Author Topic: culinary investigation  (Read 9504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Euthanasia brigade

  • Guest
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2009, 02:40:08 AM »
The "meat replacement" products do make it easier for some people to go vegetarian so synthetic meat may make it easier to more people and it will reduce meat consumption. But it won’t end even 1% of animal abuse considering the long run as no trend lasts forever and in this case the reaction will be horrible.
Just to think of the number of times the words natural, genuine and real would be reminded in meat commercial nauseates me.
People like to say they like the simple and real things. They tend to relate to these factitious nostalgic messages like "when the meat was meat…". The irrational sympathy to fake nostalgia of the true taste of meat will be the basis of the counter trend and this scenario is relevant only if a synthetic meat trend will start which unfortunately I doubt.

Euthanasia brigade

  • Guest
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2009, 02:41:29 AM »
The "meat replacement" products do make it easier for some people to go vegetarian so synthetic meat may make it easier to more people and it will reduce meat consumption. But it won’t end even 1% of animal abuse considering the long run as no trend lasts forever and in this case the reaction will be horrible.
Just to think of the number of times the words natural, genuine and real would be reminded in meat commercial nauseates me.
People like to say they like the simple and real things. They tend to relate to these factitious nostalgic messages like "when the meat was meat…". The irrational sympathy to fake nostalgia of the true taste of meat will be the basis of the counter trend and this scenario is relevant only if a synthetic meat trend will start which unfortunately I doubt.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2009, 11:38:43 AM »
A much more realistic scenario is that farmers will do anything they can to lower prices and reduce expansions. This pressure will be inflicted on the animals of course. "Farm animals" will live in even denser, filthier places. The chicken regulation 40 kilograms per meter for example will change to 45 in an instant. Veterinary help will be even rarer because of the high costs and etc.
Just as some welfare regulations ends up increasing suffer (for example fans and water vassals in transportation trucks enable the farmers to crowed more animals in every truck with more or less the same mortality rate) an economic threat like synthetic meat might worsen the worst conditions in the world.

I am not saying it is a bad idea and it shouldn’t be done. I am saying it is not the solution and even in the most optimistic prediction the percentages are much much lower if any.

I am also saying that I admire any activist who consistently searches for ways to significantly reduce the world suffer but it still comes down to the question - why dedicate your life to reduce suffer when you can dedicate it to end all the suffer?
All those great people that took the not so easy decision and study biotechnology and tissue growing so they could manufacture syntactic meat, should redirect their science studying, this time to reduce much more suffer. 

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2015