Two years ago, I proposed a compromise between carnivores and vegetarians: We couldn’t change our craving for meat, but we could change the way we sated it. The solution was to grow meat in labs, the way we grow therapeutic tissue from stem cells.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has just offered a $1 million prize to anyone who develops a commercially viable “*in vitro *chicken-meat product.” The catch is that the product can’t contain or entail the use of “animal-derived products, except for starter cells obtained in the initial development stages.”
Yeah, it sounds yucky, but it should be withing our technological grasp in a few years and there are advantages – mainly that you get just the meat and no “spare parts” like skeleton, &c. No methane and other, um, digestive by-products.
Wow, that’s so true! Now they’ll just survive for a few days. Just long enough to kill them for their “starter cells” which can grow meat. I’m with puzzleannie on this one & will stick to regular-old meat. It would also limit PETA if no one’s interested in synthetic meat.
Somehow I dont’ think there’s any way it’d taste the same :nope: … and I doubt it’d ever completely catch on. With poultry especially you wouldn’t have the fun of choosing different parts - white meat, dark meat, leg or wing. Or doing the wishbone thing.
I suppose likewise with other animals - meats from different parts of the animal tastes different and is used for different purposes.
Ethically, I’m fine with it. Would I eat it? I don’t know…depends on how it tastes, if it has the same qualities for my body, etc. However, my guess is that this lab-created chicken meat would more than likely be more expensive, and I don’t really see a big advantage to it. How would this stuff benefit society? Do we have a chicken shortage right now?
As a member of PEETA (People for Eating Extremely Tasty Animals), I think I will probably stick with the real thing…or the tried and true meat by-products…like SPAM. (the second smiley is the closest we have to BLECH!)
Kind of ironic that there will be a day where people such as Peter Singer and myself are able to that meat on Fridays on Lent, but Catholics won’t. Peter Singer and I are utilitarians against suffering, while Catholics are asked to abnegate themselves against flesh.
I fully support this. Most people will not stop eating meat and giving people *Practical Ethics *will not convince them otherwise.
Maybe…remains (no skeletons or “spare parts” though) to be seen.
If it is, and the quality and taste of the meat were the same, then I would have no problem. Interestingly enough, people on the Far Left would probably have the largest problem with it…they don’t like bio-engineered grains, so I can’t imagine how they would like this!
The objections are evaporating. I doubt Haitians are concerned with genetically modified crops.
Unfortunately, opposition to genetically engineered wheat has reduced the amount of genetic research into methods of boosting wheat production. So we are going to see some lean years before the new incentives for genetic engineering finally start to translate into lower cost wheat.
[quote]“Everything has changed,” said the 30-year-old Joseph, stabbing at a half-frozen chunk of poultry with a screwdriver. “My kids are like toothpicks. Before, if you had $1.25, you could buy vegetables, some rice, charcoal and a little cooking oil. Right now, a little can of rice alone costs 65 cents, and it’s not good rice. Oil is 25 cents. Charcoal is 25 cents. With $1.25, you can’t even make a plate of rice for one child.”
“Food price inflation hits the poor hardest, as the share of food in their total expenditures is much higher than that of wealthier populations,” said Henri Josserand of the Global Information and Early Warning system of the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
Citing FAO’s new Crop Prospects and Food Situation report, he noted that “food represents about 10 to 20 per cent of consumer spending in industrialized nations, but as much as 60 to 80 per cent in developing countries, many of which are net-food-importers.”
The report states that the rise of 56 per cent in 2007-2008 comes after the already harsh increase of 37 per cent in 2006-2007 that had been squeezing lowest-income households hard.
These people need genetically engineered foods. People who spend over half their incomes on food ought to be given free birth control too. Our interests are harmed (and habitats are destroyed and species driven to extinction) by billions more of very poor people.