Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I hate to state the screamingly obvious, but a biology degree doth not a better person guarantee.
The conjunctive "and" was just meant as "and", and not as "therefore" (I am not an English native speaker).
There's a HUGE grey area - one involving many, many steps - between "current brutal methods" and "other methods" of meat production; to ignore
this is not denying, but encouraging ignorance.
Between current methods and absence of current methods there are many degrees:
1. Industrial meat production.
2. Industrial meat production with disease control.
3. Industrial meat production with animal welfare preoccupations (forced by law).
--- This line marks the best we can get with industrial production, since profit maximizing goals will defeat any attempt at improvement.
4. Natural meat production. This differs from 3 in that the welfare goals are more assumed and the consumer is supposed to value this aspect.
5. Natural meat production on a non-economical basis. This is the traditional production for personal consumption and occasional sale.
--- This line marks the best we can get with natural production.
6. Non-natural production. These are methods based on direct growth of cells on a substrate. From a certain point, these methods can be improved
without reliance on live animals for experimentation.
It's not as black and white as you appear to be implying here. Not to mention...who are we to force a perhaps unwanted "education" on a person
who is a seventh generation animal farmer? Where do we get that right?
There are always two options. We know how impopular anti-economic legislation can be. Many farmers just wish to earn more profits, which is
understandable. They only care (as the rest of the population) if 30% of their chickens die of heat-stroke because that's a loss of money. The second
option is to do nothing. I believe that in the long run the forms of cultured meat will become cheaper, more healthy, more practical to produce than
the current alternatives. Then, the farmers will become biologists if they want to survive economically.
What's next? Do we ban all leather production, too? What exactly are we going to do with the skyrocketing unemployment rates after we've done
away with all animal produce jobs?
Once we move the bulk of the animal production to non-natural methods, this will change the way we look at other uses of animal by-products. The only
reason we use leather is "because it is there". If it is not there, it will seem awkward to raise a herd of cows just to get their hides. This kind
of natural production will go on for a certain time, until it becomes economically insignificant enough to be surpassed by other concerns. At this
point, it will be outlawed. By then, there will be no more traditional farmers (except, perhaps, in Africa and other out-of-the-way places).