Once we have a suitable way to grow meat or a meat substitute, future generations will be repulsed by the way we currently treat animals in industrial farming.
If we can get lab-grown meat below the cost and/or of improved taste to dead animal meat, it's likely to do very well and open people up more to the moral argument which will cement it. Right now it fails miserably on both fronts.
And I'm sure there will be pushback from the "organic"/"all natural" what-have-you crowd which exists now about how lab grown meat has evil chemicals or some equally silly thing.
Not trying to criticize, it's how humans have existed for thousands of years — I'm just genuinely curious what a realistic "oh wait, I'm going to not do this" point is for people who eat meat.
Just to be clear in my case as I originally responded: There is a distinction between killing animals to feed oneself and outsourcing the killing to a farm which causes those animals to spend their entire life suffering (e.g., chickens confined to a small cage). That is not how humans existed for thousands of years.
If you're not willing to look the animal in the eyes and kill it, you shouldn't be eating it. I'll go one further and say if you haven't actually butchered a cow or chicken, you shouldn't be eating that meat. (I'll say the same about pork, bison, ostrich, snake, rabbit, sheep, etc... too but those are less common)
I grew up on a farm/ranch, I've looked cows in the eyes that I fed daily to fatten them up just for this purpose. I genuinely don't care about it, its a part of life. So for myself that point probably doesn't exist.
You can look at it in two ways philosophically, one, which seems predominant on this forum is that any human inflicted "suffering" is wrong and should be avoided.
One other view, which I think most cattle producers would think philosophically, is that you brought into the world more animals than if you didn't exist. Note, I'm just ignoring feed lots here as that isn't what I grew up around, nor does anyone I know support them.
Presupposing however that only the former viewpoint regarding suffering is correct is a bit of criticism however. Additionally, if you've ever watched how most predators take down prey, humans are vastly more humane about it.
I'd rather we separate out the feedlot question from the actual killing question. The former is an economic issue, the latter I think of in many ways as the Lakota did.
Oh come on. Many jobs are miserable and dangerous. I've been 20 feet away from a pig as the guts were removed, and that was more than enough odor. (the pig was full of shit)
I don't have a problem with the "look the animal in the eyes" thing though. Animals are just food. I butchered a duck. That didn't smell much, but I was a bit worried about being bitten by external parasites. A cow though... if that thing falls off the crane/hoist/lift thing it'll squish you to death. This isn't some wimpy emotion thing. Squish! Oh, and probably lots of ticks, and prior to death it may kick you or gore you. Cattle are not to be messed with unless you have special training and equipment.
The reason for actually having done it is to understand the reality of where food comes from, not to try to instill a view that everyone must do everything themselves to be able to use anything in the world.
That works just as well for restaurants.
But I can imagine life in coastal areas where fish is the only option.
For those who kill the animals they eat, do you ever feel attached to it? I can't imagine killing my dog for food. It's like cannibalizing my child.
Industrial farming is about as humane as any other method for killing I've seen/practiced.
People argue that hunting keeps one more connected with the concept of meat as quarry, but the end result is the same. I shot a scimitar oryx through the heart a few years ago (before the ban) and it still ran 100 yards before it dropped. I'm pretty sure stun guns and captive bolt pistols remove the concept of pain faster.
Your oryx was able to run.
These moral/ethical lines are completely arbitrary.
Just because it is difficult and subjective to know what suffers doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it.
Edit: downvote welcome. I have lots of fake internet points to spare. I'm not going to dignify a subjective, semantic argument with anything more. Fuck, "meh" is more than 99% of HN comments deserve.
Moar Edit: Heil Trump!
Most of our metabolism is tailored towards fruit. That doesn't mean it has issues with meat: it'll deal quite well.
But anatomic capability and morality are totally unrelated. My body is well-designed to rape women, but I won't use that as an argument to do so either.
In the future what we will find horrifying is that we waited for this excuse, as if without a meat replacement the preceding abuse was justified.