Guest guest Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 I completely agree with Thea. Saying that a move to manufactured meat won't help animals is like saying that ending slavery wasn't helpful to African Americans. The same argument could be made: After slavery, the general public opinion was still that black people were inferior to whites. Americans with darker skin still had to suffer indignities, work demeaning jobs for lower pay, and even had to survive a violent backlash from those who were upset about abolition. If the story had ended there then perhaps you could say that ending slavery didn't do much - but it didn't end there. African Americans slowly gained more and more ground as the years went by. The Civil Rights Movement picked up in the 60's and eventually anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws made it illegal to treat someone differently just because of the color of their skin. Even though there is still some ground to cover societally most of us are now enlightened enough individually to realize that all humans are fundamentally the same, and all deserve the same rights. It's just that many of us on this board would also extend some variation of that statement to include all animals - not just humans. Nobody here is claiming that manufactured meat is going to instantly end all animal suffering, but it is clearly a step in the right direction. Animals will never make much progress as long as the vast majority of humans eat animal-derived meat, but the sad reality is that the vast majority is going to continue to eat meat. There is no magic wand that is suddenly going to make everyone stop eating it - vegetarian outreach, while necessary, is a slow, individual process that will likely never become mainstream enough on it's own. However, if we could at least cut the animals as much out of the meat production picture as possible we would be acheiving two objectives. First, we would be eliminating most of the worst abuses against individual animals. And second, we would be paving the way for future progress. Once there is no need for cruelty in order for people to have their meat it will become increasingly unacceptable to the general public for cruelty to occur at all. -Mike Borg --- Thea Langsam <thea_langsam wrote: > 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. ______________________ " All beings tremble before violence. All fear death, all love life. See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do? " - Buddha FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 At Wed, 26 Oct 2005 it looks like Michael Borg composed: <humbly_snipped> > .... Animals will > never make much progress as long as the vast majority > of humans eat animal-derived meat, but the sad reality > is that the vast majority is going to continue to eat > meat. I was just explaining that same concept to a friend yesterday with regards to the " War On Drugs... " whereas we will never win if everyone keeps up their appetite for drugs. Through education and outreach there is hope that the message of " recovery " can work. They have " rehab " for drug addicts, too bad no programs for " meat " addicts. Then we would have " MA " meetings (Meat Anonymous) right? Just my $0.02 -- Bill Schoolcraft PO Box 210076 San Francisco, CA 94121 http://billschoolcraft.com ~ " You do best what you like most. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 Bill wrote, " ...we will never win if everyone keeps up their appetite for drugs ... They have " rehab " for drug addicts, too bad no programs for " meat " addicts. " I very much agree with what you said about winning the war on drugs. I'm not sure I agree that this is a good comparison to make, though, to meat-eating. Eating meat is harmful to the animals, the environment, and to a person's health. Eating lab meat, if it is truly grown from cells and not from " lab animals " , would greatly reduce the harm to the animals and to the environment. It would do nothing for the eater's own health, but, to a degree, that is her/his choice. I know there are huge health care costs associated with eating animal products, but those would remain as they are now. So, all things considered, I'd have to say I think that people eating lab meat is way better than those same people eating meat from slaughtered animals. Of course, I'd prefer that everyone be vegan. Karen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 Lets not get carried away and start comparing meat consumption with drug consumption and veg*anism with the " war " on drugs. Most people who eat meat do so because they feel that it is a matter of survival. Most don't eat meat to cause suffering to the animals; it is just that, in their (flawed) view, the gain to their survival outweighs the suffering caused to an animal. To them, animal protein is the only good source of quality nutrients. Now, if we could grow animal cells in lab vats; mush them together to form " burgers " and " hotdogs " , then my guess is that a lot more people would opt for these 'laburgers' as an option. Firstly, it might be cheaper to grow them; and secondly, the ethical justification would be easier to make. Aside: if you've eaten those " Quorn " products, you have eaten lab-grown stuff. Where will the seed cells come from? I don't think an animal (or human, for that matter) would mind losing a few cells if the other option was more bleak. However, these lab-grown cells come with their own problems. What will they feed these cells? What'll happen to the byproducts? We don't know. In general: every " laburger " or " synthodog " eaten will mean less meat from an animal; and in general will reduce animal suffering, which is A Good Thing. Let not " perfect " be the enemy of the " good " (an attitude too often taken in these circles). All of this IMNSHO, of course... ;-) Ajay --- Bill Schoolcraft <Bill wrote: > I was just explaining that same concept to a friend > yesterday > with regards to the " War On Drugs... " whereas we > will never win > if everyone keeps up their appetite for drugs. > Through > education and outreach there is hope that the > message of > " recovery " can work. > > They have " rehab " for drug addicts, too bad no > programs for > " meat " addicts. > > Then we would have " MA " meetings (Meat Anonymous) > right? > > Just my $0.02 FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Michael Borg wrote:And second, we would be paving the way for future progress. Once there is no need for cruelty in order for people to have their meat it will become increasingly unacceptable to the general public for cruelty to occur at all. Ah, the future! I agree with the Borg. As many of us know, on Star Trek, everyone eats meat that does not come from animals, they use nano-technology to make it.With every technological advance, animals are being saved. Even Viagra is credited with saving certain animals from being killed solely to be used for aphrodisiac purposes.tony 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.