Why veg*ns should eat lab grown meat

[Volenta]

Came across this small article arguing why veg*ns should eat lab grown meat rather than disregard it for aesthetic reasons:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... %E2%80%9D/
It surely is though-provoking.

The discussion at the bottom is also quite interesting to read.

[zeello]

Came across this small article arguing why veg*ns should eat lab grown meat rather than disregard it for aesthetic reasons:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... %E2%80%9D/
It surely is though-provoking.

The discussion at the bottom is also quite interesting to read.

That's horrible. I made a similar argument in the deontology thread, but I deleted it shortly afterwards. My argument was: That vegans are holding back animal welfare improvements by not buying meat from more responsible companies or ones that treat animals better. In effect, veganism hurts animal welfare.

This article's logic is even worse in a way, because its about a product that's ludicrously expensive and its a product we don't know will ever become mainstream. The only ones who would give a shit about their meat being lab grown are those who care about animal rights, so the logical result is that vegetarians waste their money on a lab grown fad.

Why not just use that $200,000 to advertise veganism? Nevermind, because it's not like anyone has $200,000 to spend on a damn burger in the first place.

Edit: we have tofu.. It is foolhardy to assume lab meat will fare any better.
We already have vegan burgers.
This right here is a $200,000 vegan burger.

[brimstoneSalad]

Came across this small article arguing why veg*ns should eat lab grown meat rather than disregard it for aesthetic reasons:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... %E2%80%9D/
It surely is though-provoking.

The discussion at the bottom is also quite interesting to read.

I'd say the discussion is more useful than the article. The writer doesn't understand economics. I've seen the same bad argument being made saying vegans should buy free ranged grass fed meat, which is absurd.

We should support omnivores in choosing the lesser of two evils, and in the case of bioreacted meat, the virtually harmless. We should also, where we can, support these initiatives financially through donation to get the research funded and the products out there. There's no reason why eating it would make any difference.
In fact, if a vegan did buy this meat, it would be much better to cook it up for carnist friends.

For a vegan who is already not doing harm, switching to something like this has no real use; it would just waste money that (as other commenters mentioned) could be spent elsewhere.
Support these initiatives, sure, but tell them they can keep the meat to give out as samples (a much more useful endeavor than eating it and wasting product).

If anything this will probably reinforce carnies' perception of vegetarians as being a rich and emotional closed society.

Please don't call carnists "carnies", that's an insult to carnival people, some of whom are vegan. There's nothing wrong with being a carny/carnie, there are good and bad like any profession.

[zeello]

My bad, I meant carnists.

[Volenta]

That's horrible. I made a similar argument in the deontology thread, but I deleted it shortly afterwards. My argument was: That vegans are holding back animal welfare improvements by not buying meat from more responsible companies or ones that treat animals better. In effect, veganism hurts animal welfare.

&

I'd say the discussion is more useful than the article. The writer doesn't understand economics. I've seen the same bad argument being made saying vegans should buy free ranged grass fed meat, which is absurd.

I don't think the comparison is completely fair to be honest.

First off, lets understand the ethical position of both situations in isolation (not taking in account the economic, social and political ripple effect it might have). The animals that are getting animal welfare improvements are having a better time then those that don't, but it is by no means enough to say it's an ethical business. If you're convinced that it is, there is no point in being vegan after all. In the case of in vitro meat though, I would say it is ethical to consume. Or at least, it could be ethical and therefore should: I've been told that it requires animals being killed to get a starting point of muscle cells to work from, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a necessity. It has also been claimed that "once this process has been started, it would be theoretically possible to continue producing meat indefinitely without introducing new cells from a living organism"[1] and that's what we should and probably are going to strive for. The first piece can be taken out of an animal without killing it or from an animal that has died naturally.

Now on to the ripple effects it might have in both cases. This is a much harder question to answer, and is probably why there is a discussion on this issue. In the case of consuming animals that have undergone animal welfare improvements, I'm also convinced that it's a bad idea to consume them rather than vegan products. Although you are changing the ratio between animal welfare products and flat-out criminal animal products in a positive way, you are increasing the total demand as well. And since it's immoral as pointed out above, I don't think that is justified to do so, unless the ratio matters. But why would that matter? I don't think it does for the reason that welfare products won't get as cheap as the criminal products, and those that do not care about animals will practically always buy the cheapest piece available. By going vegan, you're decreasing the total demand which is the only measurement that's relevant. It should also be said that all animal welfare improvements in significant numbers are the result of reforms from the government, which in turn is the result of political and social support. I can not see why supporting welfare improvements rather than vegan products should have a larger contribution to this cause.

On to the ripple effects of in vitro meat. Given that in virto meat is on the long run able to get cost-competitive with the current criminal products, which researcher say it say, supporting this is speeding up this development. Since the amounts of animals mistreated and killed each day is enormous, every small contribution to get it done earlier has a quite significant impact (given that it's going to be a success). The real question here seems to be what it is that has a greater impact: 1) supporting in vitro meat by buying it's expensive meat, 2) supporting in vitro meat by financially contributing to speeding up technological advancements that will make it's meat cheaper, or 3) giving to a vegan promoting organization. (This is why I thought the discussion at the bottom of the article was interesting)

This is something that can be calculated with some level of certainty. I'm not going to make this calculations right here, but I think I can agree to you both that the first option is't viable. Consuming $200,000 burgers is not going to make it cost-competitive. I personally do think though that supporting Vegan Outreach is not going to have the same impact as in vitro meat (potentially) has. As I said, I haven't done the calculations, but I think that a large proportion of the population is simply not going to go vegan whatever you say. And those that do make the choice, are falling back all the time (as brimstoneSalad has earlier on this forum pointed out) and have to make a sacrifice not everyone is willing to make. I know this might be controversial to say, but it is nonetheless true in the wealthy first world. In virto meat isn't a burden at all and I don't think many will object to this change, other then religious fanatics and misled naturalistic fallacy lunatics.

Reading Julian Savulescu's (for those who don't know, Savulescu is bioethicist who got his PhD under supervision of Peter Singer) comments below the article makes me think that this is not what he meant by it though. In the comments he has stated:

I am not suggesting you take out a mortgage and spend it on a burger. But if this research did progress, and a pure meat burger came out at $20, but a Macdonalds was $3, vegetarians might have a good reason to eat the $20 Frankenburger. People already spend more money supporting "organic" farming, sometimes for ethical reasons.

Ignoring the part on organic farming, I don't think it is completely wrong. What he better could have said is that you should buy it when technological advancement isn't going to make it cheaper, to create more demand and therefore push the price down. And maybe it is what he meant to say, but it's not particularly clear on it.

This article's logic is even worse in a way, because its about a product that's ludicrously expensive and its a product we don't know will ever become mainstream. The only ones who would give a shit about their meat being lab grown are those who care about animal rights, so the logical result is that vegetarians waste their money on a lab grown fad.

I think you are overtly being pessimistic. The progress on in virto meat is doing great:

In a March 2015 interview with Australia's ABC, Mark Post said that the marginal cost of his team's original €250,000 burger was now €8.00. He estimates that technological advancements would allow the product to be cost-competitive to traditionally sourced beef in approximately ten years.[1]

It's definitely not true that only those who care about animal rights care about this advancement. Lots of people (if not most) want animals to be treated better or not have them been used at all, but just don't want to make a personal commitment to change that. Reducing animal consumption is highly relevant because of the climate change issue, so governments are also likely to push this advancement. And if you doubt this claim: in virto meat research in the Netherlands has been funded by the government.

We should support omnivores in choosing the lesser of two evils, and in the case of bioreacted meat, the virtually harmless. We should also, where we can, support these initiatives financially through donation to get the research funded and the products out there. There's no reason why eating it would make any difference. In fact, if a vegan did buy this meat, it would be much better to cook it up for carnist friends.

For a vegan who is already not doing harm, switching to something like this has no real use; it would just waste money that (as other commenters mentioned) could be spent elsewhere.

I agree with most of what you say, and maybe all if you're specifically talking about the $200.000 burger. It would indeed not help in the case of the $200.000 personally-made-for-you burger, but it would help (a little bit of course) in the case of a mass production €8,– one.

Support these initiatives, sure, but tell them they can keep the meat to give out as samples (a much more useful endeavor than eating it and wasting product).

By selling it, more money becomes available for further research. Whether giving it directly to research or through buying the results, doesn't matter that much. Creating demand itself could be a problem though, because it doesn't help with making more progress in the research by letting researcher create more of the same stuff (which is throwing away your money) instead of focusing on making technological advancement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

PS: maybe extract this discussion into a topic?

[brimstoneSalad]

First off, lets understand the ethical position of both situations in isolation (not taking in account the economic, social and political ripple effect it might have).

I see your point, but I don't think we can really do that, because opportunity cost is hugely important when you're looking at what kinds of actions are effective charity. And in this case opportunity cost so far outweighs the actual cost as to dwarf it into insignificance.

What is being made is essentially an economic argument, and in that sense (not in the moral sense of the primary product) I find them similarly preposterous, because they are two distinct issues being conflated.

1. Is it effective charity to support free ranged or lab grown meat financially (rather than just advocating them as the lesser and least of evils respectively)?
2. Should we actually consume any of these things ourselves? In particular: Is there any reason to do so when we otherwise wouldn't want to or enjoy it?

I think it's great to address these questions independently, but mixing them up like like that (both the article, and the people saying vegans have an obligation to eat free range meat) is not appropriate.

In the case of in vitro meat though, I would say it is ethical to consume. Or at least, it could be ethical and therefore should: I've been told that it requires animals being killed to get a starting point of muscle cells to work from, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a necessity.

Well, one could say the same about free ranged meat; that it *could* develop into something ethical where the animals live full natural happy lives and are only harvested after. But it's not at that point now. And neither is lab grown meat.

That's not to say we shouldn't support it if we think it's effective charity to drive progress to those ends, but the current state is relevant to the ethical considerations of consumption.

Currently, in my understanding, lab grown meat only makes existing meat larger, and does it with fetal bovine serum, and other animal products.

If we were to purchase it, it would be under the assumption that with more funding and support from conscious consumers, they would improve the process... which is the same argument that those for the free ranged meats make.
Granted, we're talking about something that has much more potential for improvement while reducing price, while the same is not true of free ranged, but it is a similar argument when the issues of financial support and consumption are unnecessarily conflated.

The real question here seems to be what it is that has a greater impact: 1) supporting in vitro meat by buying it's expensive meat, 2) supporting in vitro meat by financially contributing to speeding up technological advancements that will make it's meat cheaper, or 3) giving to a vegan promoting organization. (This is why I thought the discussion at the bottom of the article was interesting)

This is something that can be calculated with some level of certainty. I'm not going to make this calculations right here, but I think I can agree to you both that the first option is't viable. Consuming $200,000 burgers is not going to make it cost-competitive.

Well, the article was all about the first one, thus my criticism. I don't think the first option even belongs on the table, it's insane, and really has nothing to do with supporting these endeavors.

As to the question of efficacy, if you want to support them because you think they're more effective, then support them. You don't need to suffer through eating an absurdly expensive hamburger to do it.

Reading Julian Savulescu's (for those who don't know, Savulescu is bioethicist who got his PhD under supervision of Peter Singer) comments below the article makes me think that this is not what he meant by it though. In the comments he has stated:

I am not suggesting you take out a mortgage and spend it on a burger. But if this research did progress, and a pure meat burger came out at $20, but a Macdonalds was $3, vegetarians might have a good reason to eat the $20 Frankenburger. People already spend more money supporting "organic" farming, sometimes for ethical reasons.

Ignoring the part on organic farming, I don't think it is completely wrong. What he better could have said is that you should buy it when technological advancement isn't going to make it cheaper, to create more demand and therefore push the price down. And maybe it is what he meant to say, but it's not particularly clear on it.

That $20 would be better spent on lobbying to ensure that mandatory labeling laws don't scare consumers off, or advertising for the products, and educational information to push carnists toward it.

At no point would $20 to purchase one burger (off which the company would only make a minuscule margin) make more of a difference than $20 worth of leaflets, which would drive potentially hundreds of purchases.
$1 in leaflets will probably do more than a $20 purchase, and generate hundreds of dollars in purchases.

Julian does not understand economics, advertising, or activism very well if he thinks this is a practical method for supporting in vitro meat.

I agree with most of what you say, and maybe all if you're specifically talking about the $200.000 burger. It would indeed not help in the case of the $200.000 personally-made-for-you burger, but it would help (a little bit of course) in the case of a mass production €8,– one.

I really don't think it would. Not compared to other options of what you could do with that €/$8. Or what you could do with €/$1 even.

I would very likely buy it and give it to my friends, yes. I wouldn't see any use or need in eating it though. I know what meat tastes like.

If somebody was like "I'll give you $100 to take a bite of this", then sure, yeah I might. But that's an extraordinary case, where I can then spend $100 on not buying more of those burgers, but leaflet or advertise instead.

By selling it, more money becomes available for further research. Whether giving it directly to research or through buying the results, doesn't matter that much.

You wouldn't give it away randomly. You'd give it to food journalists and professional/popular chefs. Even politicians and regulators.

Creating demand itself could be a problem though, because it doesn't help with making more progress in the research by letting researcher create more of the same stuff (which is throwing away your money) instead of focusing on making technological advancement.

Commercial advancement and public demand and acceptance is very important. My eating this thing, thoroughly disliking it and gagging it down, and feeling sick afterwards isn't a very effective marketing strategy.

Like I said, sure, support them. But don't eat it. That would just be a waste of the sample.

PS: maybe extract this discussion into a topic?

Sure. I think you can change the topic subject if you want.

[Classic]

I didn't check the link, but there's definitely nothing immoral with lab-grown meat since no pain is involved.

[garrethdsouza]

Doesnt lab grown meat like most in vitro mammalian cell culture require serum like feral calf serum which is sourced from the meat industry? (I see a lot of anti animal research folk, of which I am not one, keep reiterating cell culture as a substitute for anything under the sun,an asinine suggestion, not realising many use serum sourced from the meat industry)

Its questionable whether its cruelty free in that case.

[GTgayvegan]

I would never eat any lab-grown meat. A big part of why I am vegan is because I believe meat is bad for humans. I also don't think a piece-meal purchase of the odd lab meat burger would have any useful effect in signalling the animal farming industries to divert resources to lab produce. I don't want anything to do with it at all.

I doubt many meat-eaters would be keen either as there would be a high 'yuck' factor for a long time. Maybe it could have a place in pre-prepared meals where the appearance is concealed by sauces etc? Many shoppers value price above all factors, so that'll be a tough road whatever happens with the research.

I don't buy any of the arguments that vegans should eat free-range grass-fed meat. The environmental effects are worse than grain-fed for a start - look what's happened to Australia where most beef is grass fed. It reminds me of Gary Yourovsky's rebuttal of this sort of thing, where he asks whether child sex slaves are acceptable if they live in a 8 hour-a-day fun playground. Total madness to condone either as ethically acceptable.

[PowerPlant]

IMO main question is: Should vegans and vegetarians financially support lab grown meat?
If this Frankenmeat differs from factory meat only in origin then I think they should, but only to extent they choose to support any other vegan activism. I see no evidence that this is THE BEST way to fight for animal welfare.

The idea behind proposition "vegans should not only buy Frankenmeat but also eat it" is creating fake demand in order to drive down prices. I argue that more evidence is needed supporting claim that one dollar spent on fake meat is more valuable then one dollar spent on any other form of activism.
Also, there is no guarantee that consumers, especially religious hardliners, won't reject the new alternative on some irrational grounds making it less popular regardless of the price. This parameters (and probably many more) have to be accounted for when calculating per dollar efficiency of this method.

For example, with $200.000 I can:

1. buy one Frankenmeat meal - I create a small fake increase in meat demand
2. bribe 200 people into not eating any meat for a week - I create a bigger fake decrease in meat demand

Does this mean we should also start bribing meat eaters into not eating meat?

Also, what if I'm a vegan for reasons other then animal welfare and environment? What if I believe that meat is bad in terms of health?
Would it be like saying, don't eat meat but if you do eat lab grown?
Like doctors saying, don't smoke but if you do smoke electronic? And then doctors go and buy electronic cigarettes and go smoking them just to make them more appealing to their patients. Sounds like pure marketing/product placement to me.

I don't know, just my knee jerk thoughts...