Artificial Meat - Would that be OK with you (and PETA)?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I highly doubt all farming jobs will become obsolete, the trend will just continue like it has been for quite some time now. "Real" meat will still have demand regardless as people have some strange notions sometimes, sorry if I don't shed a tear for all the people who lost their jobs, I'm too busy making sure that doesn't happen to me in my field. Cannot stop Creative Distruction and bitching about it don't help either. I wouldn't be surprised if the farmers who are cut out of the loop turn too something else entirely like Moisture Farming
Or Solar Farming, Wind Farming etc. You are right when you say things aren't black and white and predicting the future by saying "this will put farmers out of work" or some such is well wrong as the demand for meat is ever growing we can hardly keep up with the demand and in trying to keep up with the demand we are polluting large portions of our planet in larger factory farms which now dominate the landscape.




posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Great news for the human race against the replians, cannables or vampires.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

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).



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I'd actually have to try it before I'd say whether or not I'd regularly eat it. Honestly, as best as I can tell, they won't be able to replicate the specific qualities of certain cuts. a NY strip is a totally different flavor from a rump roast, even if they're from the same cow. Besides, in eliminating the fat in meat, some cuts would lose their flavor. Remember, the reason that NY Strips, T-Bones, and other top quality cuts are so flavorful is due in large part to the fat in these cuts. Perhaps it would be a viable substitute for boneless cuts, such as boneless chicken breasts and pork chops (though fat would still be required in the pork chops to round out the flavor). I'll wait until it's available, and make my decision then.

I doubt this will ever replace meat altogether, though. Some of us do like the finer tastes of certain cuts of animal-grown meats.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
This would be a super important technology to have just in case of a climatological disaster such as a nuclear winter event brought on either by nuclear exchange or cometary impact or a Yellowstone super eruption.

If grasslands are decimated by severe prolonged weather conditions, large herds can not be supported and a shortage of meat protein will develop and large numbers of people will starve as the food chain shrinks.

Sure it may not be as good as the real thing, but in the crunch, beggars can't be choosers.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
This would be a super important technology to have just in case of a climatological disaster such as a nuclear winter event brought on either by nuclear exchange or cometary impact or a Yellowstone super eruption.

Sure it may not be as good as the real thing, but in the crunch, beggars can't be choosers.


True - but that's also assuming there'd be enough scientific knowledge and resources left afterwards to continue production of cloned meat products.

I'm not sure that'd be guaranteed.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468
I doubt this will ever replace meat altogether, though. Some of us do like the finer tastes of certain cuts of animal-grown meats.


Yea I believe this too. It might just be like a thing for people who want to eat meat but also don't want animals to be harmed....don't ask I have actually ate food with people like this, they complain in between bites of the burger
. But more than anything I think it will be a jump in cloning and what not. If they are able to mass produce "cloned" meat then doing human sking would be possible instead of having to graph skin from ur leg you could just take some from the local shop lol.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
To shout NO! at the top of my lungs!

You people have screwed with the Earth until now it is becoming uninhabitable. This is just one more step towards a world fit only for the Greys. You see, we Indians eat MEAT and so we try and see to it that MEAT lives well and free in a clean environment and reproduces instead of heading towards extinction.

See to it that MEAT lives well, and that FUR lives well, and that green living FOOD and MEDICINE and TIMBER lives well. Then you, too will live well.

Leave this kind of junk on the spaceship where it belongs.

Chakotay swallows a whole live mussel in protest.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
"You people"?!

Which "us people"?

The ones who can see it as a viable form of nutrition for areas which simply cannot support livestock of their own?

Those who see it as a way of cutting down on animal cruelty?

Or those who see it as a possible way of solving more than one issue?

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for your suggestions. But in reality, they won't work for the family living at the edge of the Sahara.

"Faux" meat, on the other hand, just might be an option for them...you know?

(fwiw, I won't be trading my steak anytime soon. I'd rather see the land nurtured, and that in turn leads to the community being nurtured. But it's just not viable for everyone on this planet to do so...)

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
One slight problem:

Once we replace chickens, cows, etc, make it nice and cheap and easy what is the point in all of these animals? You'll find a lot less sheep, cows, etc, in the fields due to the fact farmers will almost become obsolete (not over night).



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Double Post.

[edit on 11/7/2005 by Odium]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
...those who see it as a possible way of solving more than one issue...


I can think of many ways of solving more than one issue, most of which involve bows and arrows. Go read the book Ecotopia.

That family on the edge of the Sahara needs their traditional lifestyle left alone- without Western overpopulation-provoking 'help', Western pollution-provoking 'help', or Western slavery-provoking 'help'. They need their habitats restored, their wildlife restored, and their traditional diets left intact.

I can hear it now:



Bedouin to his wife:
Honey, please watch the 7-11 while I shishkebab some more Meat-X from Phillips-Conoco. I so love these Amerikans. No more pesky, stinking goats.


I think not. The good news is, PETA will not survive the bottleneck.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Ehh Chakotay you do know that population growth for poorer(or as you put it more "traditional" cultures) have a higher population growth then the West right now? Countries within the next 20-30 years are going to be talking about how to deal with plummeting birthrates, so basically what I'm saying is in order to get our population in check, we are morally obligated to make sure every single person on this planet is at least as well fed and medicated as us over here, as well dependant on an Urban lifestyle it's been proven that in the City families generally have less kids while in the Rural area's the opposit is true.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
One slight problem:

You'll find a lot less sheep, cows, etc, in the fields due to the fact farmers will almost become obsolete.


So instead of sheep and cow shat adding to global warming there might be more trees?

Not really a problem imo


edit - censor thought original shat was an expletive

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Strodyn]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
... so basically what I'm saying is in order to get our population in check, we are morally obligated to make sure every single person on this planet is at least as well fed and medicated as us over here, as well dependant on an Urban lifestyle it's been proven that in the City families generally have less kids while in the Rural area's the opposit is true.


You assume continuity. I assure you that you and your so-called 'civilization' are not guaranteed a permanent venue. Quite the contrary!

I emphatically do not want to be what you assume to be well-fed, medicated, or to be a slave in one of your so-called 'cities'.

Superiority will be decided when two thousand years have passed- by Darwin.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by I See You
Where are we gonna put all the farmers who lose their farms when they no longer have any source of income?

They can convert their farms to growing hemp for food, fuel, and fiber.
Doesn't everyone know about this already?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
You don't have to worry about this taking away jobs from farmers - corporate farming already has.

In the 1930s, there were close to seven million farms in the United States. Today, around two million farms remain.

Of that number, roughly 565,000 are family operations.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Being in agriculture myself, I find it upsetting the comments people make about farming practices.

It also upsets me to hear the same old, farmers are uneducated, the products are not safe yadda yadda.

Farming will exist as long as people need to eat food. Until then you will need to eat something. Do you think this lab built meat will be cheap? Replace the entire concept of cattle, chicken etc farming? No.

Perhaps to some extent, but I can gurantee they wont be eating it in poor countries.

Think it will be cheap? How much do medical drugs cost? Look at how big the pills are, and look at how much they cost. Do you really think this meat will be cheap to produce? No.

Just to settle some arguements, I do this whenever I see someone talking about it, its my way to get the word out.

NO farmers do not want income support programs etc. They want action, and action only needs to be taken once. Get rid of the programs and get to the real work on fixing the markets.

YES agriculture products can and are safe to eat. Of course there are some exceptions, but the majority is safe. You can argue this, but you will have to stop eating.

YES the family farm is dieing and yes it does make me sick.

YES large scale industrial farming is wrong and killing the industry. I will say that 90% of all problems (BSE etc) come from these folks bad practices.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Now I happen to be a vegetarian (have been my whole life
) yes well I would not eat this meat. Some people aren't vegetarians just because the cruelty thing. I could actually care less. When all this lab made meat gets made I don't think vegetarians and vegans are just gonna give up what theyre doing and start eating this crazy meat. Even if I did eat meat I don't think I would eat some lab grown meat. MEH.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think I might enjoy soylent green made from PETA'ns; with cheese and a bottle of Merlot.
"It's PEOPLE!!"





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join