Would you eat it? I certainly would. This question is also directed at vegetarians. My personal feelings are that it would be a healthier/safer/more sanitary way to go about meat. What are your thoughts?

Tags: meat, vegetarian

Views: 600

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't see any problem with that. When you consider that currently, meat is produced in that way but with added pain etc, why not? The only objections I can think of are of the "playing God" variety.

 

On the other hand, there is still the issue of the carcass. If meat was produced pretty much 'on demand' (ie, grown in a lab) there would be no carcass hence less waste...

You would be doing humanity a great favor by (literally) having Beck for dinner, with all its inherent dangers.

To quote Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh that of the few or one." :)

It seems strange to contemplate, but I have no trouble drinking large quantities of alcohol, which is produced using equipment that is uncannily similar to lab equipment.
you eat yogurt too?

Cheese as well, especially anything from Kraft. We can also include Tofu, Tempeh, Natto, Nori, and stuff like Kimchi(which has raw oysters tossed into it to help "seed" the bacteria-process. Yummo).

I'm trying hard to think of an exact similarity--I could compare it to some protein-rich plants, as well as fungi, which we eat regularly. Lots of things are "living" to some point or another, some cheeses even incorporate molds into them somehow--It's just how things are, and how humans eat. I'd see this as just another iteration of our wide diet.

Not everything that is natural is good, and not everything that is artificial is bad.

Disease is natural, vaccine isn't.

Disease is good, population control through disease is a perfectly valid system and has been tested and proven effective by time. We humans are obsessed with overpopulating the planet, therefore many humans dread disease as an affront to the mighty human intellect. That's actually sad. If we let disease take a little more of its natural course in populations, we wouldn't even need to have 1-child type laws, numbers would more easily self regulate. It's all about balance. We'd even create a positive feedback loop where people with diseases would reproduce less, creating less sick babies, and further reducing in a constant negative feedback loop. It is a testimony to only human greediness that drives the obsession with "treating" diseases.
hey even animals try to heal themselves the best they can. Of course they can't do much, other than link their wounds(saliva is a natural antiseptic) or eat grass(for roughage) when their stomach is upset. Don't you think an animal was sick & knew eating some plant would cure it, the animal wouldn't try and get that plant. Survival is a natural instinct.
I see and accept your argument from a social/population perspective and raise you with attempting to employ the same argument from an individual's standpoint. :)
Tricky.
In the end, we are all individuals. I can easily condone the death of others. Mine own, not so much.
Here here, best article I've read all day!

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service