Would Veggies Eat Fake Meat?

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I'm sure this has been asked before somewhere, but still.

There's two reasons for people becoming some form of veggie:
1) the moral and ethical issues raised by eating a sentient creature, or being in some way responsible for its enslavement, exploitation, suffering and death
2) real or perceived health benefits of not eating meat, or simply not liking it as a foodstuff etc (thanks to Aught3 for reminding me of that one.)

I suppose there's a third:

3) Necessitated by location, wealth, other factors.

But the first two are the main ones. Veggies on this board, by all means - if I've got that wrong or misrepresented, correct me in my face.

So, my question is:

Would the moral veggies (the ones who hate animal suffering) eat "fake" meat - meat that's identical to that taken from living animals but fabricated\cloned in such a way that means no animals are affected by it at all? Same goes for things like cheese, milk, fats etc. Would there be any ethical or moral consideration before the consumption of completely fake animal products?

Ignoring here whether people would WANT to eat fake meat, considering all the ridiculous fuss over GM foods. Would moral veggies be happy to eat completely authentic meat if no animals suffered or were harmed in any way?

 

[Aught3]

OMG! Franken-meat!!!!
As long as it tasted identical and was no worse for me than animal raised meat; I'd prefer to eat fake meat.

Also, I would have thought there was another category of vegetarian, namely one who didn't like the taste of meat.

 

[WolfAU]

I think often people worry too much about trying to try to have a flawless moral track record, and usually do alot of harm and come to some very bad conclusions in the process.

I am not particularly opposed to killing an animal to eat it, especially if the means of death is humane (ie rifle round to the brain).

However, an issue I do share with the animal welfare movement is my concern about the standards in the meat industry, with many chickens living their lives in cages so cramped they cannot stand up straight, many are pumped so full of hormones they are so unhealthy they could not survive in the wilds. Many other examples.

A freind of mine takes this stance, and for this reason refuses to eat any meat or animal products except seafood (because they are usually caught from the wild).

A few issues.
- Vegetarians who are not vegans to me come off as kind of failed moralists because eggs/milk are still then produced in these horrible conditions, the only argument for being vegetarian and no vegan is they don't want a guilty conscience.
- Vegetarians can have a fairly balanced diet, though they should ideally take suppliments. However there are few health benefits from not eating meat, though I do worry about some of the hormones and antibiotics they pump into animals (which is more an issue of get meat from quality producers, not cheap crap).
- Vegetarianism isn't really practical for the entire world to embrace, there just isn't enough arable farmland for it. Furthermore, each year thousands of animals like snakes are crushed by combines, and rabbits are hunted/poisoned to protect crops. Anyone else feel this is kinda hypocritical?

I'd also like to mention something I mentioned when debating a welfare activist; that if animal products got a government 'ethics' rating put on them, ie eggs/meat/milk etc had a star rating on the package, indicating what ethical standards the company uses when producing their product, this would allow people passionate about it to choose the more moral brands. I haven't heard anyone suggest that idea.

Now, onto your question about synthetic meat. This is something I've wondered about myself. If done right, synthetic animal products would be cheap, healthy, tasty and moral, and would free up alot of grazing land (though kill alot of farmers livelihoods). I would assume most vegarians/vegans would eat it, because 99% of them do it because they don't want blood on their conscience, or are appauled by meat industry practices.

Having thought of such a thing several years ago, and not aware of any research into it, its a topic that I'm quite curious to see if anything comes of it. But

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Also, I would have thought there was another category of vegetarian, namely one who didn't like the taste of meat.

Good call, I edited my original post.

 

[Rosenrot]

I think the the "morality"-crusading vegetarians wouldn't eat it (trying to demonize the way you got the meat, no matter how that would be) or they would eat the meat and keep their mouth forever shut on the subject.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I try to limit my meat intake, though I love meat, not for any of the above reasons but more because of environmental reasons - that is, I think eating meat is an incredibly inefficient use of resources and strain on our environment. Which also is part of why its expensive, which is admittedly another part of why I limit meat as well.

As for someone above who said there isn't enough arable farmland to let the whole world be vegetarians - do you have any idea how much agricultural farmland is used to feed the meat you eat? We would in fact use a lot LESS farmland if we were all vegetarians. Also, the Livestock industry is a larger contributor to greenhouse gases than the transport industry. An article about some environmental impacts of livestock: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

I would only eat synthetic meats if they were as good as the real thing, and if they didn't use a ridiculous amount of resources (which would also mean they would be expensive). I believe there are people making synthetic meats right now, but it looks gross as hell. Ooo, here it is http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90235492.

 

[WolfAU]

I think alot of the vegetarian 'crusaders' are somewhat a rebel without a cause, they look to vegetarianism as a cause worth fighting for and therefore because in their mind the cause gives them meaning they would be reluctant to declare 'victory', as then they would have to find something else to do with themselves.

I think this is true of alot of other militant groups like militant environmentalists (feminists, animal liberation etc), who seem motivated more by passion and a desire for purpose, than by educated facts and a desire for practical change.

Ozy: I don't see how it is a bad use of resources when many of these animals eat cellulose products that humans cannot, like grass or wheat stalks. Also I'm not convinced that it is as simple as turning that land into plant farmland and it would be better used (as alot of land is suitable for cattle grazing, but not crops)... or what would you see done with it?

 

[Ozymandyus]

Well, the first thing is that the vast majority livestock do not eat much grass. They eat Animal feed consisting most of corn, soybeans, sorghum, oats and barley. And they eat a LOT of it. 70% of the world's farmland is dedicated to livestock.

Do the research, its SCARILY inefficient. And thats not counting all the wasted industrial resources of creating all that feed, transporting it, transporting the meat, etc.

Edit: Oh yeah, the second thing was that if you are worried about global warming at all, livestock create a REALLY scary amount of greenhouse gases (as much or more than all transportation, according to several studies), whereas plants actually Remove greenhouse gases. Though after transport and processing its probably close to a wash, but anyway much better than livestock.

 

[Aught3]

Being from Australia (or New Zealand) pretty much all of the meat is produced on pasture, but go to the States and you'll find rows and rows of animals in small cells feed almost exclusively on high energy corn grain. Get 'em fat, fast.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Being from Australia (or New Zealand) pretty much all of the meat is produced on pasture, but go to the States and you'll find rows and rows of animals in small cells feed almost exclusively on high energy corn grain. Get 'em fat, fast.

Well, even pasture fed animals use a gigantic amount of land, though some of it is not arable and I'm not sure what else it might be used for. The numbers I've seen for a single cow per year is 1.5-5 acres of good grazing land, and up to 12 acres in drier areas. That's PER COW. So yeah, Eating meat uses a lot of resources.

Edit: Even in Austrailia, which uses 57% of its land for grazing, 1/3rd of their cattle are grain fed.

 

[Aught3]

^No disagreement here, I was trying to emphasise your point not argue with it.

 

[Ozymandyus]

^No disagreement here, I was trying to emphasise your point not argue with it.

Oh sorry, I don't mean to seem to be arguing with you, just adding some points that are on the same topic. But yeah, Austrailia and New Zealand do a much better job of sustainably farming their livestock, no disagreement there.

 

[Aught3]

hmmm, I guess I was a little off with the 'pretty much all' statement for Aussie beef. They way you usually see it is the huge cattle ranches in the outback. I've heard suggestions that Aussies should try and eat more Kangaroo meat because the farming practices are much more sustainable and the 'Roos can survive better in the fairly barren environments. It's probably a good idea since it would be difficult to grow crops there anyway. The problem Australia has is not land, but water.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I would only eat synthetic meats if they were as good as the real thing, and if they didn't use a ridiculous amount of resources (which would also mean they would be expensive). I believe there are people making synthetic meats right now, but it looks gross as hell. Ooo, here it is http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90235492.

Wow! I should probably have researched it, if they can grow ears on mice they can grow steak in jars. However, I think some "moral veggies" would be unhappy because the cells had to be taken from an animal, even if the animal never noticed. Case for exploitation perhaps.

Living in a truly vegetarian world would surely mean killing or letting die a lot of animals. Livestock are kept around to be harvested in some way - if we stopped that, we'd have to do away with them.

In fact, vegetarians are supporting genocide on an epic scale.

 

[PuppetXeno]

Wow, I'd love to see that synthetic meat become commercially available within a few years time! Well atleast I'd love to try it. Think of all the possibilities! Maybe my clone-o-matic vision will come true after all. Just insert sample tissue and put on "grow". Some time later, your stake is ready (and clone-o-matic luxury edition will have cooked it for you right away).

But think of this... If it's possible to grow meat without hurting animals, it's also possible to grow human meat without hurting humans.. and make that commercially available. How does that sound? Would it be cannibalism?

 

[WolfAU]

I wasn't wanting to get big into the topic of greenhouse gasses because its a kind of tricky topic in regards to eating meat. Ie if we were to let these animals go into the wild they would still produce just as much emissions, the only real way to fix it is to slaughter them and keep the wild populations of these animals low. But yes I am aware that ruminants produce carbon gasses like methane.

Anyway, I concede the point that arable land is used to feed livestock, but don't think its that simple as eating vege's would be more efficient use of land/resources so we shouldn't eat meat for that reason.

But back to the topic at hand, I would be interested in fake meat, because with research and quality equipment it could be more efficient, cheaper, better quality, more humane and free of alot of antigens and diseases.

I think we could probably just gradually transfer between them, reducing the number of new animals produced each year rather than just slaughtering them all for no good reason.

But I would also like to see synthetically produced leather, or maybe even leathers tougher than naturally existing materials.