# lab-grown meat--yay or nay?



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

This sounds positively revolting although I'm unable at present to really figure out why. Something about disembodied living flesh that irks me. While nominally I can see the point, idk it just seems horror movie on some level. Could it be because maybe we'll start growing and eating human flesh? idk what my objections are exactly but I have them.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

To be honest I'd probably just embrace vegetarianism than take up consuming frankenmeat. I hardly eat much meat as it is, it's not much a stretch for me to simply cut it out completely. Too much weirdness with this for me, once you divorce flesh from the being well really there's nothing to stop a lab growing human flesh and putting that on the supermarket shelves. Then there's the whole baby brains pate and all sorts of stuff that's thoroughly horrifying to think about. Afterall, this isn't from an actual human, it's just lab grown cells so really no problem right?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Ardielley said:


> Well to play Devil's Advocate, most people in the first world don't "need" to eat animals for sustenance, anyway. Sure, meat and other animal products provide nutrients that are important, but almost all of these nutrients can be found in plant-based sources, so it's not essential that we eat animal products to meet our nutritional needs. You say yourself that taking a life unnecessarily can't be morally justified, so if animal products aren't necessary, how is killing animals for these products morally justified?


She didn't say taking a life unnecessarily can't be justified, just that taking a life for a product that can be grown in a lab can't be justified. If you can't get the product otherwise, then there's at least a reason for it, whether or not you agree that the ends justify the means.


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

It's a no for me. Anytime I think of lab-grown meats, I remember that chicken scene from Eraserhead.

Really, though, we've been eating cultivated foodstuff for a while now and with how much processed foods we intake, there probably wouldn't be that much of a material difference. The negative reaction is purely gut-focused.

Also, I'm pretty sure lobbyists have made it possible for farmed, "artificial" and GMO foods to be sold without being labeled. Unless you grow your own food or go straight to a butcher for your meat, you've probably been eating something artificial anyway.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

They will also be focused on creating employment opportunities for the elderly, and as a part of their health care, their remains will be taken care of upon their death at no cost to the family.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Ardielley said:


> Well to play Devil's Advocate, most people in the first world don't "need" to eat animals for sustenance, anyway. Sure, meat and other animal products provide nutrients that are important, but almost all of these nutrients can be found in plant-based sources, so it's not essential that we eat animal products to meet our nutritional needs. You say yourself that taking a life unnecessarily can't be morally justified, so if animal products aren't necessary, how is killing animals for these products morally justified?



...and introducing new, great-tasting, Soylent GREEN.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

It probably won't taste very good for a long time.


----------



## Ardielley (Aug 4, 2013)

dizzycactus said:


> She didn't say taking a life unnecessarily can't be justified, just that taking a life for a product that can be grown in a lab can't be justified. If you can't get the product otherwise, then there's at least a reason for it, whether or not you agree that the ends justify the means.


The point I was trying to make was that meat -- whether lab-grown or otherwise -- isn't necessary for human survival (and is therefore an unnecessary form of cruelty if not lab-grown). If I misinterpreted her point, that wasn't my intention.

However, whether or not there's a "reason" for something should never be the full determinant of its morality. There have been reasons for many things historically that we now see as immoral, so using that reasoning to justify what we do to animals doesn't quite hold water IMO.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Ardielley said:


> The point I was trying to make was that meat -- whether lab-grown or otherwise -- isn't necessary for human survival (and is therefore an unnecessary form of cruelty if not lab-grown). If I misinterpreted her point, that wasn't my intention.
> 
> However, whether or not there's a "reason" for something should never be the full determinant of its morality. There have been reasons for many things historically that we now see as immoral, so using that reasoning to justify what we do to animals doesn't quite hold water IMO.


Well it would be idiotic to make a blanket statement that anything is justified so long as there is any reason for it at all. Moral justification isn't based on the fact that there is a reason, but rather whether the reason is compelling enough. Shoot someone because you feel like it? Immoral. Shoot someone who's got a nuclear warhead strapped to his chest and is trying to push the detonator? Suddenly, you're a hero. 

In this case, killing animals may be justified if it's the only way to obtain meat, but killing animals when lab grown meat is a viable alternative becomes unjustified. That is the overall point. She doesn't feel like meat needs to be absolutely necessary to be justified to her in the first place, so your statement seemed to be missing the point a little.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Nay, who knows what all these SJWs will turn their gaze on next if they actually manage to save the animals.

From an eating standpoint, if it tastes the same and have the same nutrients, and cost the same,
I couldn't care less.
I wouldn't do it to save the world, since the world can't really be saved.
But I would use it, especially if it was cheaper.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

Yeah, why the hell not? Every elimination of whatever ridiculous grievance leftists are harassing people over is a-ok for me!


----------



## Ardielley (Aug 4, 2013)

dizzycactus said:


> Well it would be idiotic to make a blanket statement that anything is justified so long as there is any reason for it at all. Moral justification isn't based on the fact that there is a reason, but rather whether the reason is compelling enough. Shoot someone because you feel like it? Immoral. Shoot someone who's got a nuclear warhead strapped to his chest and is trying to push the detonator? Suddenly, you're a hero.
> 
> In this case, killing animals may be justified if it's the only way to obtain meat, but killing animals when lab grown meat is a viable alternative becomes unjustified. That is the overall point. She doesn't feel like meat needs to be absolutely necessary to be justified to her in the first place, so your statement seemed to be missing the point a little.


"Compelling enough" according to who, though? The everyday consumer? I think when you make this argument, you're not taking into consideration the interests of those who suffer as a result of our choices. They haven't done anything wrong other than being born into the "wrong" body. 

I'd agree with you about meat production if there were no victims, but the fact is that billions of animals each year are raised in brutal conditions and killed before their time mostly because people like how they taste. I don't see this as a good enough reason for this to happen to them when we have so many other alternatives out there. If meat isn't necessary for our sustenance, then the fact that we're allowing all of this to happen on such a large scale is beyond wasteful.

Ultimately, I don't see most people ever choosing to abstain from animal products on their own volition, largely because the cruelty happens behind closed doors, which is the way these industries like it. They don't want people to see what's really happening. This is why I think lab meat could potentially be a game-changer. Hopefully it becomes a viable enough option where those who want to make more ethical purchases (the same ones right now who look for labels like "Free Range" or "Pasture-Raised") will create more demand for it and greatly reduce the number of animals dying each year.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Ardielley said:


> "Compelling enough" according to who, though? The everyday consumer? I think when you make this argument, you're not taking into consideration the interests of those who suffer as a result of our choices. They haven't done anything wrong other than being born into the "wrong" body.
> 
> I'd agree with you about meat production if there were no victims, but the fact is that billions of animals each year are raised in brutal conditions and killed before their time mostly because people like how they taste. I don't see this as a good enough reason for this to happen to them when we have so many other alternatives out there. If meat isn't necessary for our sustenance, then the fact that we're allowing all of this to happen on such a large scale is beyond wasteful.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't see most people ever choosing to abstain from animal products on their own volition, largely because the cruelty happens behind closed doors, which is the way these industries like it. They don't want people to see what's really happening. This is why I think lab meat could potentially be a game-changer. Hopefully it becomes a viable enough option where those who want to make more ethical purchases (the same ones right now who look for labels like "Free Range" or "Pasture-Raised") will create more demand for it and greatly reduce the number of animals dying each year.


Now you're arguing about something completely different to what it was initially about, and you've strawmanned my position simultaneously.


----------



## Allyrah (Nov 23, 2015)

No thanks, I don't want to be a guinea pig for some science experiment. Gross.


----------



## Ardielley (Aug 4, 2013)

dizzycactus said:


> Now you're arguing about something completely different to what it was initially about, and you've strawmanned my position simultaneously.


Care to elaborate? I can't read your mind to see what you interpret as me "strawmanning" your arguments.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Seriously, though, how do they stop it from growing once it's to the size I'd like? How do they attach it so it has feeling? 

Wait............I think I misunderstood......lol

No, I don't want any lab grown porterhouse. If those animals are smart enough to know why they are being reproduced, then they should be asking for A1 to spice them up a little. 

Oh soory. That's not nice. I'll put it on myself. 

Potatoes have eyes. Can they see? We better stop eating them. I like sour cream on mine. Can I get a salad with that? yummy castrated bulls.

They should eat only skunk weed. No one would eat them. Guess they aren't that smart.


----------



## Snowflake Minuet (Feb 20, 2016)

“A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.”~Leo Tolstoy​
Yes to anything that reduces suffering of animals and the planet. I see it as quite selfish to turn something down because it is not quite as "satisfying" to your tastes when it has the potential to do much greater good. However, the opinion that a vegetarian diet can't be every bit as delicious as an omnivorous diet is one that can't be very well informed--I'm not the only one I know who has enjoyed food that much more since eliminating meat because it has opened up so many options and so much creativity. Besides, we are intelligent beings and should utilize the sophisticated tools we've gained.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

It's a personal choice. The only thing I'd really want to see is lab grown organs that can be used to replace those in folks with them failing. Of course, we can't do that. We can only make meat which likely doesn't have the nutrients that come from grass and the foods they eat. Yes, those can be added by reproducing and injecting them. I'm pretty certain they would not be able to reproduce the natural high quality and the meat would be very expensive. 

It's ironic that some claim it is unnatural to eat meat. There is nothing more unnatural than lab produced anything. It's only been due to this unnatural ability that there has been a chance for those naturalists to stay healthy while only eating vegetables and fruit, many of which would be gone if they were left to their own devices. Starvation would be normal across the globe, until the population was reduced to something manageable by nature alone. 

I suppose all those naturalists do not use contraceptives, nor any form of abortion. Nor do they try to save someone dying of an illness, starvation, or an accident. It wouldn't be natural to intervene and save those who are naturally removed from the population. I don't imagine they'd be for euthanasia, either, since those who live long lives are naturally genetically superior.

It would be too ironic.

In the end, research science is very expensive. Companies are careful to withhold funding for projects with little ability to return and profit for their dollars. I'm not sure anyone could blame them. They are in business to make money, not give away what they produce. 

It would in no way surprise me that many of these ideas of what is immoral, come from these sources. If folks believe the crap they are telling them, they can raise the price of fruit, vegetables and meat. Natural sources of meat would be curtailed, forcing their prices ever higher due to limited availability. Naturally grown vegetables and fruit would be difficult to find, since more would need produced to feed the world. 

Lab produced meat, fruit and vegetables with lab produced vitamins and minerals would be touted as the very best thing we could consume. Their prices would soar. We would become more and more dependent on the very types of life that those naturalists are against. 

Labs would have their money for research and businesses would tighten their grip on the population. 

I'm not so sure this is what anyone wants.


----------



## Nekomata (May 26, 2012)

Erm probably not. I'm rather picky about food in the first place and this seems a bit too weird for me xD


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

charlie.elliot said:


> It does seem slightly gross, and it definitely has a huge marketing problem ahead of it.


You're assuming they have to label how they sourced the meat. Do they currently? If it looks the same under a microscope and contains the same material I can see this going unlabelled quite easily. They are still cells from a cow, just grown in a different way. The only label they're going to put on the stuff is 100% cruelty free meat. That won't be hard to sell. Also it's not going to show up on the shelf as mince meat, it will go into McBurgers and frozen ready meals for years before that happens. It will be introduced subversively and people will have it in their mouth before making a decision on weather it's a "gross" concept. People follow their wallet and stomach first, then ethics, then weirdness. This will be such an easy sell.


----------



## EidolonAlpha (Aug 11, 2014)

Definitely. And if it's not "as good as the real thing", I'd support it anyway, because guess what - science keeps improving things. And someday it may be possible that lab grown meat is even tastier and healthier.

Besides - humanity would be stupid to not develop an alternative to meat, since many of us are too selfish to give up eating animals and destroying the environment.


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

EidolonAlpha said:


> humanity would be stupid to not develop an alternative to meat.


Finn Cakes!


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

knifey said:


> You're assuming they have to label how they sourced the meat. Do they currently? If it looks the same under a microscope and contains the same material I can see this going unlabelled quite easily. They are still cells from a cow, just grown in a different way. The only label they're going to put on the stuff is 100% cruelty free meat. That won't be hard to sell. Also it's not going to show up on the shelf as mince meat, it will go into McBurgers and frozen ready meals for years before that happens. It will be introduced subversively and people will have it in their mouth before making a decision on weather it's a "gross" concept. People follow their wallet and stomach first, then ethics, then weirdness. This will be such an easy sell.


Interesting point. An article I read said it was "bland" and didn't really taste like regular meat, and I was thinking about how picky people are about food not tasting just right. But I wasn't thinking along the lines of fast food chains, where the meat really doesn't taste normal _anyway_, and people still eat it and don't think twice about it (most people). Thank you for pointing that out, it gives me more hope


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

pilgrim_12 said:


> It's a personal choice. The only thing I'd really want to see is lab grown organs that can be used to replace those in folks with them failing. Of course, we can't do that.


They are working on it!

Organs Made to Order | Science | Smithsonian

Scientists Grow Full-Sized, Beating Human Hearts From Stem Cells | Popular Science



> We can only make meat which likely doesn't have the nutrients that come from grass and the foods they eat. Yes, those can be added by reproducing and injecting them. I'm pretty certain they would not be able to reproduce the natural high quality and the meat would be very expensive.


Only at first. If it caught on, capitalism would do its work. If people liked it, I'm sure it would only be a matter of time before it became cheap, good tasting, and/or healthy (or at least 2 of those 3 things -- hitting all 3 can be difficult it seems). 



> It's ironic that some claim it is unnatural to eat meat.


I don't think "unnatural" is the argument. Of course it's natural -- little tiny animals have been doing it since the dawn of time. 



> There is nothing more unnatural than lab produced anything. It's only been due to this unnatural ability that there has been a chance for those naturalists to stay healthy while only eating vegetables and fruit, many of which would be gone if they were left to their own devices. Starvation would be normal across the globe, until the population was reduced to something manageable by nature alone.


Well in this apocalytic scenario you describe, I'm sure many people would be happy to indulge in a roasted squirrel or two just to survive. (I'm not really sure what you're trying to say so I might stop here).



> I suppose all those naturalists do not use contraceptives, nor any form of abortion. Nor do they try to save someone dying of an illness, starvation, or an accident. It wouldn't be natural to intervene and save those who are naturally removed from the population. I don't imagine they'd be for euthanasia, either, since those who live long lives are naturally genetically superior.


How did we get from lab-grown meat/ vegetarianism to abortion/ starvation/ euthanasia? I'm so confused. Lab-grown meat is a practical solution to a major environmental problem. You don't even have to bring in ethics or these laws or "natural" vs. "unnatural" if you don't want to (I really don't even know what natural/unnatural means in this context)... especially if you understand the science. 




> In the end, research science is very expensive. Companies are careful to withhold funding for projects with little ability to return and profit for their dollars. I'm not sure anyone could blame them. They are in business to make money, not give away what they produce.


Well, the hope is that lab-grown meat would be a solution that would catch on. Research is about progressing society-- if lab-grown meat seemed viable, the research would happen. That's what I hope for personally. 



> It would in no way surprise me that many of these ideas of what is immoral, come from these sources. If folks believe the crap they are telling them, they can raise the price of fruit, vegetables and meat. Natural sources of meat would be curtailed, forcing their prices ever higher due to limited availability. Naturally grown vegetables and fruit would be difficult to find, since more would need produced to feed the world.
> 
> Lab produced meat, fruit and vegetables with lab produced vitamins and minerals would be touted as the very best thing we could consume. Their prices would soar. We would become more and more dependent on the very types of life that those naturalists are against.
> 
> Labs would have their money for research and businesses would tighten their grip on the population.


I think the idea is for lab-grown meat to be just as healthy as natural meat. Seems a simple thing to fortify it with vitamins and other nutrients-- lots of foods are already fortified with B12, calcium, iodine, vitamin D etc. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/is-lab-grown-meat-good-for-us/278778/

I guess you're saying that if the labs somehow shut down we wouldn't have any meat and would therefore lose nutrient sources? Couldn't you say the same about cattle ranches and slaughterhouses? Also meat is not necessary for a healthy diet. Also in this doom and gloom scenario you're envisioning, people could raise chickens and whatnot...


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> They are working on it!
> 
> Organs Made to Order | Science | Smithsonian
> 
> Scientists Grow Full-Sized, Beating Human Hearts From Stem Cells | Popular Science


That's good and bad. The population will be affected. Unemployment could soar. I guess there are points to be made on all sides. 





charlie.elliot said:


> Only at first. If it caught on, capitalism would do its work. If people liked it, I'm sure it would only be a matter of time before it became cheap, good tasting, and/or healthy (or at least 2 of those 3 things -- hitting all 3 can be difficult it seems).


Capitalism would only do it's work to lower prices for a short time. It all depends on competition. In the hands of powerful corporations which have the finances to make this happen, there would only be few who could do it. 




charlie.elliot said:


> I don't think "unnatural" is the argument. Of course it's natural -- little tiny animals have been doing it since the dawn of time.


I think there are many valid arguments. 



charlie.elliot said:


> Well in this apocalytic scenario you describe, I'm sure many people would be happy to indulge in a roasted squirrel or two just to survive. (I'm not really sure what you're trying to say so I might stop here).


Let's take a look.

There is nothing more unnatural than lab produced anything.

Here, I mean the earth did not produce what was produced in the lab. Humans copied the process as closely as possible, but what was produced in the lab, was not harvested from nature or dug from the ground. I suppose you can think of it like gold. We have attempted to produce it in laboratory settings and cannot, but it occurs naturally in the earth. 


It's only been due to this unnatural ability that there has been a chance for those naturalists to stay healthy while only eating vegetables and fruit, many of which would be gone if they were left to their own devices. 

It's tough to get all the nutrients needed by only eating fruits and vegetables. Dietary supplements are needed to stay as healthy as possible. Vitamins are produced in the lab and are essential for health when only eating fruits and vegetables. 

Starvation would be normal across the globe, until the population was reduced to something manageable by nature alone.

Now, I go backward and say that due to the use of chemicals produced in the lab, we are able to kill diseases which would have made some edible plants extinct. It is a terrible way to make a point, but my point was that once we produce something and put it into widespread use, it would be devastating to humankind to take it away. 



charlie.elliot said:


> How did we get from lab-grown meat/ vegetarianism to abortion/ starvation/ euthanasia? I'm so confused. Lab-grown meat is a practical solution to a major environmental problem. You don't even have to bring in ethics or these laws or "natural" vs. "unnatural" if you don't want to (I really don't even know what natural/unnatural means in this context)... especially if you understand the science.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by, especially if you understand the science. Understanding how things work and believing they are the best way to do things are two different things. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should, simply in the name of science. 

What major environmental problem? I think it would help to know what your thinking about. Is it starvation, cow farts and burps, undeveloped or underdeveloped land, or the ethical treatment of animals? Maybe it's something else? I'm not sure which it is.




charlie.elliot said:


> Well, the hope is that lab-grown meat would be a solution that would catch on. Research is about progressing society-- if lab-grown meat seemed viable, the research would happen. That's what I hope for personally.


What problem are we trying to solve? I don't see one. This is what I was asking above. 





charlie.elliot said:


> I think the idea is for lab-grown meat to be just as healthy as natural meat. Seems a simple thing to fortify it with vitamins and other nutrients-- lots of foods are already fortified with B12, calcium, iodine, vitamin D etc.
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/is-lab-grown-meat-good-for-us/278778/


That's an idea I don't find palatable or necessary. And, I still don't have a clue why you think it's an improvement to what we are eating. That leaves me feeling suspicious. I don't think you want us to know, because we wouldn't like the truth. 



charlie.elliot said:


> I guess you're saying that if the labs somehow shut down we wouldn't have any meat and would therefore lose nutrient sources? Couldn't you say the same about cattle ranches and slaughterhouses? Also meat is not necessary for a healthy diet. Also in this doom and gloom scenario you're envisioning, people could raise chickens and whatnot...


Not in the same vein. Farmers want you to find more uses for their cattle. They don't make that much money from the consumption of their beef and beef by-products. So, why would it be worth the efforts for a lab to produce beef? 

Ahh, maybe now you will understand. Control the population more fully by only allowing certain labs to produce plastic beef since it is a safety hazard. 

I like a good steak, baked potato with sour cream and a salad with ranch dressing. I get a well balanced meal and feel pretty good afterward. Add a frosty glass of beer and I'm in heaven. 

"Beef, it's what's for dinner." - someone in the cattle industry.

It's the male of the species that is being eaten, anyway. Men are pigs and we need very few of them to keep the population stable. Right?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@pilgrim_12 I was referring to how bad meat production is for the environment, compared to other kinds of food production you could be doing with the same land -- 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/


----------



## Ttalkkugjil (Feb 1, 2017)

I wouldn't buy it. I'm a vegan.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> @*pilgrim_12* I was referring to how bad meat production is for the environment, compared to other kinds of food production you could be doing with the same land --
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/


Interesting. Thank you. I still don't want any lab produced beef. I would buy grass fed beef, if I could afford it. 

We humans are bad for the environment. It would be a much healthier planet if we were extinct. 

That is undeniable. 

This is another example of how good life is for some of us. For those who do not have it as good, I wish you the very best. Please think about spending your time and money on the poor and infirm, the unable to care for themselves, the destitute and the suffering, rather than cow farts. 

It's big business that has enabled so many cattle to be raised. It's big business who would produce plastic meat. See a conflict there?


----------



## EidolonAlpha (Aug 11, 2014)

Dust Mite said:


> I wouldn't buy it. I'm a vegan.


I don't get your argument... I'd buy it and I'm vegetarian, so... um... what? 
I mean, after you gathered the stem cell material, you don't need to keep living animals around.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

pilgrim_12 said:


> We humans are bad for the environment. It would be a much healthier planet if we were extinct.
> 
> That is undeniable.


Yup. However, it does seem like we may be extinct by 2150 or so, and after that, the planet can go about the business of healing itself. Hopefully, after we destroy ourselves, the planet can flourish with wonderful plants and animals (after all, there have already been, what, 5 major extinctions in our history, and life managed to bounce back) up until the time when the sun explodes. Kinda comforting really... 




> This is another example of how good life is for some of us. For those who do not have it as good, I wish you the very best. Please think about spending your time and money on the poor and infirm, the unable to care for themselves, the destitute and the suffering, rather than cow farts.
> 
> It's big business that has enabled so many cattle to be raised. It's big business who would produce plastic meat. See a conflict there?


What do you mean "plastic"?? Nothing here is plastic... the meat is grown out of cloned muscle cells.  So at a molecular level, its exactly the same as meat.



Dust Mite said:


> I wouldn't buy it. I'm a vegan.


So does a bunch of cloned cells count as "animal product"? There's no sentience involved, no nervous system, no awareness of life.
Although, the same is true of some kinds of shellfish and shrimp I've heard* (and certainly true of jellyfish), but those certainly count as animals to vegetarians.
Yeesh, this can get complicated lol.

*well, I mean, they do have a nervous system but not an actual brain that would be aware of anything (as far as we know I guess)


----------



## Ttalkkugjil (Feb 1, 2017)

I'm a vegan for health reasons, not ethical ones. To me, meat is meat.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yup. However, it does seem like we may be extinct by 2150 or so, and after that, the planet can go about the business of healing itself. Hopefully, after we destroy ourselves, the planet can flourish with wonderful plants and animals (after all, there have already been, what, 5 major extinctions in our history, and life managed to bounce back) up until the time when the sun explodes. Kinda comforting really...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





pilgrim_12 said:


> Interesting. Thank you. I still don't want any lab produced beef. I would buy grass fed beef, if I could afford it.
> 
> We humans are bad for the environment. It would be a much healthier planet if we were extinct.
> 
> ...



No comment on the most significant parts of my reply? hmmm....maybe you hate humankind more than you think? I've always considered this a possibility with those who have all they need, but mostly I've denied it. I hope I'm mistaken.


----------



## Ttalkkugjil (Feb 1, 2017)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yup. However, it does seem like we may be extinct by 2150 or so, and after that, the planet can go about the business of healing itself. Hopefully, after we destroy ourselves, the planet can flourish with wonderful plants and animals (after all, there have already been, what, 5 major extinctions in our history, and life managed to bounce back) up until the time when the sun explodes. Kinda comforting really...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not a vegan for ethical reasons though. Rather, I'm a vegan for health reasons. To me, meat is meat.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@pilgrim_12 sorry I couldn't really understand what you were trying to say and I thought you were being sarcastic or something.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Dust Mite said:


> I'm not a vegan for ethical reasons though. Rather, I'm a vegan for health reasons. To me, meat is meat.


I'm kind of interested... you don't have to reply if you don't want to, but I'm just curious, what kind of health issue are you talking about? recently I've been researching vegan diets and how to get nutrition from different sources, so it's something that's been on my mind lately. Mostly it seems like vegan diets are a tad bit _less_ healthy overall, except for the fact that people who are vegan also tend to be people who carefully consider what they eat and probably end up eating healthier than the average person just by virtue of that.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> @*pilgrim_12* sorry I couldn't really understand what you were trying to say and I thought you were being sarcastic or something.


No problem. We just disagree.


----------



## Ttalkkugjil (Feb 1, 2017)

charlie.elliot said:


> I'm kind of interested... you don't have to reply if you don't want to, but I'm just curious, what kind of health issue are you talking about? recently I've been researching vegan diets and how to get nutrition from different sources, so it's something that's been on my mind lately. Mostly it seems like vegan diets are a tad bit _less_ healthy overall, except for the fact that people who are vegan also tend to be people who carefully consider what they eat and probably end up eating healthier than the average person just by virtue of that.


My doctor prescribed a vegan diet for me. She felt it would help me to combat obesity. One of the medications I take has the side-effect of weight gain, which has happened. The vegan diet is helping me to cut back on calories I consume and the weight is going down. In terms of whether or not a vegan diet is less healthy, I would say no. However, it must be done well. Some people seem to think that becoming vegan just means you eat more salad and only have the fries and pop instead of the McWhopper combo.


----------



## Angelo (Aug 17, 2016)

If we're at the point where we can grow meat in a lab, then why don't we just make something to replace meat altogether


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Dust Mite said:


> My doctor prescribed a vegan diet for me. She felt it would help me to combat obesity. One of the medications I take has the side-effect of weight gain, which has happened. The vegan diet is helping me to cut back on calories I consume and the weight is going down. In terms of whether or not a vegan diet is less healthy, I would say no. However, it must be done well. Some people seem to think that becoming vegan just means you eat more salad and only have the fries and pop instead of the McWhopper combo.


Interesting to hear! Yeah, if you do it right it is certainly quite healthy, and it seems like most people who do it are foodies who know what they're doing. Do you take any dietary supplements? One thing I would worry about with a vegan diet would be getting enough calcium, and I also would worry that vitamins in pill form don't provide the nutrition as well as actual food does. I know there are various foods that provide calcium (like calcium-set tofu) but it still seems like it might not be enough.


----------



## Ardielley (Aug 4, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> Interesting to hear! Yeah, if you do it right it is certainly quite healthy, and it seems like most people who do it are foodies who know what they're doing. Do you take any dietary supplements? One thing I would worry about with a vegan diet would be getting enough calcium, and I also would worry that vitamins in pill form don't provide the nutrition as well as actual food does. I know there are various foods that provide calcium (like calcium-set tofu) but it still seems like it might not be enough.


Something interesting I discovered when I was transitioning from vegetarian to vegan is that a lot of milk alternatives are actually higher in calcium than regular milk (soy milk in particular is also very high in protein). If you're drinking those regularly and/or eating calcium-rich plant foods, I don't think you're any more likely to become calcium-deficient than anyone else.


----------



## Fohra (May 26, 2018)

No.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Tropes said:


> We could, just we can right now, yet we seldom do. What would change that?


Well, the main argument for factory farming is that it benefits poorer families greatly. If lab meat was cheap, then animal meat would be less essential, and thus harder to justify factory farming for.


----------



## Isa (Sep 13, 2018)

Hmm I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig who tries it first, but if it tasted the same and was actually grown from animal cells, then I wouldn't see why not.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

If it was safe to eat and tasted like meat then yes, I would.


----------

