Feb 22, 2012 -- 4:45PM, solfeggio wrote:

It always comes down to that same tired old belief shared by the human animal, which is that humans believe themselves to be the 'superior' species on this planet.  People think that we as a species are actually central to the existence of the universe.

Uh?? Hello?

How does the topic of synthetic meat production "come down to" this???

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:53PM, arielg wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Feb 21, 2012 -- 7:44PM, arielg wrote:

Things have been killing and eating other things since the world began. There's no "morals" about it, and animals certianly don't give a shit. (Although, some of them eat that too.)

Animals don't need morals.  They go by instincts.  Morals are for people who have a conscience. 

Bully for consciene. 

Hence a sound egological land ethic... via the philosophy of Aldo Leopold (who was a hunter), a regard for animal welfare, the practice of ethical hunting within reasonable limits and only for what I plan to eat or feed to my family and pets. 

Sure, if there is a need...  But in today's world there is no such need.  Hunting today is just a left over from another period in the evolution of humans, when the survival instinct was needed. 

 Today is like the coxis bone,  that was  useful when we had a tail.

The   ethics  of Aldo Leopold  are ways  to rationalize the explotation of the planet for the benefit of humans. It is a way to justify manipulation, based on the mindset that humans are the stewards of the earth and were given the right to manipulate the environment for their benefit. 

It is a more thoughtful way than the mindlessness of some, but still sees the planet as an inert lump of stuff that has no meaning except to serve humans.  The classical materialistic approach.  It doesn't see the planet as a living organism deserving of respect.

No irrational "animal rights" philosophy needed. Nature finds no wrong in one organic entity killing and eating another.

Nature would find no wrong if you wanted to kill and eat your daughter either.  That is apt to our morals.

Hey, maybe someday a cougar will kill and eat me.  Yummy for him!   

I'm glad you're passionate about your views. But they are extreme.

Tell you what -- you do what you think is right, and I'll do what I think is best, right and ethical.

Venison is on the table at my place tonight. :)

Feb 22, 2012 -- 9:40AM, TemplarS wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:31AM, Erey wrote:

Back to the whole being gracious while dining with other people.  A few years ago I read an article written by the man who had been the editor of the Vegetarian Times for over 20 years.  Clearly he had been a vegetarian and he and his wife ran a vegetarian household that included several children. 

One day his wife had a sudden accident, broke some bones and had to be bed ridden.  People, mostly neighboors wanted to help.  They brought dinners.  The thing is they brought alot of meat dishes.  At first he did not know what to do, he was not supposed to eat meat.  Then he realized that this had been prepared for him and his family and he should focus on the gratitude for the food given to him.  He said grace and ate his food. 

People can be excused for doing things out of ignorance.

But otherwise it is common courtesy to accommodate people's preferences. I would hope that most people, if they had Jewish or Muslim guests, would not serve pork or ham; or, meat to Catholic guests on Good Friday.   I see no reason why such courtesy should not be extended to vegetarians. This is common sense.  BTW, being a gracious host also extends to not interrogating the person about why they choose to be a vegetarian.  Likewise, of course, being a gracious guest means not sitting at the table lecturing others about the evils of eating meat. It is a two way street.  But it is not difficult.

The way it was worded the neighboors were unaware that there were diet preferences.  I guess that shows how unassuming this family was they did not make a huge deal out of being vegetarian.    But it is true, you are supposed to know your friends birthdays and if they are of a different religion, now also you are supposed to know what food tribe they belong.  Remember thsi was a close to 20 years ago.  Times change

Feb 20, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Ebon wrote:

"Dutch scientists have used stem cells to create strips of muscle tissue with the aim of producing the first lab-grown hamburger later this year.

The aim of the research is to develop a more efficient way of producing meat than rearing animals.

At a major science meeting in Canada, Prof Mark Post said synthetic meat could reduce the environmental footprint of meat by up to 60%."

Rest at the link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1...

I've been a vegetarian for 20 years largely for ethical reasons. I look forward to this new development. I would probably start eating this form of meat. However, I doubt that it would taste like the real thing because the real thing has other factors going for it, such as the oils and fats.

speaking of ethics

theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vege...

These guys are saying when it comes to free-range cattle and eating that beef it is more humane than eating a purely vegetarian diet.  That more animals are killed in the harvest of plants than the cattle themselves. 

Interesting I thought