Turn on thread page Beta

cruelty free meat-would you eat it & why? watch

  • View Poll Results: Would you eat supermeat?
    Yes.
    16.17%
    No-never!
    16.42%
    Need more information.
    57.96%
    Yes, but would still eat regular meat.
    6.22%
    Only when eating in resturants.
    0
    0%
    Yes, but the conditions when I would and wouldn't are not listed on this poll.
    3.23%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I know exactly what you mean. If milk and eggs could be done in a similar way (I'm not sure if that would ever be possible) would you be interested in that, given that that would then potentially be cruelty free?

    And morally speaking what do you think about it?
    At the moment, I'd definitely look into eating milk/eggs that way, but I'd want to eventually become vegan, as I am moving toward at the moment.

    Morally speaking, it's a very tricky one. The quality of life for the animal is what I'm worried about here - they need an animal to take a biopsy from, so does the animal suffer? How is the animal kept - if they're kept in a tiny cage just to have cells harvested repeatedly then it's not exactly a good thing morally.

    But at the same time, animals aren't dying, so it's probably a lot better than the current industry IMO
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I know we all probably eat frankenfood to some degree, but this is a bit creepy for me. I stopped eating meat because I didn't like the taste, although some of that was hinged on the fact that I didn't like the thought of eating animals. My answer is therefore no, but it does raise interesting questions.

    What if you took the DNA from a human and created human meat - would that be any less disgusting?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angry cucumber)
    I will almost certainly eat it in my lifetime as it will be a lot cheaper once commercialised than your standard meat. I'd be happy to eat it.

    I'd also pay the premium and buy some actual meat as well.

    Also hyperbole of peace with the hidden adhoms with regards to animals suffering. It's a matter of opinion whether the majority of animals raised for meat actually truly do suffer and as we've discussed many times I'm of the opposite opinion to yourself
    I haven't done enough research on the issue, but what makes you think that they don't suffer/ Are you just closing your mind to it because it's convenient? Is it morally right to kill an animal even if it didn't suffer beforehand? I doubt animals simply drift off to sleep in a painless way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YaliaV)
    I know we all probably eat frankenfood to some degree, but this is a bit creepy for me. I stopped eating meat because I didn't like the taste, although some of that was hinged on the fact that I didn't like the thought of eating animals. My answer is therefore no, but it does raise interesting questions.

    What if you took the DNA from a human and created human meat - would that be any less disgusting?
    I was thinking this actually. I've love to be able to try a piece of my own arm without harming myself .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by celloel)
    At the moment, I'd definitely look into eating milk/eggs that way, but I'd want to eventually become vegan, as I am moving toward at the moment.

    Morally speaking, it's a very tricky one. The quality of life for the animal is what I'm worried about here - they need an animal to take a biopsy from, so does the animal suffer? How is the animal kept - if they're kept in a tiny cage just to have cells harvested repeatedly then it's not exactly a good thing morally.

    But at the same time, animals aren't dying, so it's probably a lot better than the current industry IMO
    Their facebook page also has a lot of pro animal welfare things on, which is encouraging but I agree with you, those are my concerns as well.

    If they have chickens for example, there's the food and shelter, water and hygiene issues sure. Theres the eggs and the brooding. But how much stimulation do they get? Do they have forestry of any kind etc.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YaliaV)

    What if you took the DNA from a human and created human meat - would that be any less disgusting?
    Rationally I'd be fine with that.

    There would be a yuck factor though.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    The idea of eating any kind of meat, cruelty free or not, makes me feel sick. I'd only eat if I had to for whatever reason
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Their facebook page also has a lot of pro animal welfare things on, which is encouraging but I agree with you, those are my concerns as well.

    If they have chickens for example, there's the food and shelter, water and hygiene issues sure. Theres the eggs and the brooding. But how much stimulation do they get? Do they have forestry of any kind etc.
    Exactly my thoughts. If they could make sure the animals weren't hurt, had safe conditions, the animal's offspring was ok, etc, then it'd be amazing.. but I'm not sure if that's possible. They also said in the video this industry requires less land, which worries me - what are they planning on doing with the animals they biopsy from or their offspring to require less land?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angry cucumber)

    Also hyperbole of peace with the hidden adhoms with regards to animals suffering. It's a matter of opinion whether the majority of animals raised for meat actually truly do suffer and as we've discussed many times I'm of the opposite opinion to yourself
    Hack a cow with a machete and see how it reacts....

    There are levels of suffering that are empirically blooming obvious. It is not a matter of opinion.

    Do you believe humans are the only animal to feel pain? Of course we can never truly know I guess. But I am going to say my inference that animals feel pain is so plainly the one more likely to be true by orders of magnitude. Humans and cows come from the same place...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by celloel)
    Exactly my thoughts. If they could make sure the animals weren't hurt, had safe conditions, the animal's offspring was ok, etc, then it'd be amazing.. but I'm not sure if that's possible. They also said in the video this industry requires less land, which worries me - what are they planning on doing with the animals they biopsy from or their offspring to require less land?
    That's because you don't get the concept fully.

    One biopsy takes a tiny amount of matter, and then using their technology, they mimic the conditions of a chicken to make that matter into meat. So imagine conceptually, one chicken having one biopsy and that feeds 100 servings of chicken, with the chicken still living. That's 100 times less land needed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    That's because you don't get the concept fully.

    One biopsy takes a tiny amount of matter, and then using their technology, they mimic the conditions of a chicken to make that matter into meat. So imagine conceptually, one chicken having one biopsy and that feeds 100 servings of chicken, with the chicken still living. That's 100 times less land needed.
    I did realise this, but I thought about it in the wrong way and mixed myself up with what they meant in regards to land!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I already eat a lot of meat, and would gladly eat meat if no living beings were harmed.
    But killing animals is only part of it. There's also the idea of mistreating the animals in the time their cells are harvested, by giving them a bad life (e.g. battery hens). As long as the animals are treated well, I will eat the meat.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by h3rmit)
    If you convince them that your moral set of values is beneficial, then you can change their set of moral values to be more similar to yours so the argument will work.
    Which still requires the arguers morals to be agreed with

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by YaliaV)
    I haven't done enough research on the issue, but what makes you think that they don't suffer/ Are you just closing your mind to it because it's convenient? Is it morally right to kill an animal even if it didn't suffer beforehand? I doubt animals simply drift off to sleep in a painless way.
    No, I'm not closing my mind My work is entirely to relieve animal suffering and pain. Whilst farming is far from perfect, the majority of animals do not suffer.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Hack a cow with a machete and see how it reacts....

    There are levels of suffering that are empirically blooming obvious. It is not a matter of opinion.

    Do you believe humans are the only animal to feel pain? Of course we can never truly know I guess. But I am going to say my inference that animals feel pain is so plainly the one more likely to be true by orders of magnitude. Humans and cows come from the same place...
    Lol hyperbole and I think you misunderstood what I meant. How many cows get hacked to pieces by machete in Europe? Exactly

    Animals feel pain lots, however in farming, the majority of animals do not suffer, that is my opinion. Yes at times they will feel pain, much like a human would. There's a miriad of pain medication out there that should be used under the 5 freedoms.

    As above, farming is not perfect. But to say that most animals live a life not worth living is false in my opinion.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm strongly in favour of lab-grown meat and would eat it if it did indeed cut out suffering. Currently, billions of nonhuman animals suffer unnecessarily in the meat industry every single year, and the industry is a major greenhouse gas emitter. Cultured meat could potentially address both of these problems.

    There are currently still some concerns about the ethics when it comes to the culture medium. At the moment, fetal bovine serum is used for the culture medium. This process requires slaughtering a pregnant cow and draining blood from the heart of its live, unanesthezised fetus. This is obviously an inhumane process, but pursuing lab-grown meat is absolutely the right thing to do as there is already research going on into using alternative culture mediums.

    I'd highly recommend this policy paper on cultured meat for anyone who is interested, outlining the benefits of cultured meat and the challenges it faces going forward.

    I've never heard of supermeat before, interesting. New Harvest and Memphis Meats could also potentially have products that are commercially viable in around five years.

    (Original post by Angry cucumber)
    No, I'm not closing my mind My work is entirely to relieve animal suffering and pain. Whilst farming is far from perfect, the majority of animals do not suffer.
    Even if this were true, we're still inflicting suffering on millions of nonhuman animals entirely unnecessarily.

    I don't think it is true, though: factory farms won't even let you inside to look at them, and they produce the majority of the meat sold in the UK. Chickens are bred as fast as possible such that their legs collapse under their weight and they suffer heart problems; female pigs are confined in farrowing crates for weeks at a time in which they can't even move their bodies (here are some typical UK pig farms, including one owned by someone who received a Queen's honour for work on animal welfare); fish are an entirely separate matter and suffer immensely when being pulled out of the sea.


    Millions of animals in the meat industry die before they even reach the slaughterhouse due to fires, floods, road collisions, disease and neglect. During the transportation, the journeys are often long and the animals are under a great deal of stress. And, in the slaughterhouse itself, the slaughter process goes wrong in 10-40% of cases, even in secular slaughterhouses. Again, this equates to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every single year, entirely unnecessarily. Random investigations of secular slaughterhouses corroborate this.

    Gassing, an increasingly popular 'humane' way of killing chickens and pigs, is anything but 'humane'. Pigs can be seen gasping for their breath and desperately trying to get out of the gas chambers for up to 20 seconds.

    The truth is that industry welfare standards are designed to suit the farmers, not the animals. When animals are viewed as economic units and not sentient beings, their welfare is never going to be taken seriously: they'll be bred as fast as possible as cheaply as possible. Animal welfare law says that we should cut out unnecessary suffering. If the government was serious, they'd shut down the factory farms and outlaw the slaughterhouses, because we don't need to eat meat.

    Would you be willing to allow humans to be confined, transported and slaughtered as they are in the meat industry today, even if a majority of them didn't suffer? If you think that intelligence somehow makes a being's suffering less important, let's say these humans have the same mental capacity as a nonhuman animal reared for meat (as some humans do).

    (Original post by Final Fantasy)
    You can't derive a logically consistent argument by 'morally speaking'. It's your own subjective opinion at play.
    The meaning of that was that there's no logical justification for putting the comparable interests of humans over those of nonhumans simply because humans are a member of the species Homo sapiens. If we would have an ethical problem with confining, transporting and slaughtering human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans (who have similar mental capacities to the animals we rear for meat) in the meat industry, then we should have an ethical problem with doing so for nonhumans.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Even if this were true, we're still inflicting suffering on millions of nonhuman animals entirely unnecessarily.

    I don't think it is true, though: factory farms won't even let you inside to look at them, and they produce the majority of the meat sold in the UK. Chickens are bred as fast as possible such that their legs collapse under their weight; female pigs are confined in farrowing crates for weeks at a time in which they can't even move their bodies; fish are an entirely separate matter and suffer immensely when being pulled out of the sea.
    It's weird that I have been inside several then....

    Chickens going off there legs is a disease process and birds that can't walk, aren't slaughtered. Because it's a disease process and treatment is administered. If numbers above a certain threshold are found, the farmer is investigated by the FSA

    Farrowing crates are not ideal, I'll grant you that. They exist though because sows lie on there piglets.... in the dozens. I've been in an outdoor raised arc and seen some truly awful lying fatalities. They serve a purpose to help piglets survive and make it past the first week or so. After that they come out of crates, by law,

    Fish being pulled out of the sea and varies with species and dispatch method, salmon for instance are humanely killed instantly. There are large numbers dying of asyphxation, which I'll accept is not animal welfare friendly.

    Millions of animals in the meat industry die before they even reach the slaughterhouse. During the transportation, the journeys are often long and the animals are under a great deal of stress.
    There's all manner of legislation that has to be kept to. Journeys longer than specific lengths have to be fully licensed with specific points to deliver water to animals. All DOA animals are accounted for and if above a threshold they are investigated by FSA and Trading Standards.

    Again, this equates to millions upon millions of animals dying in intense pain every single year, entirely unnecessarily.
    You pulled that 10-40% from thin air. Prove it. You are entirely false, the numbers that have problems during slaughter are tiny, all staff are trained and certificated and must regularly be retested, whilst they are continually inspected by a OV.

    Would you be willing to allow humans to be confined, transported and slaughtered as they are in the meat industry today, even if a majority of them didn't suffer? If you think that intelligence somehow makes a being's suffering less important, let's say these humans have the same mental capacity as a nonhuman animal reared for meat (as some humans do).
    This is a silly argument and there's no point arguing it further. Would you keep a human as a pet? Same logic as you've applied
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angry cucumber)
    You pulled that 10-40% from thin air. Prove it. You are entirely false, the numbers that have problems during slaughter are tiny, all staff are trained and certificated and must regularly be retested, whilst they are continually inspected by a OV.
    I've added more citations for what I've said, including the 10-40% figures which are derived from numerous studies referenced in the study I cited.

    (Original post by Angry cucumber)
    This is a silly argument and there's no point arguing it further. Would you keep a human as a pet? Same logic as you've applied
    If humans have an interest in not being pets (and almost all do), then of course not. I'd also see no reason to breed humans who don't have the capacity to make a decision as pets, just as I'd personally rather people didn't have animals as pets either, but the difference is that pets aren't treated as economic units: in the meat industry, nonhuman animals are.

    Declaring it a silly argument isn't an argument. You have to explain why you'd have an ethical objection to treating humans that have a similar mental capacity to nonhuman animals in the ways in which we treat these animals in the meat industry.

    As I said above, animal welfare legislation only goes as far as the industry will let it. Pigs wouldn't have to roll on their piglets at all, for instance, if they weren't being bred for meat in the first place.

    You've said that a significant minority of animals reared for meat are in bad conditions, if not very bad conditions, for significant periods of their lives. I'd say that virtually all of the animals raised in factory farms have lives that aren't worth living: an often overlooked point is that while we look for signs of physical suffering, the animals are, through it all, being prevented from carrying out their natural instincts. Some animal welfare experts have said that many show signs of depression, if not extreme depression. Things can't be any better than what we see before our eyes, and they could be a lot worse. Regardless of which is the case, the fact is that we don't need to be rearing animals for meat at all, and it's complete madness to do so.

    We wouldn't take these risks, as I say, with human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans; we wouldn't even keep dogs in these conditions if we weren't going to eat them, and that's exactly the point: we're doing all of this, and putting, at the very least, tens of millions of animals through terrible suffering every single year, to titillate our palates.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I've added more citations for what I've said, including the 10-40% figures which are derived from numerous studies referenced in the study I cited.



    If humans have an interest in not being pets (and almost all do), then of course not. I'd also see no reason to breed humans who don't have the capacity to make a decision as pets, just as I'd personally rather people didn't have animals as pets either, but the difference is that pets aren't treated as economic units: in the meat industry, nonhuman animals are.

    Declaring it a silly argument isn't an argument. You have to explain why you'd have an ethical objection to treating humans that have a similar mental capacity to nonhuman animals in the ways in which we treat these animals in the meat industry.

    As I said above, animal welfare legislation only goes as far as the industry will let it. Pigs wouldn't have to roll on their piglets at all, for instance, if they weren't being bred for meat in the first place.

    You've said that a significant minority of animals reared for meat are in bad conditions, if not very bad conditions, for significant periods of their lives. I'd say that virtually all of the animals raised in factory farms have lives that aren't worth living: an often overlooked point is that while we look for signs of physical suffering, the animals are, through it all, being prevented from carrying out their natural instincts. Some animal welfare experts have said that many show signs of depression, if not extreme depression. Things can't be any better than what we see before our eyes, and they could be a lot worse. Regardless of which is the case, the fact is that we don't need to be rearing animals for meat at all, and it's complete madness to do so.

    We wouldn't take these risks, as I say, with human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans; we wouldn't even keep dogs in these conditions if we weren't going to eat them, and that's exactly the point: we're doing all of this, and putting, at the very least, tens of millions of animals through terrible suffering every single year, to titillate our palates.
    Realistically you're not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours.

    Your post is full of half truths and "animal rights" propaganda. The one scientific paper you have is a swedish study and is a reasonably small study. So how that compares to Britain is anyones guess.

    You've made your choice to be vegan thats fine by me, but I would argue that you should research farming practices further than animal rights groups who are well known for falsifying and distorting the truth for the "greater good".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    If you're going to eat cruelty free meat (at the moment, also self contradictory unless you happen to find a dead animal) then you're giving way to the premise that we ought not be cruel to animals and that it's possible to be cruel to them. It is obviously in their interests not to be treated cruelly from an a priori perspective. Not sure why that's hard to grasp.

    If their interests don't concern you then you don't care about being cruel to them.

    And happy life is very open. For example, most 'free range' birds are subject to yarding, where they're unable to access the space they're given outside, which is fields. Most birds aren't even stimulated by that, and instead need forestry and a range of environments.
    You claimed that I said we can be cruel to them. I did not.
    You claimed that I said they don't have interests. I did not say that either.

    I think you misunderstood when I said that their interests don't concern me. I'm not saying that I don't care if they get treated cruelly. I'd much prefer they be treated humanely, and given the sort of space that you would truly expect from the term "free range."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    You claimed that I said we can be cruel to them. I did not.
    You claimed that I said they don't have interests. I did not say that either.

    I think you misunderstood when I said that their interests don't concern me. I'm not saying that I don't care if they get treated cruelly. I'd much prefer they be treated humanely, and given the sort of space that you would truly expect from the term "free range."
    You've said you don't want to be cruel to animals, meaning you're saying we can be cruel to them but shouldn't.

    As in, it is possible to be cruel to them.

    You said their interests are irrelevant, but if that's the case then it wouldn't matter if we're cruel to them or not.

    I'm not sure how you're not getting this.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 20, 2016
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.