Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 8849
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Religion: None (Atheist)
- Diet: Vegan
Canastenard wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:16 pm
Expectation: lab-grown meat said to require less agricultural inputs and less energy and pollution to produce than vegetables.
Reality: "Even plants, he says, show response to stimuli that are likely to harm or kill them. The cow muscle cells used to make Steak chips do not."
I expected to learn about the environmental footprint of lab-grown meat compared to vegetables, I instead found plant sentience pseudoscience. FACEPALM
Ouch! That's a surprising level of stupidity coming from vice.
Does that author not realize that cow cells do not magically violate thermodynamics and actually require plant agriculture to grow?
- Junior Member
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:20 pm
- Diet: Vegan
A vegan Twitter user said they received a comment from a non-vegan: "Those who manage to be healthy on their vegan diet take supplements which in my opinion is much worse than killing an animal to eat it."
A few fellow vegans actually joked about how cruel they are to kill B12 pills to eat them
Seriously though, this is a perfect example of why we need consistent ethics based on consequences related to the interests of sentient beings, because otherwise you can just say whatever ad hoc appeal to nature you want to justify your ideology.
Appeal to nature: the strange belief that what is perceived as "natural" is necessarily safer, more effective or morally superior compared to what isn't.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests