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%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSD0_I1MwqU

    https://www.facebook.com/SuperMeat.co/?fref=ts

    It is simply against an animals interests to be killed for meat. No matter how we do it we cause a huge amount of suffering.

    This is one of the most likely to be viable in 5 years.

    Would you eat it, if so why, and if not why?


    Are there any questions you'd need to ask before eating it, what are those questions?

    For me the questions are as follows:
    How much, if at all, do animals suffer from the biopsy?

    What is the ratio of biopsies to servings of meat?

    Are there any other environmental impacts that we should know about?
    For instance, will this negate the requirement for anti-biotics?
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Some mildly graphic content:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUYhAJ6MDrc


    Will it be possible to do this along side GM, or would the animal you take the biopsy from have to be subject to GM instead (beyond that of what we already see through selective breeding).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I would. *Meat is tasty. And if it was cruelty free (guarrenteed), I definitely would. It would**certainly negate the "meat is murder" arguments. *From the most part.

    The interests of animals are irrelevant. **
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I would. *Meat is tasty. And if it was cruelty free (guarrenteed), I definitely would. It would**certainly negate the "meat is murder" arguments. *From the most part.

    The interests of animals are irrelevant. **
    Morally speaking there is not a logically consistent argument that shows non-human animal interests to be irrelevant without negating most, if not all, human interests. Which is why currently I can't find any moral philosophers (as in, in the profession) who actually hold such views.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really eat meat very much for health and ethical reasons, but sometimes I have to
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    wtf is supermeat now
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I don't think so, I'm vegan but I have to wonder how ethical taking anything from an animal, bred for human consumption would be, even if it doesn't mean killing it completely. I think I'd just stick to veggies but it's good to see viable alternatives to meat being researched

    Btw is your username a Belle and Sebastian reference?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blondie987)
    Personally, I don't think so, I'm vegan but I have to wonder how ethical taking anything from an animal, bred for human consumption would be, even if it doesn't mean killing it completely. I think I'd just stick to veggies but it's good to see viable alternatives to meat being researched

    Btw is your username a Belle and Sebastian reference?
    Have a guess based on my profile picture
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Have a guess based on my profile picture
    Oh sorry, I'm an idiot this early in the morning :lol:

    Proud to say they're from my hometown and I love them too
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Morally speaking there is not a logically consistent argument that shows non-human animal interests to be irrelevant without negating most, if not all, human interests. Which is why currently I can't find any moral philosophers (as in, in the profession) who actually hold such views.
    *

    Morality is subjective. And who cares about morals and moral philosophers?*
    * *I don't think eating meat would be an issue if we weren't such a-holes about it, and towards animals *
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Even a vexatious bumblebee has the right to live her life.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Morally speaking there is not a logically consistent argument that shows non-human animal interests to be irrelevant without negating most, if not all, human interests. Which is why currently I can't find any moral philosophers (as in, in the profession) who actually hold such views.
    You can't derive a logically consistent argument by 'morally speaking'. It's your own subjective opinion at play.

    What's a moral philosopher? Is that like a moral prostitute (as in, profession)? A moral [insert any profession here]?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    *

    Morality is subjective. And who cares about morals and moral philosophers?*
    * *I don't think eating meat would be an issue if we weren't such a-holes about it, and towards animals *
    So basically you're wandering into a topic you know nothing about, ironically you're claiming non-human animals don't have interests in one breathe but saying you're against cruelty to them in another.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Final Fantasy)
    You can't derive a logically consistent argument by 'morally speaking'. It's your own subjective opinion at play.

    What's a moral philosopher? Is that like a moral prostitute (as in, profession)? A moral [insert any profession here]?
    Oh dear, you also don't seem to have ever done any research into meta-ethics.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    It is simply against an animals interests to be killed for meat.
    Are you an ambassador for all the other animal kingdom species?

    No matter how we do it we cause a huge amount of suffering.
    Can you elaborate on this - are you trying to say that there is no possible way whatsoever to kill an animal without making it suffer? If so, what kind of suffering?

    This is one of the most likely to be viable in 5 years.

    Would you eat it, if so why, and if not why?


    Sure, why not. Wouldn't you? If it exists and provides at least the same value without additional health risks, is there any logical reason not to give it a try at least, except for medical reasons?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Oh dear, you also don't seem to have ever done any research into meta-ethics.
    Are you gonna answer the question? I asked because I don't know.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This is fantastic, isn't it? Provided it is genuine of course. Obviously there are further questions to ask, such as those identified in the OP, but this project has the potential to revolutionise the meat industry. Farming is such a major contributor to global warming, so this could be an incredible step forward towards combating the problem.

    And the animals won't suffer in the biopsy, it'll only be a small amount of muscle cells (or whatever they use) being removed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I really do not care how cruelty free a animal is, as long as the meat tastes good and is not very overpriced I am happy to eat it
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    wtf even is supermeat and why is it, allegedly, so super?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I probably wouldn't eat it myself, because idk how my body would react to meat after not eating it for my entire life.

    But I'd certainly support is as much as I could. This would be one of those things that totally revolutionises human society.
    Any harm done to a couple animals is negligible imo because of how many more it'll save. And I'd hardly call a biopsy as causing harm tbh.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Final Fantasy)
    Are you gonna answer the question? I asked because I don't know.
    Someone who studies the notions of what is morally right, wrong and neutral. Pretty easy to find out.

    Here are some starting pages for you:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_...cal_relativism
 
 
 
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.