> So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.
You gotta take some deep breaths before you reply because you and every other vegan I end up engaged with lay it on so thick with the defensive self-righteousness that you are more apt to have people dig their heels in. This doesn't end up making any difference except to how you feel about yourself and the social cred you get amongst your bubble-buddies when you share how much you "destroyed" some rando on the internet.
My point was that you can't see me and I can't see you, so you don't truly see me as another person, just some adversary or potential convert to get a notch in the belt. I took the time to calm myself, do some more research and then reply respectfully (imo) to most of your points.
> Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.
See, you obviously didn't even click the last two links I sent in your rush to shove more of your own information down my throat, because the first link is for an article about a study that specifically asks the main question in my original post... and their findings support your position, I mean wow...
> Says who? At the same price/experience it has the potential to make a huge difference! I know loads of peeps who'd switch (or pretty much have switch since the alternative are good enough for them). They do not need to re-learn cooking, just pick the other "meat" and do as you always do.
> "Srsly. Where do you get this from?"
From the second link you didn't look at, I was literally paraphrasing the article for you, but it makes the points much better than me, cause, ya know, professional writer at scientific publication.
So yeah, if you want to make a difference in online debate then you should probably leave your ego in whatever room your computer isn't and actually try listening to whoever you're engaged with. Good night and good luck in your crusade.
So go vegan. Have a look at Cowspiracy for example. Our meat consumption is killing our habitat on this planet.
> > About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
> This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their conscious is clean.
How do you know? I say it's BS as the vegans I know are making a daily effort to improve the shituation, while omnis keep coming with lame excuses.
> They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.
laughs Sorry man, not even replying to this. Any research to back this statement up? I guess nah.
> It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.
Yes. And it is the vegans that are the exception here. I picked fruit! I pulled a cabbage from soil. I would never like to kill an animal, not even when it give me taste pleasure.
> > Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. > > If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
> Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their paycheck on lab-grown protein sources
I forgot to say that the price-at-shop is same of cheaper for the faux meat. So that what I mean by a pure discussion: we have the same-price-same-experience right here, why buy cruelty?
> > Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
> One assumption [...] it's a race.
Are you concerned with resource consumption or not? If yes: do your research and go (mostly) vegan. Why wait for it to be to expensive for you to pay for?
> My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not h
Without substantial foundation that's called F.U.D.
> Having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.
So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.
> Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response
Thanks for noticing. :)
> though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab grown meat vs nature grown meat.
Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.
> We're not using technology to become more moral or ethical, we're using it to become lazier and more complacent.
The ethical impact of this tech is a side-effect. The ones investing are simply looking to make money. That we cannot grow further with our livestock numbers is primarily an economic factor for the investors. It just happens to line up at this point.
> The same attitude that allows people to eat meat without caring about the conditions under which it was made isn't going to change when lab meat becomes available...
Says who? At the same price/experience it has the potential to make a huge difference! I know loads of peeps who'd switch (or pretty much have switch since the alternative are good enough for them). They do not need to re-learn cooking, just pick the other "meat" and do as you always do.
> which means that if companies that make lab meat DO end up having to cut costs by killing some other ecosystem, they probably won't care about that either.
Srsly. Where do you get this from? What ecosystem are you talking about?
Not the ecosystems in the forests that where cut for animal agriculture of the GMO soy/corn field to feed them...
Get a grip man. You're chasing ghosts.
> For me, whether you eat meat or veggies doesn't determine how ethical you are as a person
For me it does because, in your own words:
> it's how much energy you're actually willing to spend on giving a shit about how your actions affect others.
And going vegan is an effort, try it, and you save many animals by doing so. That industry is so ugly you would not be able to swallow that piece of corpse when you had to look at movies showing its practices.
I really wish for you to try to consume cruelty free, you seem to have the capacity to understand it will help (though still trying to deny it with --in my opinion-- highly convoluted reasoning).