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: 626

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Does it look, smell, feel, and taste like meat. Sure I would, though they are having a hard enough time with sweeteners. Oh yea that last sense, does it sound like meat?
I would really want to see some very long term studies done before I would consider eating it on a regular basis. I would be very interested in having a taste and cooking with it to try it out though. I am really curious what kinds of flavours and textures might be offered.
What if it was (virtually) indistinguishable from the real thing? Example would be artificial insulin.
I'd be curious to give it a try, but I'm also never researched this. Sounds like the possibilities are endles, though, like in, say, winemaking.
I find your philosophies intriguing and would very much like to subscribe to your newsletter.

It is a compliment and I agree with you.  I think of it like this:

 

I'm not opposed to the ideology of pets but I rarely experience pets that are treated the way their owners like to think.  High intelligence dogs like border collies get lonely quickly and are visibly very sad when left unattended for lengthy periods of time.  Cats and really stupid dogs don't seem to be affected in the same way.  Mostly I'm indifferent about it as long as I don't have to listen to them whining/howling or step over their poop.
I'm somewhat anti-social but that's mostly because I rarely meet people capable of interesting conversations. I do like human interaction though, at least in limited doses, and I've usually satisfied that through volunteering. And I agree, there is a lot more to be gained from culturing your human interactions than by substituting such interactions with pet care.
Pets are fabulous at giving humans the illusion that they are not lonely and isolated. Religions also have that benefit.
LOL!

Well you can consider it the only valid reason of course, but that's not to say that others are obliged to consider it that also.

The desire to be humane about it is a valid reason to "postpone the deaths" of animals and let them have a proper existence according to their natural behavioral repertoire. Not in small boxes being force fed to drag their unnaturally fat, mangled torsos chock full of antibiotics as fast as possible to the meat cleaver. Simply the desire to be humane is in itself a valid reason because we are human and in very much a real way we do not get the choice, less so in any case than we get to choose whether we eat meat or not. That's why we put so much effort in hiding the practices and most people - in Western societies at least - know meat only as pink packages of neatly cut shapes in cellophane with cooking instructions, you'll find in a cooler at the supermarket. You can eat yourself sick in meat without ever having to kill an animal or when living in cities even have ever seen a live one.

So while there are sides to the equation that are not so simple, a humane treatment of animals - letting them live their animal lives, letting them eat their own food (e.g. cows don't normally eat corn, they eat grass and preferably wild grass with herbs that they look for in relatively small herds) before killing them and live out our parasitic urges on their meat, seems not much more than just normal human behavior. We can of course look the other way, think of clever reasons why we should, but in hurting the animals we eat we are hurting ourselves and the results show.

Wow, who would have ever thought we would agree so completely on anything.  ha ha!

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service