On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:36:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:06 am, dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
There's a bit more information he

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...urs-2007-05-15...

The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its
stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I
think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would
currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro
steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for
human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless
some major breakthrough is made.

I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter
Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the
end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he
mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it.

I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to
criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it
is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue
about.

Most likely because you don't really care about the animals
themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence.
Let's try another one anyway:

Do you think it would be better if the animals could be
raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them
to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it
may be better in some cases, but not in others?

Dear David Harrison,

I would like very much to give you a detailed explanation of why I
believe your arguments are unsatisfactory but I am currently working
full-time teaching mathematics,

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not. A very good project would be to get a group
of open minded--NOT!!! elimination minded!--students to decide
which livestock animals they feel have lives of positive value,
and which they feel do not, and compare the numbers. Also,
if they are willing to go the extra mile, let them figure any
improvements they think could be made to certain situations
that would give positive value to lives which they currently
consider to be negative.

and also aiming to re-submit my Ph.D.
thesis by July 31, along with various other projects, and I may not be
able to get around to it any time soon. When my thesis is finished I
plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

In all animals, or only in humans? I consider all animals to
be speciesists, including humans, and that as a group they
must be in order to survive. If some members of that group
want to try to pretend they are not, and try to perform actions
proving they are not, it hopefully won't be disastrous to the
group as a whole as long as the percentage of members
trying to do so is not too high. For example people must continue
to work harder and harder to prevent "aras" ie. eliminationists
from having any more negative influence on humanity, domestic
animals and wildlife than they are having.

When I finish the
first chapter I will post a link to it here; that will be my next
attempt to move the debate forward. I may possibly have time to take
up the matter with you then. I am sorry I cannot give you an answer at
this stage.

It could get combined with the math project. Animals judged
to have lives of negative value might in some cases be better
of in a comatose condition, like battery hens. But. Other alternatives
might be considered ethically superior, like if hens in cage free
houses are considered to generally have decent lives of positive
it would probably be better to let them experience their lives instead
of never knowing anything about it.