself don't think there would be any serious grounds for making an
objection.

rupert

There's a bit more information here:

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...2007-05-15.htm

The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its
stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I
think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would
currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro
steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for
human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless
some major breakthrough is made.

I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter
Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the
end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he
mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it.

I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to
criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it
is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue
about.

I'm asked about this one all the time and my attitude is "Well, of
course, but what is the relevance now? That's not going to happen in
the immediate future".

Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.

Most likely because you don't really care about the animals
themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence.
Let's try another one anyway:

Do you think it would be better if the animals could be
raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them
to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it
may be better in some cases, but not in others?

dutch

People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's the
nature of the human ego.

rupert

Dear David Harrison,

I would like very much to give you a detailed explanation of why I
believe your arguments are unsatisfactory but I am currently working
full-time teaching mathematics, and also aiming to re-submit my Ph.D.
thesis by July 31, along with various other projects, and I may not be
able to get around to it any time soon. When my thesis is finished I
plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
the question of whether speciesism can be justified. When I finish the
first chapter I will post a link to it here; that will be my next
attempt to move the debate forward. I may possibly have time to take
up the matter with you then. I am sorry I cannot give you an answer at
this stage.

rupert

Did you read Dawkins' "God Delusion"? And there was a response by a
thelogian who also had some scientific training, called "The Dawkins
Delusion". There's a dispute which will probably keep a few people
busy for a while.

dutch

No, I've heard of it though. Generally I think of "religion" and "worship"
as manifestions of the "focus on the finger" phenomenon. If you ever try to
indicate something to a dog by pointing towards it the dog will simply look
eagerly at your outstretched finger, not that at which you are pointing. The
dog lacks the conscious awareness to grasp that your finger is indicating
something beyond itself. That's essentially what people have done with the
messages of awakened spiritual teachers, instead of learning from the
lessons, they deify the teacher, then proceed to distrust and demonize
anyone who does not make the same unconscious error. Instead of moving man
towards higher consciousness, religion has taken man deeper into conflict.

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not. A very good project would be to get a group
of open minded--NOT!!! elimination minded!--students to decide
which livestock animals they feel have lives of positive value,
and which they feel do not, and compare the numbers. Also,
if they are willing to go the extra mile, let them figure any
improvements they think could be made to certain situations
that would give positive value to lives which they currently
consider to be negative.


In all animals, or only in humans? I consider all animals to
be speciesists, including humans, and that as a group they
must be in order to survive. If some members of that group
want to try to pretend they are not, and try to perform actions
proving they are not, it hopefully won't be disastrous to the
group as a whole as long as the percentage of members
trying to do so is not too high. For example people must continue
to work harder and harder to prevent "aras" ie. eliminationists
from having any more negative influence on humanity, domestic
animals and wildlife than they are having.


It could get combined with the math project. Animals judged
to have lives of negative value might in some cases be better
of in a comatose condition, like battery hens. But. Other alternatives
might be considered ethically superior, like if hens in cage free
houses are considered to generally have decent lives of positive
it would probably be better to let them experience their lives instead
of never knowing anything about it.

dutch

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, besides, the
sheer number of animals who "experience life" is not important to anyone
with half a clue. What matters to people of good faith is that animals who
are raised by humans are well treated, and that our actions do not cause
undue harm to the environment.