Lab-grown meat may be the best possible way to reduce real live animals from being mistreated and slaughtered, whatever its downsides. On that basis alone, even if the arguments that you make didn't work (I think they do) it would be a good idea. I don't know that anything preferable exists. Vegans that object to its use like this are shooting their cause in the foot I fear. As we see on many issues the "yuck factor" trumps reason or evidence however so often.
Whew! Just based on the title, I thought you were arguing against lab grown meat from a vegan perspective! Thankfully, the rest of the post assuaged my worries.
I think this neglects the virtue ethics perspective. Is ethics solely about the suffering we cause to others, or is the substance of our own moral character the focus?
From that perspective we could argue that eating meat (or it’s simulated version) diminishes the qualities of self-control, compassion and caring.
I find it difficult to believe anyone could be unaware the source of their meat is factory farming. Yet that means the majority are knowingly still eating it.
There are also plenty of soy-based fake meats available which are close to the real thing. A friend of mine once commented these soy products are so much like meat it feels sinful to eat them. This captures the virtue ethics perspective, the effect is on our consciousness, which carries over into many other areas of life.
One thing I find quite mysterious is people are aware of the suffering to animals their meal causes, they're also aware of meat-like alternatives available, what is it about the “taste” of meat that cause most people to still eat it?
I actually don't know the answer and it was a genuine question. Do you actually find it mysterious or not? Try to respond without being a four letter word, please.
Well you have two choices, assume I'm genuine or assume I'm not. The latter is condescending, self-fulfilling and a complete waste of time. As evidenced by this un-productive conversation.
This stuff is encrustations of what Haidt would call the purity foundation of morality onto liberalism/leftism. I have noticed similar intrusions lately elsewhere. No quarter for it.
It's worth mentioning some substantive consequentialist downsides to lab-grown meat, even if they clearly don't outweigh the positives. I'm one of a decent fraction of vegans who started to find the smell of many common animal products disgusting by six months or so after stopping consuming them. This effect presumably keeps more of us vegan than those who don't experience it, and presumably it won't happen when LGM is consumed, making backsliding into eating actual animals more likely.
I think you're missing an important argument. Lab-grown flesh won't work due to serious intrinsic logistical concerns and it is a distraction from the work needed to end animal agriculture. In the past, you could make the claim that it was even worse by continuing to use FBS but even without FBS, it doesn't seem especially viable. I'm still against bans on lab-grown meat but I think it makes sense to be skeptical of whether it can actually make a substantive difference to those trapped within our food system and I think it makes sense to deprioritize funding in favor of more direct animal-rights activism.
I agree with those that say it's symbolic and not about the emotional offense (lolololol) to the animal. But it's probably also about the visceral (in more than one way) fear that THINGS go wrong and normalising a simulation might lead to people going for the real thing if the simulated thing isn't available.
The problem with this reasoning is that eating meat is ALREADY NORMALISED and the lab grown stuff isn't for the vegans but for the people who currently eat factory farmed meat, so any lab grown steak eaten instead of a farmed one is a gain.
But even if we assume there's SOME valid "normalisation" harm to lab grown meat (which I empathically don't think there is) also an absolutist "purity spiral" type of extremism here that leads to clear harm, and which I find absolutely fucking abhorrent beyond just reasonable annoyance, it's literally saying only perfection matters. And while eating-disorder adjacent squick might play a role, I think it's the purity absolutists of the kind that literally (literally literally) will watch huge harm's because they don't want to dirty their hands with lesser evil compromise. Just to be clear I don't think lab meat is lesser evil but even if it WAS, it's so so much less of an evil than protesting it in a ridiculous hope that the country that consumes some of the highest amounts of factory farmed meat in the world will magically go vegan or vegetarian is that it gets close to "willfully stupid enough to be unethical".
And I'm not even vegetarian (tho I don't buy factory farmed meat).
You're in the right direction with your last proposal for why some vegans are against lab grown meet. It's an identity thing. The same way that lots of educated middle and upper class folks are tankies even though they're perfectly capable of understanding rationally that's an ahistorical, deeply stupid stance. Even an immoral one. But it's not about rationality or utility. It's just identity and immature self aggrandizement.
"Oftentimes, when a practice is seriously immoral, it seems wrong to imitate that practice. Consider: burning money in front of a homeless person is seriously immoral. As a result, it seems intuitively wrong to simulate burning money in front of a homeless person, using a VR headset to recreate—and relish in—the virtual beggar’s embarrassment. This seems true even though no real person is embarrassed."
Some people also use this as an argument against child sex dolls/robots, which I'm not convinced by, since couldn't one simply argue that this doll/robot is that of an adult similar to Shauna Rae who has a pituitary gland disorder that prevented them from growing properly?
But in any case, if one accepts this logic in regards to child sex dolls/robots, wouldn't that mean that rape fantasy roleplaying between two or more consenting adults, with a safe word and everything, would also be extremely wrong because they would be simulating an evil act? With this being *especially* true for the person who is simulating the role of the rapist, and especially if they actually enjoy doing this?
Lab-grown meat may be the best possible way to reduce real live animals from being mistreated and slaughtered, whatever its downsides. On that basis alone, even if the arguments that you make didn't work (I think they do) it would be a good idea. I don't know that anything preferable exists. Vegans that object to its use like this are shooting their cause in the foot I fear. As we see on many issues the "yuck factor" trumps reason or evidence however so often.
Whew! Just based on the title, I thought you were arguing against lab grown meat from a vegan perspective! Thankfully, the rest of the post assuaged my worries.
I think this neglects the virtue ethics perspective. Is ethics solely about the suffering we cause to others, or is the substance of our own moral character the focus?
From that perspective we could argue that eating meat (or it’s simulated version) diminishes the qualities of self-control, compassion and caring.
I find it difficult to believe anyone could be unaware the source of their meat is factory farming. Yet that means the majority are knowingly still eating it.
There are also plenty of soy-based fake meats available which are close to the real thing. A friend of mine once commented these soy products are so much like meat it feels sinful to eat them. This captures the virtue ethics perspective, the effect is on our consciousness, which carries over into many other areas of life.
One thing I find quite mysterious is people are aware of the suffering to animals their meal causes, they're also aware of meat-like alternatives available, what is it about the “taste” of meat that cause most people to still eat it?
Do you actually find it mysterious or is this just more condescending rhetoric?
Do you actually not know the answer to that or is that a condescending rhetorical question?
I actually don't know the answer and it was a genuine question. Do you actually find it mysterious or not? Try to respond without being a four letter word, please.
Then maybe assume I'm also genuine, at least until you have some reason to think otherwise.
On the internet? Was I born yesterday?
Well you have two choices, assume I'm genuine or assume I'm not. The latter is condescending, self-fulfilling and a complete waste of time. As evidenced by this un-productive conversation.
This stuff is encrustations of what Haidt would call the purity foundation of morality onto liberalism/leftism. I have noticed similar intrusions lately elsewhere. No quarter for it.
It's worth mentioning some substantive consequentialist downsides to lab-grown meat, even if they clearly don't outweigh the positives. I'm one of a decent fraction of vegans who started to find the smell of many common animal products disgusting by six months or so after stopping consuming them. This effect presumably keeps more of us vegan than those who don't experience it, and presumably it won't happen when LGM is consumed, making backsliding into eating actual animals more likely.
I think you're missing an important argument. Lab-grown flesh won't work due to serious intrinsic logistical concerns and it is a distraction from the work needed to end animal agriculture. In the past, you could make the claim that it was even worse by continuing to use FBS but even without FBS, it doesn't seem especially viable. I'm still against bans on lab-grown meat but I think it makes sense to be skeptical of whether it can actually make a substantive difference to those trapped within our food system and I think it makes sense to deprioritize funding in favor of more direct animal-rights activism.
I agree with those that say it's symbolic and not about the emotional offense (lolololol) to the animal. But it's probably also about the visceral (in more than one way) fear that THINGS go wrong and normalising a simulation might lead to people going for the real thing if the simulated thing isn't available.
The problem with this reasoning is that eating meat is ALREADY NORMALISED and the lab grown stuff isn't for the vegans but for the people who currently eat factory farmed meat, so any lab grown steak eaten instead of a farmed one is a gain.
But even if we assume there's SOME valid "normalisation" harm to lab grown meat (which I empathically don't think there is) also an absolutist "purity spiral" type of extremism here that leads to clear harm, and which I find absolutely fucking abhorrent beyond just reasonable annoyance, it's literally saying only perfection matters. And while eating-disorder adjacent squick might play a role, I think it's the purity absolutists of the kind that literally (literally literally) will watch huge harm's because they don't want to dirty their hands with lesser evil compromise. Just to be clear I don't think lab meat is lesser evil but even if it WAS, it's so so much less of an evil than protesting it in a ridiculous hope that the country that consumes some of the highest amounts of factory farmed meat in the world will magically go vegan or vegetarian is that it gets close to "willfully stupid enough to be unethical".
And I'm not even vegetarian (tho I don't buy factory farmed meat).
You're in the right direction with your last proposal for why some vegans are against lab grown meet. It's an identity thing. The same way that lots of educated middle and upper class folks are tankies even though they're perfectly capable of understanding rationally that's an ahistorical, deeply stupid stance. Even an immoral one. But it's not about rationality or utility. It's just identity and immature self aggrandizement.
"Oftentimes, when a practice is seriously immoral, it seems wrong to imitate that practice. Consider: burning money in front of a homeless person is seriously immoral. As a result, it seems intuitively wrong to simulate burning money in front of a homeless person, using a VR headset to recreate—and relish in—the virtual beggar’s embarrassment. This seems true even though no real person is embarrassed."
Some people also use this as an argument against child sex dolls/robots, which I'm not convinced by, since couldn't one simply argue that this doll/robot is that of an adult similar to Shauna Rae who has a pituitary gland disorder that prevented them from growing properly?
But in any case, if one accepts this logic in regards to child sex dolls/robots, wouldn't that mean that rape fantasy roleplaying between two or more consenting adults, with a safe word and everything, would also be extremely wrong because they would be simulating an evil act? With this being *especially* true for the person who is simulating the role of the rapist, and especially if they actually enjoy doing this?