In this guest post, we find that lab-grown meat should not be considered a Climate Change solution. Based on industry-funded studies it will never achieve the economies of scale needed to make a reasonable dent in our meat consumption.
That’s the only realistic way of properly mitigating the problem. Reduce the supply, cuz you’re not gonna convince people what they do and don’t have an appetite for unless it hits them in the wallet.
You don’t have to convince them they don’t have an appetite, since that wouldn’t be true. You have to convince them that the wellbeing of sentient beings is more important than their appetite.
Guess what? For any creature to eat, something else unfortunately has to die. That’s just an unfortunate fact of reality.
I’ve spent 41 years eating food, and I don’t feel guilty about any of it. The only exception would be if it was a human or a pet. Those aren’t on the menu.
Like, what’s a cow ever done for you? At least cats keep the mice away and dogs keep the burglars away.
While that’s true, it doesn’t mostly have to be sentient creatures, and if some do have to die, at least we can make choices that cause them less suffering.
It’s not simply about utility. Other beings don’t only have value because they’re useful, but because they have complex emotional experiences similar to our own. They can love and suffer and fear similarly to how we can.
But if you want utility, you get that too, since it’s also better for the planet and thus for us.
Here’s me asking you to build a rocket for me to fly me to the moon. If you do that I’ll take back what I said earlier.
You’re drawing the arbitrary line between life and death by… skills? I don’t need you to replace my phone screen, wash my dishes or replace my tires. I can replace my phone screen myself, wash my dishes myself and don’t drive. Your skills mean nothing to me, yet I still don’t find it justified to kill and eat you for that.
You must have missed my point then.
Place regulations on breeding rates
That’s the only realistic way of properly mitigating the problem. Reduce the supply, cuz you’re not gonna convince people what they do and don’t have an appetite for unless it hits them in the wallet.
You don’t have to convince them they don’t have an appetite, since that wouldn’t be true. You have to convince them that the wellbeing of sentient beings is more important than their appetite.
Guess what? For any creature to eat, something else unfortunately has to die. That’s just an unfortunate fact of reality.
I’ve spent 41 years eating food, and I don’t feel guilty about any of it. The only exception would be if it was a human or a pet. Those aren’t on the menu.
Like, what’s a cow ever done for you? At least cats keep the mice away and dogs keep the burglars away.
While that’s true, it doesn’t mostly have to be sentient creatures, and if some do have to die, at least we can make choices that cause them less suffering.
It’s not simply about utility. Other beings don’t only have value because they’re useful, but because they have complex emotional experiences similar to our own. They can love and suffer and fear similarly to how we can.
But if you want utility, you get that too, since it’s also better for the planet and thus for us.
What have you ever done for me?
Yet I don’t eat you because I have compassion for other living beings.
I’d be glad to replace your phone screen, wash your dishes, or replace your tires. But you never asked me.
Can a cow do any of those things? No.
Here’s me asking you to build a rocket for me to fly me to the moon. If you do that I’ll take back what I said earlier.
You’re drawing the arbitrary line between life and death by… skills? I don’t need you to replace my phone screen, wash my dishes or replace my tires. I can replace my phone screen myself, wash my dishes myself and don’t drive. Your skills mean nothing to me, yet I still don’t find it justified to kill and eat you for that.
Cow says you don’t need a rocket to the moon in the first place.
What, are you scared of cows?