That still isn't restrictive of their diet. And anyway, Vitamin D can be obtained from food sources, not just the sun. Are you trying to say everyone in Europe relies on Vitamin D supplements?
(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
A black person can naturally synthesize vitamin D (an essential nutrient) from the sun in areas with plenty of sun, like in Africa. But by moving to Europe, the person puts himself in a position where he has to rely on supplements for his nutrition. I really don't see how you've made a compelling case for the difference.
The scientists have no reason to torture the animals unnecessarily. It probably takes 5 minutes to extract the sample of tissue then the animal could be let free, in theory. You're assuming something completely without basis. And In no way does that compare to harvesting organs from designer babies. In fact they can produce billions of pounds worth of meat just from one small sample of muscle tissue.
I'm not assuming that the cells are embryonic. But they're hardly going to go up to free animals and collect the cells. The animals will still be bred, manipulated and kept (and presumably killed when no longer useful).
Any other problems with the way humans treat animals (animal testing etc) have no relevance to the discussion because they can be solved independant of a vegan lifestyle and therefore in tandem with people supporting lab meat. In Vitro meat answers all the problems with rearing animals for food and it lets people eat what they want. To me it's 'optimal' because it's also realistic. Worldwide veganism won't happen any quicker than scientists can create safe and tasty lab meat. Here are the only statistics for veganism i could find-
http://www.imaner.net/panel/statistics.htm#reveal It's hardly increased in numbers in the last decade.
As I have repeatedly said, if people ignore these considerations and just develop in vitro meat anyway, then it will have a beneficial effect. I acknowledge this. But it doesn't follow that it is optimal solution, or that we ought to support it.
In Vitro meat is going to be developed whether people support it or not and in the future, when people can make their choice between cruelty free meat or complete veganism, i reckon i know which one they will choose. Not to mention all the vegetarians and vegans that will probably convert back to eating meat once it can be made safely in a lab.
Like I said, there is a cost involved to promoting in vitro meat, and that cost could be spent promoting and educating people about veganism
Also please answer what you think of PETA being in favour of lab meat? These guys do a wonderful job for animal welfare and they seem to have accepted science in this case.
The vast majority then if you're going to be pedantic.
So you've gone from claiming that no nutritionist in the world would agree with me to claiming 'oh, no nutritionist, apart from those who are highly qualified and at respectable universities, because their work can be discredited by reference to independent persons/organisations who, for private purposes, promote a diet high in animal-protein'.
a) There's no proof that anything more than minimal amounts of animal products is unhealthy and b) i already said i agreed with, depending hugely on the foods that you eat within that diet.
Now, as I said, I don't think your argument about the 'healthiness' of chicken/fish has any force if, as I have claimed, a) the amount of animal foods consumed must be minimal for such a diet to be healthy; and b) diets without those things can be healthy. I'm not sure what your point is here.
I've never said eating meat is healthier than not eating it, but you appear to be saying exactly the opposite. I say both can be healthy or unhealthy so it's pointless trying to argue veganism from a nutritional point of view.
The majority of pet owners treat their animals well. Why not just go after the people who treat their animals badly or educate people about better ways of taking care of their pets. Such a radical solution of banning pets is never going to happen.
I would really like to see what you think is so self-evidently good about absolutely owning other creatures. There are plenty of problems that stem from pet ownership, such as:
a) 'Puppy mills', and their analogues for other animals.
b) The widespread cruelty that such animals suffer.
c) The fact that animals are often neglected in their basic needs because they are treated as existing for the benefit of humans.
But above all, I don't think these are the most fundamental considerations. I've spoken about babies, and how it's not acceptable to just treat them as means to our own ends. I think the same about animals. This has implications for how we act towards animals - we can't just claim to own animals, stick them in our homes or in cages, just because we think it might be fun for us.
Last edited by tomclarky; 14-05-2012 at 14:50.