It's the ultimate fake burger that has a 1/10 of the environment while being vegan.
Now if there was an equivalent for chicken then it I would never eat another animal again!
I think the best route for global veganism will be vat-grown meat. I haven't had a chance to taste any but it seems the most logical route - why grow the animal when you can just grow the muscle tissue? After the process is made efficient it should be cheaper for ranchers, better for the environment, no animals have to die, tastes the same... Win/win/win/win
But I'll be right behind you in the queue when we get there. I've always been a bit of a carnivore, but the older I get, the worse I feel about eating animals, especially mammals.
edit: I'd prefer a response to downvotes. Companies like Kraft, Frito-Lay, and Post have had "food scientists" whose main job have been tricking people into thinking absolute garbage is tasty for years. The results is an obesity crisis and tongues that are too confused to guide us to decent nutrition any more.
If the impossible burger and the likes is not for you, why not try other meat free recipes that are equally tasty, if it means not oppressing and inflicting pain and suffering on to other sentient beings?
I don’t try to project human emotions on to animals; there is no way evidence animals have any objection to what you call “oppression” or that they object to what you call “pain and suffering.” Quite the opposite, I would say this is the evolutionary path they chose.
To your other point, the top 10 dishes I’ve ever had in my life were animals, and pan-frying a nice steak or pork loin along with eggs is a combination full of nutrition that I have never grown tired of.
However, I'm not sure you looked into how the majority of the meat we consume is being produced. If not, please review the videos below [0]. I'm curious to find out your thoughts on that - how that couldn't be described as oppressing and enslaving other species. Alex Hershaft - Holocaust survivor - certainly thinks so and draws comparisons to concentration camps and founded 'Farm' after escaped Nazi Germany.
> there is no way evidence animals have any objection to what you call “oppression” or that they object to what you call “pain and suffering.”
Do you have pets - a dog or a cat? If so, try to cut them with a knife and let me know what how they react. Anyway, no need to carry out this experiment - there is enough evidence that animals actively try to avoid pain. Why else are they screaming when they experience pain? Why else are animals being used in pain research? Maybe you think a pig can't be compared to a dog or cat. Pigs intelligence level has been compared to a young human child and piglets have passed the mirror test. Even fish feel pain [1]
>Quite the opposite, I would say this is the evolutionary path they chose.
How did they choose this path? We are breeding these animals into existence and there is no natural reproduction. Cows for example are forcibly impregnated on what is sometimes called rape racks - you can find these videos on youtube. There is nothing natural or evolutionary about this.
Anyway, let me know after reviewing all this information and after doing your own research - whether you still think it's OK for us humans to continue and support the large scale meat industry. Whether you think it's OK to inflict pain on sentient beings that can experience pain - just so we can derive pleasure from them by consuming their flesh.
[0] Reality of large scale meat production Meet your Meat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RX88IGJ35g
Earthlings https://vimeo.com/209647801
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain...
Your moral preference seems to be "avoid causing pain for sentient beings as much as possible." My preference is for the thriving of a wide variety of species with different evolutionary strategies.
You, presumably, also avoid pain as a rule, but there are cases where you would endure pain for a higher cause (ie: donating blood during a natural disaster).
Ideally, farm animals live a safe life without unnecessary pain, are given reproductive opportunity, and are slaughtered painlessly. The fact that current factory farms aren't ideal isn't a reason to give up on these animals completely.
> How did they choose this path? We are breeding these animals into existence and there is no natural reproduction. Cows for example are forcibly impregnated on what is sometimes called rape racks - you can find these videos on youtube. There is nothing natural or evolutionary about this.
The ancestors of current meat cows evolutionary chose, by being the easiest to capture and domesticate, the path of becoming dependent on humans for their species survival. It's natural because humans are part of nature, and it's evolutionary because the evolutionary strategy of submission was outstandingly successful.
And to clarify all my arguments are against the large scale meat industry - where most of the meat comes from. I'm not talking about meat from animals you personally hunt or personally raised and killed - or meat coming from farms where the farmers truly try to give the animals a good life.
> Are farm pigs less happy than wild boars? Are you against ant enslavement of aphids? Do humans oppress chicken more than cheetahs oppress antelope?
Wild boars are in their natural state, i.e. free in the wild. Most enslaved pigs lead a miserable life and are confined to very small places, i.e. not free. Do we need aphids for our survival? If not, why enslave them? We can't compare ourselves to cheetahs, who need meat to survive. Humans don't.
> Again you're using human values and trying to project them on animals
That's not what I'm doing. I enjoyed meat dishes, but after doing extensive research of where the meat comes from that I buy in shops I stopped consuming meat. I'm not putting animals and humans on the same pedestal, if that is what you mean.
> [...] but there are cases where you would endure pain for a higher cause
What higher cause are animals 'donating' their flesh to? In our society we don't need meat to survive anymore - it's been proven that we can get all the nutrients we need from plants and other non-animal food sources.
So the only higher cause I can think of - why we continue to make these animals endure pain - is because we derive pleasure from it. So it becomes an ethical question - does our need for pleasure justify enslaving and oppressing these beings and creating destruction on so many other levels?
> The fact that current factory farms aren't ideal isn't a reason to give up on these animals completely.
Factory farms are the reality. Those happy ethical farms are rare in comparison and we can't feed the world with this - it's not scalable - especially since most people want and can only afford cheap meat. Interesting to hear how we can have large scale and pain free factory farms? But I think the question should be, is animal meat the best way to feed the world?
> The ancestors of current meat cows evolutionary chose, by being the easiest to capture and domesticate.
I don't understand how this works - do you have any links to some research that show that this is the case? It was easy for us to 'capture and domesticate' other humans - but we gave up on that practice, because we as a society agreed it was wrong.
Look - I get it. It's not easy to give up meat and we tell ourselves that animals don't feel pain, that we need it to survive, that it's natural etc.
We constantly evolve our moral framework - we gave up barbaric practices that once were the norm. In the future the way we produce our meat now will be seen as barbaric and immoral. Yes there will still be some people who eat meat - those that hunt and raise and kill it themselves and meat will be available to those that just want to continue to derive pleasure from it, but it will be very expensive.
Edit: typos
I also find it a bit presumptuous that you think you know what will be considered immoral in the future.
Thanks for the conversation! I wasn’t conceived by your arguments to change my moral preferences. I’ve also personally found myself in the best health when I’m eating an almost entirely carnivorous diet including a wide variety of organ meats.
Maybe I'm being trolled? If not - I don't think you would say the same after watching Earthlings https://vimeo.com/209647801 or after reading Eating Animals [2].
>I also find it a bit presumptuous that you think you know what will be considered immoral in the future.
It's already considered immoral today by leading moral philosophers and other great thinkers, such as Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins[0], Einstein, Carl Sagan, Prof Brian Greene and many more. All I'm saying is that I think the majority of people in the future will adopt this view. Star Trek certainly protrayed this view [1].
Anyway, I'm not here to convince you - I can't. Only you can convince yourself. All I can do is present you with research and other information and encourage you to do your own research on the realities of the large scale meat industry. But I can fully understand that it's just easier not do that and just continue to tell oneself that we humans have a beautiful relationship with animals that we opress and exploit.
Change is hard... but 'refactoring' oneself is rewarding ;)
Anyway, thanks for making the effort to reply and for having a dialog.
[0] Vegan lifestyle is morally superior - Richard Dawkins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgmjh7bh7Ks
[1] Star Trek - 'We no longer enslave animals for food purposes' https://youtu.be/sS7NRtEJBcA?t=31s
[2] https://smile.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-Foer... or wait for the documentary to be released hat is being produced by Natalie Portman.
- Using emotionally charged words and videos rather than basing your arguments on facts
- Assuming ulterior motives in my arguments (implying that any of my arguments are just an excuse for wanting to continue eating meat) and being intentionally obtuse in your understanding of my arguments
- Appeal to authority (some cherry-picked sample of people you consider great thinkers and Star Trek)
- Calling me a troll rather than addressing my moral preferences
Veganism vs non-veganism just comes down to moral preferences. Can you rank these preferences in order for yourself?
1. My own personal health and that of those closest to me
2. The health and success of humans as species
3. A diverse ecosystem and the continued evolutionary success of animals with a diverse range of evolutionary strategies
4. Minimizing pain/suffering for farm animals
That's my order.
Raising the living standards of farm animals is a valid moral preference and one that I also support. It's just extremely low on my list of moral preferences. I don't believe that current animal farming is immoral, however. You will meet some non-vegans who share your moral preferences and are just too lazy and would rather not think about it. I am not one of those people. I don't ignore the realities of factory farming in order to shelter myself, I just don't think there's anything wrong with it.
I've shared a lot of facts and information that is reviewed by a wider group and deemed as sound - you can call it 'peer reviewed'.
In terms of emotionally charged words, which words were those? Do you mean 'oppressed', 'enslaved' etc? Those words are appropriate to describe what is happening to factory farm animals. Those words were also used by a humans that experienced similar conditions, i.e. Alex Hershaft - a holocaust survivor. But maybe you think factory farms equals happy animal farms you see in children's books, but just at a larger scale. If so - again - I would encourage you to watch the documentary Earthlings (which is well researched and has won several awards) or do your own research of what factory farms are - there are plenty of videos about this online.
You didn't provide any facts or links to research to backup your arguments, e.g. you stated that cows' ancestors chose their evolutionary path - so the way I understood it - you basically said that cows, because they were easy to capture and easy to domesticate, chose evolutionary to become our food source. I asked for references that go into detail how this works, because I don't think that's how evolution works. But maybe I misunderstood you.
Most humans in general don't like to see other beings in pain - we have empathy and have the ability to be compassionate. I think your opinion about factory farms being beautiful would change after you've seen the documentary.
> some cherry-picked sample of people you consider great thinkers and Star Trek
The few names I shared are recognized as great thinkers by other experts or academia in general.
And what is wrong with Star Trek? We are inspired by science fiction and sci-fi ideas can become science fact (and have already). Star Trek in particular imagines a world where pain and suffering is greatly reduced - for both humans and animals. What is wrong with trying to achieve that goal? We have the option today not to kill animals for food anymore without having to jeopardize our health or survival.
So why in your view should we continue killing sentient & innocent beings, which science confirmed are capable of pain and regards as intelligent (pigs have been described as 3-4 year old humans cognitively) when it's not necessary anymore for our survival.
> implying that any of my arguments are just an excuse for wanting to continue eating meat
Sorry - I can see why you think that - I think I was slightly upset that you described me as presumptuous - which to me is a charged statement. I think I just can't understand why intelligent people like yourself think that animals living in factory farms is a beautiful thing. There is nothing beautiful about factory farms. Even my meat eater friends agree with that and they buy meat from more ethical sources. In hindsight I should have waited a bit before I replied.
> Calling me a troll
I didn't call you a troll. After reading your statement about how beautiful our relationship is with factory farm animals - I didn't know whether you were serious, hence the question whether I was being trolled - since trolling occurs often on forums. Apologies if you think I did call you a troll.
> Veganism vs non-veganism just comes down to moral preferences. Can you rank these preferences in order for yourself?
I have trouble understanding what you mean with moral preferences. The way I understand it, morality are emergent values / principles that over time we as a society agree are either good or bad and some of those values have been coded into law.
For example, we as a society have agreed that enslaving other humans is bad. I can't go and say my moral preference is to have slaves and then proceed to enslave people for my benefit. Of course slavery still exists today - but it would land me in jail if I would get caught enslaving other people.
But I think your order makes sense. How we differ is that I see various solutions for some of your options and I try to choose a solution which creates the least damage (to people, environment, animals, etc) - in particular:
> 1. My own personal health and that of those closest to me
It has been medically proven that humans can lead a healthy life without having to consume meat. I've posted a link before, maybe you haven't seen it or maybe you thought it wasn't credible enough. A summary is here in case you haven't read it:
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage."
> 2. The health and success of humans as species
Our health and success depends on a healthy environment. The UN did a report a few years ago about our impact on the environment. I've shared the link before, but a summary is basically that the UN urges to reduce our meat consumption heavily or adopt a meat free diet. So if all humans on this planet would adpot your values, it would mean the success of the human species would be in jeopardy. It bascially means we can't feed 7.6 Billion people with animal meat without destroying the environment. Maybe in the future with lab meat - but that future is not here yet.
> 3. A diverse ecosystem and the continued evolutionary success of animals with a diverse range of evolutionary strategies
I wouldn't consider the billions of animals that are kept in factory farms part of the ecosystem. I wouldn't call being bred to lead a miserable life and then to be consumed a success either.
> I don't ignore the realities of factory farming in order to shelter myself, I just don't think there's anything wrong with it.
So are you saying that oppressing & killing animals is OK - even though we don't have to anymore to ensure our survival? That's how I understood your statement.
In summary - my thinking pattern is pretty simple (all backed up with references I previously supplied - not going to paste them here again - post is too long already)
- Can animals suffer? Yes, just like us, animals try to avoid pain & suffering.
- Factory farms equals cruelty, suffering, pain, death and desctruction to the environment (our life ground).
- Do I as a human need meat to survive and to be healthy? Science says no and millions of humans who culturally don't consume meat are also evidence for this.
- Do I have access to alternative food sources that allows me to thrive? Yes.
- Is it more efficient to just directly consume plant food, rather than feeding plant food to animals and then eating the animal? Yes.
- "But bacon tastes so good!!!" Is it morally justifiable to kill sentient beings just to satisfy my taste pleasure? No, the costs are just too high.
- "Hmmm, plant-based food is actually very tasty and there is so much variety and my blood work is excellent"
To me it's just logical not to eat meat anymore. And to use sci-fi references again - Spock and Yoda would agree with that.
Edit: typos and formatting.
Above I mentioned I don't consider factory farm animals part of the ecoystem. Technically they are of course, as they produce CO2 etc, but what I meant was about your statement around diverse ecosystem - which factory farms don't contribute towards, but quite the opposite - it destroys ecosystems.
Did you know animals can develop mential illness? Repeptive and odd behaviour by animals is frequently observed in factory farms.
As stated before, pigs are highly intelligent creatures[0], moreso than domesticated pets and in their natural environment they are clean and do not poop near where they sleep and eat. Being deprived of natural light, natural socialisation, in overcrowded filthy conditions covered in their own excrements and constantly being fearful of pain - this highly stressful environment means they are at risk of mental illness[1].
Now having been presented with all the information by recognized experts and organisations - do you really think factory farms[2] are a beautiful thing? How can we justify this daily cruelty towards millions of animals to continue?
I will end this conversation with the following quote I found inspirational - from the late Aaron Swartz:
"Think deeply about things. Don’t just go along because that’s the way things are or that’s what your friends say. Consider the effects, consider the alternatives, but most importantly, just think."
[0]Smart Pigs - BBC Earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg
[1]Mential illness in animals http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150909-many-animals-can-b... https://www.mspca.org/animal_protection/farm-animal-welfare-... (section on psychological effects)
[2] Again, I'm not talking about farms where you know the farmer personally - where farmers usually only have a couple of hundred animals or less and where farmers truly care about animals and try to give them a good life - where animals can roam around freely.
And here's a hat tip for wanting to give up meat!
It's great to see people making better choices.
Ethan Brown is a great entrepreneur with a great mission.
Hope prices will come down and they can scale it, so more people can get their products.
Impossible tastes as if you took low quality meat, pureed it, took all the fat out, made it into a patty, and then froze it. Sure, you could trick me into thinking its real meat, but not high quality meat.
And of course, this is completely different than creating a steak or something.
So here are our options:
1) Eat real meat and derive pleasure from it, but at the cost of having to make animals suffer, having to kill them and getting food that's quite energy intensive and destructive to the environment and destructive to the people having to work in that industry (factory farming)
2) Hunt and kill animals yourself or raise and kill them yourself - ensuring they (hopefully) had a good life (but still questionable from an ethics point of view whether it's right to kill an animal when you don't need to, to survive).
3) Eat fake meat that's close to the real thing, but no animals have to suffer or die. In the future it will be as good or better than the real thing [1]
4) Explore so many meat free recipes that can equally bring us pleasure and slowly change our habits and tastebuds that are better for the planet.
Option 2 is better than option 1 - but most people couldn't do it and also with option 2 we couldn't feed the world - so to me the future is based on option 3 and 4, i.e. plant based.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
[1] When fake super meat is better than the real thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TpQl9V9yoA
Edit: typo
We aren't going to fix climate change (or any systemic problem) by tugging on the heart strings of a few people who might be influenced by an idea especially when it is at odds with one's material context.
When I say planet I meant the animals, people and our environment. The UN had a study a few years ago [0] - urging to reduce meat consumption or reduce it heavily - due to the impact on the environment.
For me personally it's more about the animals themselves. They are sentient beings and how can we justify creating hell on Earth for them and killing them just so we can derive some short lived taste pleasure in our mouth. Meat tastes great, but the cost is too high and it's irresponsible to continue feeding this pleasure (when we have so many better alternatives) after we've got all the evidence that it's destructive on so many levels.
> [...] rather than blaming producers who are actually in power
Our demand for animal flesh and animal products is causing this, so the consumer is in power. Our meat consumption is cultural, we've been growing up with it. How come for example we don't explain to our kids at a young age that the tasty bacon comes from Pepper the pig's sister and friends? How come we don't want to show them the realities of meat production... because we know it's literally a horror show.
Watch this kid realising herself what's on her plate. Don't tell me it's not heart breaking to watch this? [1] Kudos to the dad for not forcing her to continue to eat meat.
> [...] who might be influenced by an idea especially when it is at odds with one's material context.
I'm not quite following, can you clarify?
> I find the end of (4) an argument from other leftists who are vegan really really suspect.
I don't really follow this either - what is suspect and what's your definition of leftist? Here is the definition of veganism [2] - it's bascially trying to end cruelty towards other sentient beings - why would one not support this view?
[0] http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/dtix1262xpa-prior...
[1] Irish girl doesn't want animals to be chopped up anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsaGeAz3TSM
[2] Definition of Veganism
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
edit: typos
In the end -- why not both? As an individual, over the course of your lifetime, if an American eats even 50% less meat than typical, they would produce a lot less pollution and a lot less suffering in the world. Meanwhile, they'd still be eating more meat than historically normal. Win-win-win?