Then presumably those same people will look with discust at Moroccans still raising goats/cows/sheep/chickens and killing them for mundane mealtimes and for Sacrifice Day[1]. What will we as a global society do about such a divide in culture as far-reaching as this? Gay marriage requires basically no life-changes from the average person. Why would this not be far more divisive?

Attempting to impose control over where people get their food is the sort of thing that starts wars.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_al-Adha is the holiday

I'm genuinely curious why my comment is harmful rather than helpful (that is, why the downvotes?) to the goal of having an insightful conversation about the societal effects of artificial meat. The parent comment points out the possibility for the existence of lab-grown meat to lead to it becoming an enforced norm in some wealthy cultures. My comment points out that such an enforced cultural norm is going to clash sharply with cultural traditions that are a significant part of their lives. Among the questions that follows are:

1) Is there a way for lab-grown meat to become prevalent without it leading to such a clash?

2) Are there things we can do to prevent such a clash from becoming violent?

3) Are there ways for lab-grown meat to be developed in a way that small-scale poor herders in mountains with moderate infrastructure can own its means of production?

4) Is there a way to go into a culture which currently eats meat with every meal[1], take away their means of producing meat, and have it not result in a violent backlash agains whichever organisation is trying to do this?

[1] source: two separate conversations with Moroccan men in March of 2019, one of whom was helping teach a cooking class in Fez and another of whom was leading a food tour of Marrakesh

Sometimes in forums, when someone says something is bad, someone else argues against them calling it bad because it would be hard to make that something illegal, despite nothing about legality having been said. It's a frustrating argument because it implies laws are the only moral standards one should adhere to, and it disregards any possibilities between something being good and 100% legal or bad and 100% illegal. Usually I downvote that kind of response because it just encourages a polarized discussion that embraces a false dichotomy.

ngold's post was ambiguous about whether he expects meat production to become illegal, so I don't think you were wrong to bring legality into the picture and I didn't downvote you, but I can see how someone could think your reply fit the above pattern.