I am the descendant of a countlessly long line of meat eaters. I'll stick with the slaughter version, it has worked well thus far.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Worst case scenario is we enjoy it while we've got it, then miss it when we don't.
And precisely what is the sustainability of lab meat? What makes you think lab meat will be more efficient that raised meat?
Yuval Noah Harari, on the second video (ca. 0:40) states the reasons why he thinks cultured meat will have a smaller ecological footprint. He says: "When you don't have to raise an entire cow in order to get a steak, when you don't have to raise an entire chicken to get a schnitzel, you just need this particular piece of meat, these particular cells, it reduces considerably the amount of water, the amount of fuel, the amount of nutrients that you have to invest in it, and also the amount of pollution that you are creating."
If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so. Don't excuse it with "the way my great granddaddy did it", because there are plenty of things about the way great granddaddy did it that are morally repugnant to us today. Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse.
I am satisfied with the land I have. But let's not kid ourselves, the only reason wars of conquest are uncommon today is because the cost typically exceeds the potential reward.
> "ethical disaster that is eating meat?"
I cannot derive sympathy for food from my value system. Unless you are prepared to impose your value system on me by force (in your value system, is that so different from wars of conquest?), that isn't going to change.
> "If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so."
Didn't I just?
> "Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse."
Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes?
I don't. I've never seen somebody become a vegan in response to this line of rhetoric, which could just as well be applied to any tradition. I am sure you must have some traditions of your own; will you abandon them if I tell you that racism is also a tradition?
It's not effective persuasive rhetoric, so what is it? It's combative rhetoric which is meant to shame people into silence.
You made an appeal to tradition. I don't believe tradition is sufficient cause to not acknowledge something is damaging the environment on a massive scale. Fossil fuels are also a tradition (though a short lived one), but it doesn't make it "right".
> "I cannot drive sympathy for food from my value system."
Then how do you feel about climate change? Because that is part of this ethical equation, as well. Billions of people eating meat is comparable to billions of people driving cars and burning coal for electricity.
> "Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes?"
Actually, I usually find that I am shouted down or voted down whenever suggesting that eating meat is unethical. I don't expect meat eaters to back down, as they are in the huge majority and will never have trouble finding support among almost any group.
While I understand your statement, I read it more as he was continuing to eat meat for the health benefits, not moral ones. Of course you could then say "If all your ancestors smoked cigarettes would you too..."
I'd say there is arguably no environmental disaster in meat production, and even if there is, the mere act of eating meat does not imply in it, it would depend on the amount of meat eaten per person and the production scale required to supply that. The ethics of it depends on who you're talking with. Your position is not "the righteous one", it might be "the right thing to do according to X school of thought", but never an absolute ethical truth.
As you may know, human population is growing exponentially and has been doing so for a century. To meet the demand for meat, we have grown the poultry and cattle's population accordingly, increasing the energy, water and food spendings uphill (after all, they too need to be nourished). Especially in the US, to maintain low prices, those who set the customer price (such as McDonalds) have been forced to rationalise the whole chain of production, putting a lot of stress and liability on farmers.
However, the human population is still accelerating tremendously, and meat is still among the most costly food per kilogram we eat, not in terms of money spent by the customer, but in terms of energy wasted along the whole chain.
Fishing has a similar crisis; regulation became necessary to maintain fish population to a sustainable level, and avoid having fish locations simply disappear.
At a fundamental level, the reason life can thrive on earth is energy from the sun and the Earth converted to plants which are consumed by animals and fungi. Every step of consumption between plants and humans is wasted energy, given that the planet's energy is not limitless, and that we humans must tap that supply carefully if we ever hope to colonize another planet.
You mention "healthy, satisfying alternative". You accept people eating meat nowadays because according to you it is more satisfying than eating the current alternatives (even though it's not necessary!), so you should always accept the eating of meat (or hunting of animals) as long as people want it over whatever alternative exists.
Furthermore, people will always think differently. What is ethically wrong to you is not to me and vice-versa.