Thread

Where's the Beef?: The lab-grown-meat revolution that wasn't

75 points · 166 comments · Hooke

dr_dshiv · 1790246145 · focus · HN ↗
Would it make the meat industry more ethical if happy drugs were made available to animals? If I had to choose between a meaningful (even if I didn’t know it when living), blissful unnatural life and none at all, I’d choose the former.
It’s the negative affect and suffering (stress, pain, boredom etc) that is the bad part of eating animals.
(I think— I know others have thought more than I on this topic)
It just seems like an easier tech solution might be promising
1. pitchlatte · 1790246515 · focus · HN ↗
  solve the land use problem for growing cattle feed if you want it to be maximally ethical.
2. amelius · 1790246791 · focus · HN ↗
  The problem is that the happy drugs will, in some detectable concentrations, end up in meat.
  (A smaller problem is that humans will start using the drugs if the distribution is not tightly controlled.)
  1. dr_dshiv · 1790404084 · focus · HN ↗
    Bonus, like all those tall Dutch kids from the milk hormones.
3. emaro · 1790247403 · focus · HN ↗
  Not really. Similar to giving drugs to lower class people so they can bear the unbearable life. For an indiviual, sure, life probably feels better in a narrow sense, but is it more ethical? No.
4. cik · 1790247549 · focus · HN ↗
  I too could, theoretically be thrilled to be drugged to the gills when I'm killed. I however, can consent. Animals cannot. But we know that animals can think. Regardless of debating the ethics of consuming them, this adds an additional ethical quagmire of is it ethically sound to drug non-consenting, thinking species.
5. cafebabbe · 1790248197 · focus · HN ↗
  Ha yes the blissful experience of drug addiction
6. OroPla · 1790248350 · focus · HN ↗
  What I find interesting about this whole discourse is that the lived experience of animals matters to people. At all.
  Just a hundred, two hundred years ago we made the Elephant rifle, because a normal gun couldn't bring it down, but it was a fun sport to go out and kill just for the heck of it. No one cared about the animals.
  It seems like we are living in an age of suicidal empathy and I'm not sure how we got here.
  1. chneu · 1790259315 · focus · HN ↗
    You're mistaken that nobody cared about animals.
    Throughout history there have always been people who were vegan or plant based who cared about animals.
    We live in a society which has traditionally silenced those voices. The USA, especially, screams about how killing and stealing is a righteous/earned right. Not exercising that right is leaving much on the table. Americans gotta keep up with the Joneses, and that historically included excess cruelty to animals(this includes "savage" people like blacks and browns).
    Lots of religious groups advocate for less animal cruelty and consumption.
    OroPla · 1790272849 · focus · HN ↗
    > We live in a society which has traditionally silenced those voices. The USA, especially
    It's a fascinating point of view, especially since it seems to me that this suicidal empathy originates from the USA. South Korea only recently stopped torturing and eating dogs due to international pressure. Japan still hunts whales. So does Norway. The Chinese couldn't care less, neither does anyone on the African continent. Muslims outright refuse to eat any meat that isn't "halal", which is a short way of saying torturing animals to death. There's this rumor going around the USA that India is full of vegetarians, which gets vehemently denied by Indians each time it gets brought up.
    Of course, you can find a bunch of nutjobs talking about all kinds of nonsense in any society, see for example Scientology. But institutionally we didn't care for animals hundred of years ago. Cowboys used spores, which is kinda like using a blunt knife. Horses and elephants were used in wars. Dogs had to stay outside in their little dog house and weren't allowed inside. The list goes on and on.
    [deleted] · 1790284343 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    thriving_earthw · 1790294759 · focus · HN ↗
    This is called moral progress.
    Also South Korea didn't end their dog meat industry because of international pressure, it's because incomes have been steadily rising and more households are purchasing dogs as companion animals and developing moral concern for them.
    Compassion for animals isn't some U.S. conspiracy. There are animal rights activists all over the world.
    And Halal slaughter is not humane by any means, but neither is slaughtering an animal with western stunning methods. 90%+ of pigs in the UK for example are stunned using C02 gas. I encourage you to watch undercover footage of this happening.
  2. throwaway27448 · 1790279831 · focus · HN ↗
    What do you mean by suicidal?
    vjsrinivas · 1790307825 · focus · HN ↗
    He's referencing the common conservative notion that "too much" empathy for certain groups (in this case animals) is at the detriment to ourselves... somehow. This, of course, makes no sense when you look back at the long historical strides taken with animal rights in just western societies. You'll find very old philosophical vegetarian and vegan thoughts in other non-western societies.
    OroPla · 1790326017 · focus · HN ↗
    Considering starving yourself to death on a deserted island rather than eating meat an acceptable moral choice and not mental illness. Sacrificing your life to save an animal. Taking actions detrimental to your own well being for the benefit of animals.
    Suicidal empathy is when your feelings hurt more than your body, so you sacrifice yourself to feel good.
    aziaziazi · 1790342367 · focus · HN ↗
    The strawman dying in the island shows your low understanding of what is empathy. It’s not about sacrifice and putting others before yourself, but being nice to others in the range of feasibility.
    > Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation[…]
    Anyone would kill a fish if that’s the only way to survive on a desert island. Meanwhile avoiding animal exploitation of our moderne age isn’t particularly dangerous.
    <a href="https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism" rel="nofollow">https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
    throwaway27448 · 1790364223 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok, what does that have to do with reality? Nobody is starving to death looking at an animal they could have eaten. This seems like a blatant strawman.
    In fact, our addiction to beef seems straight suicidal. Hesitation to eat beef would improve our fitness as a species.
    throwaway27448 · 1790374250 · focus · HN ↗
    To be clear, I am emphatically a meat-eater; I raise goats and chickens. I just don't understand your mindset at all.
    It seems almost like you view domination of animals as an end rather than a means.
    OroPla · 1790439091 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not about reality, it's about moral philosophy.
    Not eating meat, eggs and honey because you feel sad about animals is now considered a valid moral position called veganism instead of mental illness.
    I'm not talking about science (which still seems undecided on whether eating eggs is good or bad), I've observed shifting attitudes that originated from the USA and wonder why people feeling sad for animals is now considered a good reason to not eat various types of food.
    In many ways, veganism seems like a budding religion that is trying to get off the ground, but instead of asking whether you are ready to accept Jesus as your savior they ask if you are ready to feel sad for animals.
    folocitoan · 1790366031 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  3. therealdrag0 · 1790297660 · focus · HN ↗
    The median used to be worse, but we always had ideals. Iirc the Bible comments of donky abuse.
    OroPla · 1790439642 · focus · HN ↗
    The bible also encourages sacrificing animals. It's a book full of contradictions, so no matter what you want to argue, you can find some choice quotes supporting your position.
    aziaziazi · 1790447273 · focus · HN ↗
    This corroborate therealdrag0's point: animals (human and non-human) always has been abused and cared.
    Books like the bible narrates multiples points of views, read them as an history book and you'll catch a glimpse an era lifestyle. Read every line as a single thesis and you get messy pack of contradictory ideas.
    I'm not sure where you find "encourages", most sacrifices are depicted to show Jesus's fury about it. Perhaps the old testament? In any case that doesn't contradict the point of "we always had ideals".
7. thriving_earthw · 1790294895 · focus · HN ↗
  Something like 70% of all antibiotics used worldwide go to farm animals, so in a sense, they are already pumped full of drugs keeping them happy because the drugs prevent them from dying at higher rates from disease.
  <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/antibiotics-livestock" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/antibiotics-livestock

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.