Meat without animals? Science says yes!

[Miktar]

http://current.com/items/91507439_me...tm?xid=RSSfeed

Winston Churchill once predicted that it would be possible to grow chicken breasts and wings more efficiently without having to keep an actual chicken. And in fact scientists have since figured out how to grow tiny nuggets of lab meat and say it will one day be possible to produce steaks in vats, sans any livestock.

Pork chops or burgers cultivated in labs could eliminate contamination problems that regularly generate headlines these days, as well as address environmental concerns that come with industrial livestock farms.

The researchers noted that growing skeletal muscle in labs ? the kind people typically think of as the meat they eat ? could help tackle a number of problems:

* Avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock.
* Dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.
* Livestock currently take up 70 percent of all agricultural land, corresponding to 30 percent of the world's land surface, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Labs would presumably require much less space.
* Livestock generate 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all of the vehicles on Earth, the FAO added. Since the animals themselves are mostly responsible for these gases, reducing livestock numbers could help alleviate global warming.

However, such research opens up strange and perhaps even disturbing possibilities once considered only the realm of science fiction. After all, who knows what kind of meat people might want to grow to eat?

In Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson's epic sci-fi satire "Transmetropolitan," supermarkets and fast food joints sell dolphin, manatee, whale, baby seal, monkey and reindeer, while the Long Pig franchise sells "cloned human meat at prices you like."

"In principle, we could harvest the meat progenitor cells from fresh human cadavers and grow meat from them," Post said. "Once taken out of its disease and animalistic, cannibalistic context ? you are not killing fellow citizens for it, they are already dead ? there is no reason why not."

Is there a reason why not? What do you think about growing MEAT without animals?

[onona]

I remember reading this about a year or so back and it's really interesting. I do think it would be a good thing, because of environmental and animal suffering reasons. However, after quite a lot of thought about it, I still don't think I'd eat any of it.

And the bit in the last three paragraphs there about eating animals or human flesh is a really fascinating issue. Because, ethically, where's the problem? It's definitely one to think about.

[Drakus]

We had a discussion on this very forum about his a year ago. In vitro meat. Awesome concept.

Edit: found it. BattleMoose, jou doring! You come up with some of the best threads.

No reason not to carry on with the discussion. It is a brilliant topic. In my opinion, if it tastes great and it is good for my health, I'll eat that ****.

[Drakus]

I do think it would be a good thing, because of environmental and animal suffering reasons. However, after quite a lot of thought about it, I still don't think I'd eat any of it.

And the bit in the last three paragraphs there about eating animals or human flesh is a really fascinating issue. Because, ethically, where's the problem? It's definitely one to think about.

Ethically? what is ethically wrong with eating flesh? Our bodies are of such a fashion that it needs both meat and vegetation. Don't believe me? Parents have been found guilty of manslaughter of their own child due to their idiotic notions of dieting.

[dislekcia]

I'd eat that.

However, I do wonder if we will have operations as efficient at converting plant material into meat as current farming methods are. Put bluntly, will farming still be better for the environment than harvesting whatever plant material is needed (probably protein-rich crops and sugar) and converting that into "meat food" that is then pumped into these meat vats?

[Garson007]

Yeah, I've known about this for a while. It'll be an absolute leap in humanity once we can create food with the industrial process.

[brazed]

We'll do away with the meat farms, great, but what happens to cows as a species? Nobody keeps them on as pets, and now there will be no reason to keep them at all.

I haven't seen any wild cows recently...

I'm all for the idea, but this just occurred to me.

[Aesir]

We'll do away with the meat farms, great, but what happens to cows as a species? Nobody keeps them on as pets, and now there will be no reason to keep them at all.

I haven't seen any wild cows recently...

I'm all for the idea, but this just occurred to me.

Saw a special on cows (holy cow) a few weeks ago and according to them cows as a species would have died out a while ago if it wasn't for humans anyway.

I'd also eat it if it is proved safe.

[wir]

We'll do away with the meat farms, great, but what happens to cows as a species? Nobody keeps them on as pets, and now there will be no reason to keep them at all.

I haven't seen any wild cows recently...

I'm all for the idea, but this just occurred to me.

Got milk?

[Banlam]

I don't think I'd have an issue with eating this meat, the stuff that is "derived" from sheep, cows etc. But the idea of human meat, even though it's not technically cannibalism. I don't think I'd ever try Human "flavoured" meat as such. The idea just doesn't sit well with me. It's not logical, it's just how I'd feel.

The idea of the Cows becoming extinct though is very interesting. There'll be people who will want to look after them though. Guess that's a problem for the future.

[Banlam]

Got milk?

Also thought about that. But different species of cows are kept for milk and as meat. So we're still gonna lose out on the ones we keep for meat.

EDIT: scuse the double post, only saw wir's post after I had posted.

[pArkEr]

Not to mention other livestock such as sheep. Sure, they're not the cleverest of animals, but killing them off doesn't sound fair to them as a species. And what if sometime in the future we are unable to use this technology to manufacture meat, surely we'd keep some livestock as insurance? Maybe we can create special nature reserves?

[Drakus]

Nope there will allways be people who would want the "real thing" and be willing to pay for it. Also there are alot of chefs who are absolutely fussy about what they cook. But the animals will be kept for products like cheese, wool, etc. mostly.

[dislekcia]

Not to mention other livestock such as sheep. Sure, they're not the cleverest of animals, but killing them off doesn't sound fair to them as a species. And what if sometime in the future we are unable to use this technology to manufacture meat, surely we'd keep some livestock as insurance? Maybe we can create special nature reserves?

Wat?

When did anyone suggest killing every livestock animal because we can produce 2mm of soggy pork. Holy balls man, cart before the horse much?

I find it highly amusing that anyone would consider "fairness" to animals bred entirely to our own tastes and desires over hundreds of years. Fairness to sheep? There wouldn't BE sheep, except on mountainsides. Fairness to cows? What happened to the aurochs, exactly? Have you even seen the ludicrousness that is a hyper-muscled meat animal?

[Drakus]

What I read:

Blah?

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pork. Blah balls blah, blah blah blah blah blah?

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah? blah blah BLAH blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah? blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah hyper-muscled meat blah?

Hmmm, I'm thinking of a new recipe. :)

[onona]

Ethically? what is ethically wrong with eating flesh? Our bodies are of such a fashion that it needs both meat and vegetation.

Are you honestly unaware of the ethical arguments against eating meat? I don't have the energy (nor inclination, really) to go into it right now, but read up on it if you feel so inclined. However, you're taking my quote out of context - I'm talking about the last part of the article where it talks about human meat and animals that are generally considered taboo to eat. Also, we don't need meat. I haven't consumed meat since I was 16, but I'm still alive.

Don't believe me? Parents have been found guilty of manslaughter of their own child due to their idiotic notions of dieting.

Uh, please read that article again. The child didn't die because his parents didn't give him meat, he died due to vitamin deficiencies that could easily have been rectified without feeding him meat. Don't blame veganism, blame the stupid parents.

[Drakus]

First of all, ethical views change from person to person. If you were born in certain areas in China, for instance, eating dog meat wouldn't be a problem to you. Ehw icky! If you were born into a society that is ultra sensitive to all creatures on earth, your chances of becoming a vegetarian and inhereting those ethical views increases. Now someone just have to start caring about the poor plants getting chopped up :'( and we'll have a sure Darwin award awaiting that person.

Secondly, you are technically correct, people in fact don't need vegetables or meat, we need the nutrients in them. Good luck to the companies that try and get those nutrients in supplement form without using meat or vegetables.

The kid died from a vitamin deficiency. A vitamin deficiency caused by a lack of nutrients found in meat in their diet. And I didn't blame veganism, the parents were ignorant of the diet they were following unfortunately it cost them their freedom and their only child. Sure a vitamin b injection would've fixed him right up, just like a piece of steak would've (or in this case if the mother had a piece every now and then). I read the article, you didn't read my post.

A strict vegatarion/vegan diet without supplements or shots is asking for trouble. I much rather prefer a rib burger over a bunch of pills. I still sleep well without a guilty conscience thank you (I'm a beast I know, bite me) Also you could live without vegetables, technically, just remember to have your fibre drinks and you'll be a-ok. But it still doesn't change the fact that our digestive systems are designed (in want for a better word) to digest both. /rant

[Kharrak]

We'll do away with the meat farms, great, but what happens to cows as a species? Nobody keeps them on as pets, and now there will be no reason to keep them at all.

I haven't seen any wild cows recently...

I'm all for the idea, but this just occurred to me.

This is actually the first thing that hit me as soon as I read the title. Livestock animals only exist in the quantity they do today (arguably, the reason many of them still exist at all) because humans have incorporated them into their way of living. It's a symbiotic relationship - we breed the creatures for produce, and in return ensure their continued existence as a species.

So, essentially - livestock species survive today because they serve a need. Remove that need, what happens to the livestock?

Morality issues ooze all over this one, so the arguments can often become rather colourful...

(it's also rather interesting to compare this to other species that "farm" other species for benefit).

EDIT: per glorious chance, the latest SMBC update:

[onona]

Now someone just have to start caring about the poor plants getting chopped up :'( and we'll have a sure Darwin award awaiting that person.

Then let me introduce you to fruitarianism. Many fruitarians won't eat fruits that haven't already fallen off their trees. Personally, I think it's a bit over the top, but hey, it's their lives.

[Ruandre]

...ensure their continued existence as a species.

How are you going to "ensure their continued existence as a species" if the environment is ****ed?

Also, dying in their own **** isn't much of an existence:

Former USDA veterinary inspector Dr. Lester Friedlander explains, “In the summertime, when it’s 90, 95 degrees, they’re transporting cattle from 1,200 to 1,500 miles away on a trailer, 40 to 45 head crammed in there, and some collapse from heat exhaustion. This past winter, we had minus-50 degree weather with the windchill. Can you imagine if you were in the back of a trailer that’s open, and the windchill factor is minus-50 degrees, and that trailer is going 50 to 60 miles an hour? The animals are urinating and defecating right in the trailers, and after a while, it’s going to freeze, and their hooves are right in it. If they go down—well, you can imagine lying in there for 10 hours on a trip.”

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...448/index.html
http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp
http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_Cows_trans.asp
http://www.chai-online.org/en/compas...ctory_veal.htm

Male calves—“byproducts” of the dairy industry—are generally taken from their mothers when they are less than 1 day old. The calves are then put into dark, tiny crates, where they are kept almost completely immobilized so that their flesh stays tender. The calves are fed a liquid diet that is low in iron and has little nutritive value in order to make their flesh white. This heinous treatment makes the calves ill, and they frequently suffer from anemia, diarrhea, and pneumonia. Frightened, sick, and alone, these calves are killed after only a few months of life. “Veal” is the flesh of a tortured, sick baby cow, and a byproduct of the milk industry.