Thread: Video - World's Largest Hatchery - Um, wow.

It's either us or them.

Originally Posted by Xei

Your post inspired me... I suddenly wondered why nobody had done that, it should be possible...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Apparently the only thing holding it back is financial considerations.

I wonder what the hell the moral implications of this'd be...

Which has the moral high ground; eating meat which didn't come from a conscious animal, or eating meat from an animal which had a life?

I bet it's largely moral taboo holding this back at the moment... and I bet it'll be waived when mass starvation sets in in the Westernised world.

Edit: This is bizarre... personally if there's no particular incentive either way I'd go for real animals, because you're creating conscious beings; as long as they're not in poor conditions.

PETA however is providing a $1,000,000 prize to the lab which firsts produces in vitro chicken... I think that's ridiculous, that's just... deleting animals. Billions of animals which would have lived will never have existed.

This really goes straight to the crux of moral philosophy. It's confusing stuff.

I think it's fine, the animals are not alive right? created in a lab, and not conscious. If it is alive and aware then there could be a moral thing to this, if it's not alive in any way shape or form then it's not hurting nobody. The purpose is to feed us, so it's purpose is done.

I think it's clear that there is no moral disadvantage, but would you rather that there had been an animal which had had a life..?

It's the choice between an animal having existed, and an animal not having existed. Which do you choose?

Surely you'd rather choose that the animal had existed, and had a life?

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's clear that there is no moral disadvantage, but would you rather that there had been an animal which had had a life..?

It's the choice between an animal having existed, and an animal not having existed. Which do you choose?

Surely you'd rather choose that the animal had existed, and had a life?

It's pretty irrelevant to me that more animals exist just so that we can eat them. I think there is a huge moral disadvantage to bringing consciousness into the world without it having a chance of being happy on whatever level it would mean for that particular form of conciousness.

Okay, two questions:

1. Pick one of two options: an animal never exists / an animal exists and is 'happy'.
2. Pick one of two options: an animal never exists / an animal exists and is 'unhappy'.

Also, is there any moral difference between never bringing an animal into being as opposed to killing an animal?

But then, some of those lives would be happy. There are at least some farms in the world that don't mistreat animals, as we can probably all agree on. So there is a chance that some of those animals could have a happy life - would you deny them that chance?

Anyway, you guys are right, this is getting into complicated philosophical territory.

Do you think more animals could be saved from mistreatment if all the vegetarians in the world started eating meat BUT only bought it from sources that they knew practiced "humane" treatment of animals?

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's clear that there is no moral disadvantage, but would you rather that there had been an animal which had had a life..?

It's the choice between an animal having existed, and an animal not having existed. Which do you choose?

Surely you'd rather choose that the animal had existed, and had a life?

If it was a conscious animal then yeah, if it was dead and not conscious and made just for food then there is nothing to worry about. But i eat meat, and i seen alot of this stuff already from youtube so i can also shrug it off.

Speaking of not conscious...i wonder how that baby is doing?

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

But then, some of those lives would be happy. There are at least some farms in the world that don't mistreat animals, as we can probably all agree on. So there is a chance that some of those animals could have a happy life - would you deny them that chance?

I have no problem with that. I'm just talking about factory farms.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Do you think more animals could be saved from mistreatment if all the vegetarians in the world started eating meat BUT only bought it from sources that they knew practiced "humane" treatment of animals?

I do. The increased demand would increase production which would lower cost which would make it more accessible to more people.

The flip side though is that free range takes space. Chickens and goats can be integrated very well into a small scale farm though. You would essentially be looking at dismantling the entire agro-industrial complex and replacing it with local farms. I'm for that for all sorts of reasons not related to humane treatment of other animals. I do recognize that it could be dismissed as hippie drivel though.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's pretty irrelevant to me that more animals exist just so that we can eat them. I think there is a huge moral disadvantage to bringing consciousness into the world without it having a chance of being happy on whatever level it would mean for that particular form of conciousness.

Animals don't exist so we can eat them, we eat them because we choose to eat them. Nothing in this world is meant to be eaten by anything, it just happens to stay alive. It's a dog eat dog world.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Animals don't exist so we can eat them, we eat them because we choose to eat them. Nothing in this world is meant to be eaten by anything, it just happens to stay alive. It's a dog eat dog world.

Almost every member of every domesticated species of chicken that we eat exists so that we can eat it. These things aint surviving in the wild on their own and they aren't the product of natural selection. The whole species exists so that we can eat them.

I am meaning all animals. Chickens really are the weakest link though.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why is it sickening..? It's not harming anything. No cruelty. It's just inanimate mass. Do you find yoghurt sickening?

I actually don't eat yogurt

But I get your point. The idea of meat-in-a-vat just seems like it can't possibly produce healthy meat. Isn't that why it's usually attached to an animal before consumption?

@LucidFlanders, I'm just referring to factory farmed animals.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's clear that there is no moral disadvantage, but would you rather that there had been an animal which had had a life..?

It's the choice between an animal having existed, and an animal not having existed. Which do you choose?

Surely you'd rather choose that the animal had existed, and had a life?

Why would anyone surely choose that? One of the worst aspects of industrial animal agriculture is that we summon so many beings into lives of torment. It would absolutely be better if we were turning less of the earth into miserable pigs.

Solution: Genetically engineer trees that grow meat.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Why would anyone surely choose that? One of the worst aspects of industrial animal agriculture is that we summon so many beings into lives of torment. It would absolutely be better if we were turning less of the earth into miserable pigs.

I don't know about "absolutely." How could one claim that a moment of life, of consciousness, no matter how that time period happens to turn out, is worse than not living at all? Who really has the authority to make that decision...? We can't even take a poll and ask the animals if they would have preferred to have never existed.

at first...I was quite disgusted by the meat grinder....then the same line that threw everyone else off threw me off....

however, I have to say...it would be nice if we could produce the meat more humanely for the same price...but if we cant, then I guess keep it going that way. the reason i say this is because like cloud put it (whether being sarcastic or not) the whole industry is for our consumption and I will tell you now....we didnt get to the top of the food chain by eating only fruits and vegis, any scientist will tell you that.

becoming a vegetarian is not going to stop this shit from happening.
eggs are awesome, especially in a fried egg sandwich

Originally Posted by tkdyo

at first...I was quite disgusted by the meat grinder....then the same line that threw everyone else off threw me off....

however, I have to say...it would be nice if we could produce the meat more humanely for the same price...but if we cant, then I guess keep it going that way. the reason i say this is because like cloud put it (whether being sarcastic or not) the whole industry is for our consumption and I will tell you now....we didnt get to the top of the food chain by eating only fruits and vegis, any scientist will tell you that.

The price is part of the problem--from a standpoint of public health, producing less meat at a somewhat higher cost would be an improvement, both in terms of diet and all the secondary impacts of the meat industry on the environment, disease agents, worker health, and not least of all our consciences. The present system does not nourish us, but feeds appetites that ultimately work against us.

I don't know about "absolutely." How could one claim that a moment of life, of consciousness, no matter how that time period happens to turn out, is worse than not living at all? Who really has the authority to make that decision...? We can't even take a poll and ask the animals if they would have preferred to have never existed.

Hehe, I'm letting Xei encourage my tendency to overstate Regarding who has the authority, though, we're already making these decisions--we determine these creatures' form and number and the course their lives will take. We've been playing god with their lives for millenia; we're just terrible, terrible deities.

From my perspective, it's not a matter of creating something new that wasn't there before--'a' consciousness--but of directing the flow of life and sentience into a dark, dark place. Even disregarding the obvious suffering of the animals, we as humans cannot muck around in these torture chambers and feed off of the suffering without doing ourselves harm, distorting our view of life, and holding ourselves back. Fewer pigs does not equal less life and less consciousness, just less consciousness bound up in torment.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

at first...I was quite disgusted by the meat grinder....then the same line that threw everyone else off threw me off....

The last line was a mistake. It doesn't detract from the point though.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

however, I have to say...it would be nice if we could produce the meat more humanely for the same price...but if we cant, then I guess keep it going that way. the reason i say this is because like cloud put it (whether being sarcastic or not) the whole industry is for our consumption and I will tell you now....we didnt get to the top of the food chain by eating only fruits and vegis, any scientist will tell you that.

We didn't get to the top of the food chain by factory farming animals either. We could stay at the top of the food chain without doing it. And we aren't really at the top of the food chain either: there is no top of the food chain. One day, microbial organisms are going to eat us.

Taosaur, you make a good point. I never said I was AGAINST it though. I would love for it to be more sanitairy thats for sure

Philosopher...I think you misunderstand my last line there, my point is we are where we are, big brain and all, due in large part to the consumption of protein in our omniverous diet...meaning I was pointing out from a health standpoint being a vegan isnt a great thing either

Wow, that video is just gruesome. Especially that poor chick that fell through the washer.
It's just not right to have industrial machinery handle chicks, though those workers weren't exactly better. Humans

About the grown meat debate:
I'd much rather eat grown meat than meat from a being which lived a bad life and endured needless torture. It's not as if an animal not being born is a crime against anyone. It's about reducing suffering.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

shit happens, and there is no way to stop it... it's a useless battle that can't be won, so just accept it, it's bigger then all of us.

This view applied generally through out all aspects of life is the reason why the world is in such a terrible place.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

I don't know about "absolutely." How could one claim that a moment of life, of consciousness, no matter how that time period happens to turn out, is worse than not living at all? Who really has the authority to make that decision...? We can't even take a poll and ask the animals if they would have preferred to have never existed.

All you have to do is ask yourself, having existed briefly and excruciatingly could you ever wish to have not existed? And then ask yourself, having not existed at all, could you ever wish to have existed excruciatingly, or even at all? Nothing is better or worse than non-existence for the being in question.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This view applied generally through out all aspects of life is the reason why the world is in such a terrible place.

One person can't make a difference, only everybody can, and since that wont happen why bother wasting your time trying to change something, it's not going to even work.