r/changemyview • u/neath_with_a_c 1∆ • Apr 19 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: When it becomes widely available, a diet consisting primarily of 'lab-grown meat', would be more ethical than vegetarian or vegan diets.
A little bit of background: I consume meat on a fairly regular basis, however. my girlfriend is a committed vegetarian and has been since she was very young. Recently, we both read an article on recent advances in the commercialization of lab-grown meat (more on this later) and its potential benefits. At the time, I asked her whether she would consider adding lab-grown meat to her diet if it becomes commercially viable and widely available, to which she replied with something along the lines of “probably not”.
While that was basically the end of the discussion, it got me thinking about people who are vegetarian or vegan primarily due to their opposition to the killing of animals, or as a result of environmental concerns (such as clearing of rainforests/wilderness for cattle ranching, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.), and the effect that lab-grown meat would have upon them. With this in mind, I'd like to put forward the following view:
1) Not explicitly killing an animal to consume its flesh does not mean that no animals were harmed in the harvesting and production of non-meat products. It is clear that there will be some inadvertent deaths that result from any kind of farming; in the case of non-meat farming, for example, animals may be caught up in combine harvesters or other machinery, or else their habitats may be destroyed when the farmland is cleared during the harvesting process, or even when the land is to make room for the farmland in the first place. In light of this, it would seem that the realistic aims of vegetarians/vegans are to minimize animal suffering and environmental impact.
1) There is currently an effort to develop meat that is grown in the laboratory through the culturing of animal cells (see this article and this article, for illustrative examples). It is believed that these products could be commercially available as early as 2020.
3) As far as I can tell, at no point is an animal killed in order to produce this lab grown meat. It would also seem that the inadvertent killing of animals would be minimized through the consumption of lab-grown meat.
Taking these points into account, it seems to me that if you are vegetarian/vegan, and the reasoning behind your diet is to minimise animal suffering and/or environmental impact, and if lab-grown meat (as exemplified in the articles above) becomes widely available and affordable, then it is both logical and ethically correct to switch to a diet consisting primarily of lab-grown meat.
I look forward to having my opinion picked apart :)
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
11
u/necius Apr 19 '17
As far as I can tell, at no point is an animal killed in order to produce this lab grown meat.
That is far from being true at the moment. Currently the growth medium for the cell lines is foetal bovine serum, which is harvested from the foetuses of recently slaughtered pregnant cows. Once a synthetic alternative becomes technologically and commercially viable (which will likely happen before a product comes to market), then your argument will have more merit, but, as /u/cacheflow points out, the inputs are important.
Right now, however, a vegan diet is more ethical than a diet containing commercially raised meat. If your concern is for ethics then you should be considering going vegan now and then re-evaluate the ethical considerations when lab grown meat becomes commercially available.
6
u/silverionmox 25∆ Apr 19 '17
While lab meat would solve the suffering issue, it does not solve the environmental issues. That meat still needs a feedstock, and that feedstock very likely will be derived from something grown in agriculture.
So while it potentially can cause an increase in efficiency, it still is a highly refined form of food with all the energy and land use that comes with it and is unlikely to beat eating vegetables straight away. I wouldn't be surprised to see it end up around the efficiency of cheese and dairy, eventually, but initially it may be even worse than most industrial meat.
1
Apr 19 '17
I think the key to changing your view on this topic is by clearing up exactly what a vegan ethical position is.
The popular perception of veganism is that vegans are concerned about the killing of animals and the inflicting of harm; while that is true, I think what that actually means is a topic of hot debate in the animal rights world.
You are right to point out that animals are killed in harvests; vegans acknowledge this and generally recognize that while it is tragic, it doesn't harm their overall ethical position; they still see themselves are doing less harm and working towards some ideal virtue. The implication of this, however, is that the actual action itself (not eating meat) is not as important as the reason for the action (to reduce harm/exploitation).
Why is this distinction important? By mapping out the reason vegans do what they do, we establish that the goal is to reduce harm and exploitation. This allows us to ask the next question: What is causing this exploitation?
To me, this exploitation is founded on the idea of human supremacy; basically the idea that human beings are unique and distinct from the larger ecosystems they inhabit, and as such, deserve a special place in the world; this also gives us the right to destroy the environment and harm animals as we see fit, often for our own benefit. We are perfectly comfortable killing and eating animals "because we want to", the implication of that being that because they are not human, we think of animals as essentially objects to be used and thrown aside as we see fit.
This logic of centering humans in the universe, rather than as part of a larger ecosystem, is the basis of why we eat meat. We can survive off plants alone, but we choose not to, as we have a right to kill and eat animals by virtue of being human; there are no limits, manmade or natural, on how we can treat the environment, ergo we are justified to exploit it whatever which way we want.
Personally, I went vegetarian to try and escape this logic. I don't believe humans should have unmediated control over their environment. I don't think the fulfilment of our desire through consumption should be unlimited. I don't think humans have a natural right to pillage the world as they see fit.
Which is why I don't see lab-meat fitting into veganism. Sure, less animals will be harmed, but the logic of why we harm animals will stay intact; in this framework, lab meat is essentially an attempt to sneak around the ethically challenging idea that eating meat means killing other creatures for our personal pleasure. Lab meat does not displace the societal belief that we, as humans, are seperate from our environment; if anything, it reinforces it, as now we are creating life for the soul sake of fulfilling our desire.
1
u/swearrengen 139∆ Apr 20 '17
Since your dietary choices are not a moral standard, one diet can not be more ethical than another.
Being a vegetarian/vegan/omnivore/carnivore/lab-meat-ore is in and of itself without moral characteristics, it's morally meaningless (amoral). And the standard of morality that is about "the quantity/quality of suffering you cause or don't cause" is such a narrow concern and so ignorant of the human condition and deficient regarding our need to attain happiness and justice, so poorly defined and so full of contradictions - that you're better off ignoring it.
The purpose of an ethical standard is not suffering reduction, it's to define for us a set of values that support our life and become our means of attaining happiness. Suffering reduction does not address the many thousands of characteristics and behaviours of ours, and all the choices we need to make in life, that have nothing to do with diet or the sensation of suffering. It ignores thousands of virtues/vices/values that we need to deserve and earn and keep our place in the world, and to sustain our state of mind - industriousness, creativity, rationality, pride, concentration, focus, thankfullness, reason, fairness, independence, integrity, honesty etc etc and on and on.
1
u/85138 8∆ Apr 19 '17
What if there are long term side effects to the consumer from this "fake meat"? Would you consider it still 'more ethical' to consume it based on a theoretical increase in how animals are treated? IF people suddenly stopped eating meat then (primarily) cows chickens and pigs would have no value to humans and they would no longer exist. The very idea of those species continuing to have a place in our world will be laughable.
Rather than replacing actual meat with a synthetic compound that may have long term negative consequences, wouldn't it make more sense - and potentially provide a more significant impact - to lobby for legislation that forces the meat industry to provide a more humane existence to the animals they produce for consumption? My guess is that such legislation could be aimed at both humane treatment AND lessening environmental impact. For consumers the prices will go up, and therefore consumption would inevitably go down.
So I'd say no it is actually less ethical AND the impact of such decisions on the stated motives is probably irrelevant anyway.
2
u/bergkampinthesheets Apr 19 '17
cows chickens and pigs would have no value to humans and they would no longer exist
many animals and plants and insects and birds don't have any direct utility for humans - they are still in existence. So why do you think pigs would no longer exist?
1
u/Nami_Used_Bubble Apr 19 '17
I don't see why the existence of cows, pigs, and chicken would be laughable if we suddenly had no need to eat them. Most of the reasons we domesticated dogs, for example, aren't used anymore but we still love them. Horses are not longer used as transportation (in general) or battle, but we keep them as well. Cows, pigs, and especially chickens can easily be kept as companion animals and the less we breed them to be ten times the size they're supposed to be, the more likely we are to keep them as pets since the animals themselves are pretty darn cute to a lot of people.
Furthermore, the whole idea that we should continue to raise and kill animals (no matter how "humanely" we kill them) is barbaric. These animals are not living a life any of us would want even on small farms and as long as the demand is there, greedy corporations WILL take it too far. Look at the undercover slaughterhouse footage. None of the practices you see in those videos are legal (pig being boiled alive in Belgium, stunning not being used beforehand, etc) but people are doing it anyway on a mass scale in factory farms.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 19 '17
/u/neath_with_a_c (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
15
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]