Guest guest Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 One e-mail objected to manufactured meat as "continuing to associate [animals] as a food product furthering the recognition of animals to an even lower level then already suffered effectively exaggerating them as mere exploitable object." Another e-mail wrote: "(1) IF we hold that "animals are people, too", AND(2) engineered meat begins with an animal cell, AND(3) we conclude that it's ok to eat this "meat", THEN: wouldn't it be o.k. to start with a human cell,then, too, for "consumption"?" The focus on whether eating manufactured non-human animal "meat" would be morally equivalent to eating human "meat" seems a little abstract to me. As far as I know, there's no market for human meat. Eating engineered non-human "meat" would, as I understand it, at least have begun with the exploitation of an animal (the original animal from which the cells were derived). And I certainly agree that it is unfortunate (to understate it) that animals are not considered valuable in their own right. But, although related, the suffering that farmed animals experience is much more troubling to me (and I imagine to the animals as well!) than the fact that some people do not value non-human animals. Again, they're related, but what people do to animals has much greater consequences to animals than what people think about them. Perhaps engineered meat won't reduce animal suffering, but I think it has great potential to do so. If it significantly reduces animal suffering, even if it doesn't necessarily raise consciousness, I'm all for it. My 2 cents. Peace. Thea FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.