Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by carnap »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 pm
Margaret Hayek wrote:...
This quote makes a lot of assertions but doesn't appear to provide any arguments for them. If someone is going to claim something is "in no way rational" then I think they are obligated to make a strong argument for their case. I'd love to hear the argument.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 pm That's great, but what does that mean?
It was intentionally generic, but it could mean promoting improved welfare regulations for farm animals. It could mean promoting cooking techniques that involve less frequent use of meat or alternatives. And so on.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 pm Do you, or have you ever, made any effort at reduction?
Around 20 years ago I tried a vegetarian diet, it didn't work out well but I didn't have good knowledge on nutrition at the time. Perhaps 8~10 years ago adhered to a plant-based diet (vegan except trace/byproduct ingredients) and that lasted a few years but my thinking changed and it also didn't work out well. Now my diet is oriented around my health, my intake of meat is low, dairy is probably average and very little eggs.
carnap wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:37 pm The contradiction becomes apparent with a more robust understanding of statistical consequence; I don't think that requires any imported premises.
I don't see how statistics bridges the gap here, but if you think it does provide an argument in gross form to show that no additional premises are required to show a contradiction.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by carnap »

Lay Vegan wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:31 am However insignificant, there is an impact on demand. Have you heard of the term "vote with your dollars?" Products that each consumer buys influences future production choices.
If the impact is not measurable it will have no impact on production figures, farmers based their investments and the number of animals to raise on things they can measure. "Vote with your dollars" is a feel good slogan, but what he do as individuals often has no measurable impact.

Think of a large lake, one drop in the lake has no measurable impact on the level of the lake and while it still exists in an abstract sense not in a measurable sense and that is what matters here.
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:31 am Should the demand decrease, but the supply remain the same, this would undoubtedly produce a surplus of animal products. Given that meat and dairy products perish easily, how would this profit the animal ag industry to ignore a fall in demand, continue breed animals at a steady rate and turn them into food, only to have grocery stores throw their products out? This would most certainly lead to a decline in prices and supply.
Its always demand and supply at a given price, what would happen would depend on the specific supply/demand curve. A reduction in demand does not typically result in a step-wise decrease in demand because pricing will shift. That is, any downward movement in prices will increase demand so if something changes a new equilibrium is found.

But my point here was that the relationships are complex, not that a reduction in demand would never reduce supply. At some point it should reduce supply, but how exactly that occurs is specific to the market. But for anything to matter, the impact has to be measurable.

But also there is the issue of exports, global demand for meat is high so if demand drops in some specific country farmers can just export their surplus. For aggregate meat production to really decline you'd need an aggregate drop in demand for meat throughout the world.

Lay Vegan wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:31 am This "hidden premise" doesn't exist. If you find it morally abhorrent to raise and subject animals to the abuses in factory farms, yet purchase animals raised and subjected and abuses in factory farms, there is a contradiction in that person's principles and behaviors.
What is the contradiction exactly? It seems clear that you're assuming certain moral principles here.
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:31 am Most of the practices I mentioned are already considered "humane slaughter." Tyson's regulations align with the U.S. Humane Slaughter Act, in which the animal must be rendered unconscious before slaughter. Slaughter houses will often dunk poultry into "electric baths" to stun them before having their throats slit via machine, and being thrown into boiling vats.
Much of what you mentioned had nothing to do with slaughter and the Humane Slaughter Act doesn't apply to poultry. Farmers can kill poultry whoever they wish so long as its "standardized".
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:31 am Slaughter can be humane, if you are preventing prolonged suffering. However, it is neither humane nor compassionate to slaughter animals unnecessarily. I think you're asking if we will ever develop a way to kill animals completely painlessly and without causing them fear. Perhaps?
I don't think there is any obligation for the method to be "completely painless" to be humane, after all, a natural death is far from being painless in most cases. Why is it neither humane or compassionate to raise animals for food? If their living conditions are reasonable and there death involves little to no pain what precisely is the moral objection?

Lay Vegan wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:31 am If the meat is genetically identical to conventional meat (the muscle cells from the cow) and the product looks, tastes, and has the same texture, and is as affordable as conventional meat, rest assured that consumers will purchase the product and except it as meat (so long as they can overcome the ick-factor).
The issue here is that this isn't true....and that will be abundantly clear to consumers when they look at the ingredients for the product. It will be a long list of ingredients the first of which will be something like "cultured bovine muscle tissue".

And as I pointed out here earlier, just because a synthetic exists doesn't mean people won't buy the real thing. Synthetic gems exist and only professionals can tell the difference, yet people still desire the "real thing". Just as gems are about more than looks, meat is about more than taste.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:04 am This quote makes a lot of assertions but doesn't appear to provide any arguments for them. If someone is going to claim something is "in no way rational" then I think they are obligated to make a strong argument for their case. I'd love to hear the argument.
I thought what I said, and the link (did you read it?), would be enough to give you the general idea.
I'll try to explain in more detail:
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:38 am If the impact is not measurable it will have no impact on production figures, farmers based their investments and the number of animals to raise on things they can measure. "Vote with your dollars" is a feel good slogan, but what he do as individuals often has no measurable impact.
Only literally NO impact will never change measurement. Believing otherwise is a misunderstanding of measurement on your part.

In science, measurements are imprecise, but statistical in nature.
Take your lake example, which is a complete misunderstanding of how measurement works:
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:38 amThink of a large lake, one drop in the lake has no measurable impact on the level of the lake and while it still exists in an abstract sense not in a measurable sense and that is what matters here.
See Sorites paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
Which you're essentially asserting about the effects of individuals here.
The sorites paradox (/soʊˈraɪtiːz/;[1] sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that arises from vague predicates.[2] A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?[3]
When dealing with scientific measurements, we're always struggling with some margin of statistical noise (which is why measurements have margins of error).

Imagine a situation in which we are measuring the level of the lake with a precision of centimeters.

Before adding the drop, the level of the lake was in actual reality 999.50000... cm

Measurements would cluster around that based on whatever noise we were dealing with, mostly giving us 999 or 1000, with a few odd 998s 997s 1001s and 1002s, and occasional outliers spread past that.

IF you took enough measurements (an implausibly large number), you could determine that the distribution is the same on each side of 999.5 and that the true number was half way in-between.

AFTER adding one single drop, most of your measurements will look the same, but not all of them.
Statistically speaking, you will end up with slightly more 1000 measurements and higher.

Is it anything you'd ever notice? Not likely, but that doesn't matter. Ethics is not about what you notice.

When we're dealing with not very careful or rigorous measurements, where people might only be taking a few samples to inform their opinions, the slightly increased chance of having a higher or lower measurement gives a big potential effect.

This is what we mean by "having a small chance of making a big difference".

It doesn't matter how you want to model it (bottom up or top down from watching the market), the effect is there.

You can even imagine it in terms of you being the last consumer of a large group, the straw that breaks the camel's back and manifests the change of demand through crude measurement if you want.
You came close to understanding that here:
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:38 am At some point it should reduce supply, but how exactly that occurs is specific to the market.
The bottom line: ignoring small probabilities of very large effects is a common form of ethical malpractice, but I'd hope you're above that once it's been explained. :)

carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:38 am What is the contradiction exactly? It seems clear that you're assuming certain moral principles here.
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:04 am I don't see how statistics bridges the gap here, but if you think it does provide an argument in gross form to show that no additional premises are required to show a contradiction.
The principle that you have a small chance of causing a large effect should be evident.

Do you deny the role of probability in ethics?

If you, blindfolded, fire a gun into a dispersed crowd, you have a small chance of hitting or killing somebody. But whether you get very unlucky and kill somebody, or you get ever so slightly lucky and hit nobody (which was most likely), neither outcome makes you any more or less morally culpable. Good luck does not exculpate you.

If you don't agree, I can show how consequentialism does not work -at all- without considering probabilistic effects.

It doesn't matter what "actually" happens as to the ethics of behavior. The probability matters.
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:38 am Its always demand and supply at a given price, what would happen would depend on the specific supply/demand curve. A reduction in demand does not typically result in a step-wise decrease in demand because pricing will shift. That is, any downward movement in prices will increase demand so if something changes a new equilibrium is found.
You can try to make the case that eating one cow or one chicken statistically kills slightly fewer than one cow or one chicken, but that in itself is a hard argument to make because demand for meat is relatively inelastic and as explained previously there are statistical effects on supply.
Things are complicated by subsidies, so it's not a perfectly free market, but the industry's profitability also affects that.
There is also the fact that there's more than one animal killed per animal eaten, and there are also forces that magnify your effects in the market like increasing the availability and affordability of alternatives which influence other consumers.

On balance, "not eating one cow = one less cow raised and killed" is the reasonable assumption without evidence to the contrary based on an extensive analysis of all other forces.

Either way, even if it were true that two fewer animals eaten caused one fewer animal to be raised in confinement and killed, that's still morally relevant.
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:38 am For aggregate meat production to really decline you'd need an aggregate drop in demand for meat throughout the world.
We don't need to see a net drop in demand for our actions to be morally relevant; even a slowing of the rate of demand increase is relevant.

It's hard to overcome the force of changes in the developing world, but we can mitigate them a little in the mean time rather than ADDING to them.

carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:04 am It was intentionally generic, but it could mean promoting improved welfare regulations for farm animals. It could mean promoting cooking techniques that involve less frequent use of meat or alternatives. And so on.
I meant "what do you do?"
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:04 am Now my diet is oriented around my health, my intake of meat is low, dairy is probably average and very little eggs.
It's good to hear that you don't eat much meat.
Are we talking the one serving (playing card deck size) a day or less, and mostly fish, as per the diets of the longest lived populations?
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by carnap »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 pm Only literally NO impact will never change measurement. Believing otherwise is a misunderstanding of measurement on your part.

In science, measurements are imprecise, but statistical in nature.
Take your lake example, which is a complete misunderstanding of how measurement works
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but measurement is not a statistic. A particular measuring device will have a "margin of error" which tells you about its precision.

But this has little to do with my point, my point is that an action in an economic system will not have an impact on the system if nobody can measure it. The action will be, in a sense, a ghost in the system. Farmers only respond to changes in their measures which are pretty crude, as such it takes pretty big shifts in activity for them to see anything.

To use another analogy, consider weighing the amount of water in a cup by ounces. After the first drop the scale will still say "0", likewise for the second, third, etc....but at some point the scale will say "1 oz" . Now if that is all you could see, well, there is no distinction between the empty cup and a cup with a few drops of water. They look the same to you.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 pm The bottom line: ignoring small probabilities of very large effects is a common form of ethical malpractice, but I'd hope you're above that once it's been explained. :)
There is a way to analyze that, namely, expected value. But what makes this a "common form of ethical malpractice"? Are we morally obligated to boycott any action that isn't absolutely essential for our survival if there is a non-zero expected value that it will harm some animal or person. Nobody could follow that principle, so then what exactly is the threshold and why? And then you'd have to actually estimate the expected-value in the case of a single purchase of meat.

This is a common problem with arguments for veganism, there is no way to legitimize the line being draw at veganism....the moral principle being used has much more board and often absurd consequences.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 pm You can try to make the case that eating one cow or one chicken statistically kills slightly fewer than one cow or one chicken, but that in itself is a hard argument to make because demand for meat is relatively inelastic and as explained previously there are statistical effects on supply.
That wasn't my point but rather the action that demand has on supply is indirect and very rarely due demand and supply move in a step-wise matter.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 pm Things are complicated by subsidies, so it's not a perfectly free market, but the industry's profitability also affects that.
Subsidies make individual consumers actions even less relevant. In the US dairy has price supports which greatly limits the impact demand reduction has on supply. As such boycotting dairy in the US with current laws is pretty much symbolic in nature.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 pm On balance, "not eating one cow = one less cow raised and killed" is the reasonable assumption without evidence to the contrary based on an extensive analysis of all other forces.
Its a common sense assumption that doesn't make sense economically for the reasons I cited, that is, the market for beef has no way of determining whether demand dropped by one cow and as such it won't impact further production.

Though thinking of it in terms of expected value makes sense, but what that means morally is by no means clear.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 pm We don't need to see a net drop in demand for our actions to be morally relevant; even a slowing of the rate of demand increase is relevant.
Demand always exists at a price, right now globally the vast majority of people would prefer to eat more meat and the only thing that is stopping them is the price. So long as that remains true any surplus supply in one nation will just find its way into another, the only thing that would stop that would be trade barriers. The point is that for supply to actually drop you need a reduction in demand at the appropriate price.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 pm I meant "what do you do?"
I'm not an activist, what I do is limited to what I support politically and what I promote and discuss in daily life.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 pm Are we talking the one serving (playing card deck size) a day or less, and mostly fish, as per the diets of the longest lived populations?
How much meat I end up eating is variable, it largely hinges on how much I eat out. Thinking of the last week my average daily intake was around 2 oz.

I don't pay much attention to the diets of the "longest lived populations", we don't know the cause of their longevity. Personally I just look at how my lifestyle impacts my measures of health and focus my diet on largely whole/minimally processed foods and tend to favor traditional dietary practices.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Roman0vmarisa
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:48 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by Roman0vmarisa »

In my very honest opinion- I think most vegans are, other than animals, only concerned about themselves and other vegans, meaning that they rarely think logically about non-vegans and approaches that actually help non-vegans become vegan... I can’t wrap my head around the fact that not all vegans don’t support clean meat. Some say that it’s unethical because they are initially taking a sample from a chicken to use (this was a while ago so I don’t remember exactly what was said), and so they can’t support it. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. The “unethical” practice of taking something from a chicken to reduce unethical meat without harming or killing him outweighs the benefits of potentially reducing and/or eliminating slaughter? A lot of vegans are holding veganism back and the animals are paying for it.
User avatar
ModVegan
Full Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:01 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by ModVegan »

Lay Vegan wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:42 pm
ModVegan wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:42 am Have you read "Clean Meat" yet? They do go into this a bit in the book - European researchers generally DO have to source material from recently slaughtered animals. Ultimately, if European laws make it too difficult to do this, then the research will simply be done elsewhere. They'll catch on eventually if it's successful - just like they have with GMOs, though it's taken a while.
Yes, I'm nearly finished with the book. Excellent review by the way on your channel :) After I saw your video, I decided to check it out from the library. One of the best decisions I've made recently.
So glad you enjoyed the video, and the book!
Gregor Samsa
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by Gregor Samsa »

Clean Meat is very likely the only thing that will humanity at large abandon killing animals for their flesh. How can a vegan not be for it?
Peppesq
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 10:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by Peppesq »

How many chemical plants have you guys walked round (scaled up lab grown meat is basically going to be a big biochemistry facility)? Energy to heat stuff up, energy to cool stuff down, raw materials purified with huge quantities of water and consequently lots of waste-water with pollutants in it (either directly entering the environment or going through an AD plant producing CO2 etc), raw materials shipped around the globe. Water and chemicals to clean and disinfect everything between production runs. Staff to maintain it all – who all drove to work, lighting all over the place, big tanks and vats all made from stainless steel, welded together and with specialist treatment chemicals to manage corrosion etc. That’s rather different to an cow, pig or sheep which is largely autonomous in production.
Then add in, with no animal manure, as a by-product from meat production you are looking at more synthetic fertiliser. With no leather and wool as a by-product from meat production you are looking at more synthetic fibres (for example), with the consequential environmental impact. Unless there is a market for the by-products of lab-grown meat then you’ve got a waste stream not a useful product.
Now there may be questions about the efficiency of imported feedstock but labelling “lab-grown” as better than “farmed” but measuring farmed on the worst possible efficiency and the lab-grown on speculation of how efficient it might one day be is rather nonsensical. If the aim is simply to improve the eco-friendliness of meat stop making fake meat and invest the same effort in improving farming practices (eg. using the Aussie seaweed that is reported to reduce CH4 emission massively; financial incentives for UK sourced feeds etc). The people in the fake meat business are predominantly not in it to save the planet – they are in it for £££ (or more often $$$).
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pm Then add in, with no animal manure, as a by-product from meat production you are looking at more synthetic fertiliser.
This is a myth. Animals do not fix nitrogen. They consume plants that are nitrogen fixers or that were fertilized. Please don't repeat this, you're just feeding anti-vegan propaganda with misinformation like this.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pmWith no leather and wool as a by-product from meat production you are looking at more synthetic fibres
This is true, but these animals use enteric fermentation, and it's well known that animal ag. had enormous environmental footprints even minus the methane.
Leather processing is also particularly bad, you may want to look into it.

These can also be replaced by natural fibers like hemp for clothing, and there are some new eco-vegan leathers that are being developed.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pmUnless there is a market for the by-products of lab-grown meat then you’ve got a waste stream not a useful product.
Cultured meat doesn't have that kind of by-product waste stream, because organs and skin and bones aren't being grown.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pmNow there may be questions about the efficiency of imported feedstock but labelling “lab-grown” as better than “farmed” but measuring farmed on the worst possible efficiency and the lab-grown on speculation of how efficient it might one day be is rather nonsensical.
Not really, when you're only rapidly growing one tissue, cultured meat has an inherent advantage.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pmIf the aim is simply to improve the eco-friendliness of meat stop making fake meat
I hope you aren't disparaging tofu and pea-based meat -- these are nitrogen fixing plants, and the processing is quite minimal by comparison. Multiple studies have looked at vegan mock meats and demonstrated them to be significantly better.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pm The people in the fake meat business are predominantly not in it to save the planet – they are in it for £££ (or more often $$$).
That's a lie. Most of these high profile people starting these endeavors are long term ethical vegans who studied biochemistry to help solve this issue -- for animals, and the planet. Please don't slander people you don't know. You may not agree with them, that doesn't make them evil. I don't even think most animal farmers have inherently evil motivations (many think they're providing a healthy food to feed the country). That's just a terrible thing to say, and honestly I think it reflects more on your own heart than anything else.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pminvest the same effort in improving farming practices (eg. using the Aussie seaweed that is reported to reduce CH4 emission massively; financial incentives for UK sourced feeds etc).
The animal ag industry has been researching these things, but none have panned out as viable. If you think seaweed will reduce methane emissions long term, you fundamentally misunderstand microbiology: It's very easy to create short term changes in a microbiome and the metabolic function of bacteria, but bacteria have an amazing ability to adapt, and the fundamental chemical pathways involved in the anaerobic metabolism of these long chain fibers that supplies the majority of the calories for ruminants has as its byproduct methane. There's no obvious way to get around that, not seaweed or anything else.
The only way around that is changing the feedstuff to be higher in fat, protein, and simple carbohydrates and using monogastric animals (like pigs, or if you really want, genetically altered cows with one stomach). That, however, defeats the already weak argument for cows as converters of fiber into edible food.

You may hold out hope in ignorance of the apparently insurmountable challenge of subverting millions of years of biology, but standing there in your ignorance and criticizing others for not being so naive is quite inappropriate.

I happen to agree that cultured meat is probably unnecessary. I think we can quite easily convert plants directly into mock meats far more easily. I think things like beyond meat and the impossible burger have demonstrated that. Another generation of improvements and I doubt cultured meat will be able to compete in price and environmental efficiency. There's always a loss when you convert one cell's products into another cell.

I think the applications of cultured meat will probably be limited to things like cat food and the few meat products that are harder to replicate for high end consumers.
The arguments you're making, though, are terrible.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pmHow many chemical plants have you guys walked round (scaled up lab grown meat is basically going to be a big biochemistry facility)?
No, these are just bioreactors. It's akin to a facility producing nutritional yeast or ethanol.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pmEnergy to heat stuff up, energy to cool stuff down,
An efficient facility uses heat exchangers, as have been used for many years with pasteurization. There's some energy input, but we'll see what that looks like when we have some independent life cycle analyses. Like I said, cultured meat will be unlikely to beat other vegan mock meats which in my view are fine.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pmraw materials purified with huge quantities of water and consequently lots of waste-water with pollutants in it (either directly entering the environment or going through an AD plant producing CO2 etc), raw materials shipped around the globe.
You're talking about the feed stock. None of this compares as anything close to animal agriculture. IF people are going to eat meat, they should eat cultured meat.
But like I said, a lot easier to eat mock meats.
Peppesq wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 2:13 pmWater and chemicals to clean and disinfect everything between production runs. Staff to maintain it all – who all drove to work, lighting all over the place, big tanks and vats all made from stainless steel, welded together and with specialist treatment chemicals to manage corrosion etc. That’s rather different to an cow, pig or sheep which is largely autonomous in production.
It's all nothing compared to animal ag. If you're talking about accessibility to developing countries, that's a valid point. How is a poor region going to develop these systems? They can easily raise cows on pasture. It becomes trickier when we go on to criticize these regions and their food security.
But we're not talking about accessibility in those regions, vegans are talking about clean meat for places that currently have high levels of development and can support it as an alternative.

FYI, as dirty as they are to look at, CAFOs are actually more efficient and better for the environment than organic grass fed meat. This is a giant leap better still than that. You can appeal to tradition or anti-technology sentiments all you want, but you don't have the facts or the data on your side there.

And I have to wonder why you would fight this so hard and choose to spread this propaganda if you really care about animals at all, because there's no question that this is better for them. Maybe be a little more open minded, and not so clouded by fear of technology. Nobody is asking you to eat it, but the people behind most of this are ethical vegans who want to help stop the cycle of animal confinement and suffering.
Post Reply