Post Reply
Page 7 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Meat Grown in Lab, No Animals Required
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 6:54PM #61
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

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???

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 7:38PM #62
Ed2
Posts: 3,322

Feb 21, 2012 -- 8:47PM, solfeggio wrote:


Ed2 -


What makes you think that other sentient beings ARE here for human benefit?  My take on all of this is that everything exists for its own sake.


The cat in my avatar was our beloved Beatrix, adopted from the RSPCA seventeen years ago as a kitten, who lived a highly satisfactory life with our family until her death a few months ago.  She was but one of many cats we have rescued over the years.


We are members of our local Cats Protection Society and the RSPCA, and in connection with them we take in stray and homeless cats and try to rehome them. 


The cats don't exist for our benefit, although the original domesticated cats surely did, as the ancient Egyptians used them to keep rodents out of their grain stores.


Our cats that live with us are our friends.  We don't own them.  If cats had not been domesticated, there would not be cats around to rescue today.  We feel that they have as much right to live out their lives as any other animal on this planet.




I don't know. Perhaps it's some old remnant of Bible dogma that still may be inside my mind. Smile

I think that it's pretty sad and pretty unbelievable that there are so many healthy, powerful, and healing foods that I have learned about from watching "The Doctor Oz Show"...but unfortunately, most Americans from their childhood on up, have only learned how to eat what is essentially equivalent to 'garbage'...and are basically in a 'slumber' when it comes to not having a clue as to what that kind of food is doing to their bodies and to their health. It's really sad.

~Ed2

"Hmmm. So you're saying that for Jesus' followers(throughout the centuries) to truly live a 'godly' life, they had to believe that the end of the world was just around the corner?"

~Ed2(See post #53)

"Although, I think that I'll change that to: Also...I liked the way that you dodged what I had said about being 'concerned that the Bible had to use subterfuge as a means to an end' in my post #137."

~Ed2(See post #145)

"It's utterly beyond belief, that the wealthiest country in the history of the world, fails to care for all it's people."

~Dr. Patrick Dowling, MD(From The Doctor Oz Show, which aired on 11/23/11.)

"If I could prescribe any drug on the planet, it would be food [be]cause it works better, faster, and cheaper than any medication. Food is the most powerful medicine we have...to treat chronic disease like diabetes."

~Dr. Mark Hyman, MD(From The Doctor Oz Show, which aired on 01/13/12. Also, go to www.doctoroz.com for more information.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 9:05PM #63
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

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!   



Laughing





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. :)

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 11:22PM #64
arielg
Posts: 9,116

I can still cook a mean BBQ.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:04AM #65
Erey
Posts: 18,940

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

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 2:50PM #66
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

I don't think animals were "put here" for us to eat -- in such a direct sense as God saying, "here ya go -- eat these damn things."


I think it's just an extenstion of the natural order of things to exploit a useful resourse. Every living thing does it. There's no wrong in it. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 3:46PM #67
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,894

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.


 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 4:29PM #68
solfeggio
Posts: 9,352

Mytmouse makes a good point when he says that if scientists could make a synthetic cow flesh that would taste like the real thing, this would not only be a good thing for cows, but it would benefit the planet in an ecological sense.  We all know how much damage the herds of cattle do to the earth with the methane they produce.


Arielg says, in effect, that by raising all those enormous herds of cattle we are looking to rationalise our overuse of our planet's resources, and that we ignore the fact that this earth is a living entity worthy of respect.  In other words, we think our human needs take precedence over all other concerns, no matter how urgent.


This is an important point as well and is in general in agreement with mytmouse's statement.


MMarcoe's says that, although he's been an ethical vegetarian for some years, if artificial 'meat' could be produced he might give it a try.  Now, I can understand that, but I'm wondering if anybody who has not eaten animal flesh for a long time could get any pleasure out of eating such a product.


The reason I say this is that, since I haven't eaten any meat in thirty years, I've found that just walking past the mall food court, and smelling the spare ribs or roast beef cooking makes me nauseous.  I have to get away as quickly as I can.


And this is interesting because, in earlier years, I did enjoy eating meat.  Obviously, our bodies can change, and these changes can be so subtle that we don't even notice them for some time.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 7:02PM #69
Erey
Posts: 18,940

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



Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:26PM #70
solfeggio
Posts: 9,352

Oh, Erey, we have heard over and over and over again that empty argument that more animals are killed harvesting crops than are killed to make beef. 


Your link was all about Austrailian agriculture, and they make the absurd argument that killing kangaroos is more humane than harvesting grain.  They don't cite any real studies, so we don't know where they got their information.


Killing insects or small mammals when harvesting corn or grains is just not the same as putting cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, and chickens through the horrors of the factory farm system.  And, although only a few studies have been done, some research has shown that far fewer rodents or insects are actually killed when harvesting crops than previously thought. 


findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDE/is_...


Various estimates put the number of animals that are killed every year in the meat, dairy and egg industries at something like 56 billion.  And, in the vast majority of cases, we are not talking about anything remotely resembling 'humane' slaughter - if there even is such a thing.


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-foo...


Even at that, meateaters would cause the deaths of insects and small mammals when crops are harvested, because such a large proportion of those crops goes to feed the cows and pigs and sheep that people are going to eat.  Even if you ate nothing but meat, you'd still be causing the deaths of many small mammals and insects.


Vegetarianism and veganism are not about being perfect, but about limiting the numbers of animals killed, and if, by being a committed vegan, I can at least cause less suffering and death, then that is at least something.


www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc


The most animal suffering and death can be prevented by following a vegan diet.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook