I think it dehumanizes humans.

So it offends your sensibilities, but GP is correct, it doesn't physically harm anyone. It probably will help reduce conscious suffering in the long run.

GP didn't say it "doesn't physically harm anyone". Are you saying there's no harm except physical harm?

Obviously not. But the set of harms that should reasonably be given as an answer to "why not?" is not equal to the set of all imaginable harms.

Let me clarify. I wouldn't be surprised if the smell and taste of cooked human flesh causes physiological and mental changes to humans. Those changes could possibly lower the barriers for human to human violence.

Probably worth studying before bringing this into the mass market.

Maybe case studies of cannibalism would shed some light. An otherwise peaceful society who, for example, eats recently dead people, may suggest there wouldn't be any concerns with lab grown human meat.

Interesting. If this isn't an interaction between a high-divinity moral foundation individual and a low-divinity individual.

Surveillance doesn’t physically harm anyone, either, but does that also reduce conscious suffering in the long run? Sibling comments are right: physical harm != harm.

There is a more direct link from surveillance to physical harm (loss of freedom, imprisonment, death) than there is from lab meat. I agree, physical harm != harm, but harm != harm we should restrict others' freedom in order to prevent.

with all due respect sir (or madam) we live in a capitalist society