If technology advances enough to make in vitro growing of meat
possible (that is meat grown from a cell sample), would vegans have
any ethnical objections to such meat? After all, once the initial cell
sample is taken, no animals would be involved in such production of
meat.

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

On Mar 18, 2:34*am, Dragonblaze wrote:
If technology advances enough to make in vitro growing of meat
possible (that is meat grown from a cell sample), would vegans have
any ethnical objections to such meat? After all, once the initial cell
sample is taken, no animals would be involved in such production of
meat.

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

It depends on the vegan. Here is one view.

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/a...ube-meat.shtml

I myself don't think there would be any serious grounds for making an
objection.

There's a bit more information he

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

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.

I'm asked about this one all the time and my attitude is "Well, of
course, but what is the relevance now? That's not going to happen in
the immediate future".

Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

There's a bit more information he

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

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?

"Rupert" wrote
Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.

People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's the
nature of the human ego.

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, 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. 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.

On Mar 19, 3:07 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.

People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's the
nature of the human ego.

Did you read Dawkins' "God Delusion"? And there was a response by a
thelogian who also had some scientific training, called "The Dawkins
Delusion". There's a dispute which will probably keep a few people
busy for a while.

"Rupert" wrote
On Mar 19, 3:07 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no
longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics.

People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's
the
nature of the human ego.

Did you read Dawkins' "God Delusion"? And there was a response by a
thelogian who also had some scientific training, called "The Dawkins
Delusion". There's a dispute which will probably keep a few people
busy for a while.


No, I've heard of it though. Generally I think of "religion" and "worship"
as manifestions of the "focus on the finger" phenomenon. If you ever try to
indicate something to a dog by pointing towards it the dog will simply look
eagerly at your outstretched finger, not that at which you are pointing. The
dog lacks the conscious awareness to grasp that your finger is indicating
something beyond itself. That's essentially what people have done with the
messages of awakened spiritual teachers, instead of learning from the
lessons, they deify the teacher, then proceed to distrust and demonize
anyone who does not make the same unconscious error. Instead of moving man
towards higher consciousness, religion has taken man deeper into conflict.

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, besides, the
sheer number of animals who "experience life" is not important to anyone
with half a clue. What matters to people of good faith is that animals who
are raised by humans are well treated, and that our actions do not cause
undue harm to the environment.

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.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points. Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert wrote:

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.

Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

Buxqi wrote:
On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert wrote:

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.

Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

My specific point that "ar" is speciesist is not really
based on what we require of human moral patients,
although that certainly reinforces my claim. My point
is that "ar" demands a behavior of moral actors -
humans - based on the fact that humans are uniquely
viewed by most, at least until recently, as moral
actors. It's sort of like requiring your seven-foot
tall neighbor to assist you in getting things down from
or up onto the top shelves of your kitchen cabinets
merely because he is tall.

An interesting development is that some ethnologists or
ethno-biologists now think humans may not be the only
moral actors; there is some scant evidence that
chimpanzees may have some rudimentary moral sense. If
that is the case, and if it eventually comes to pass
that chimps have a limited but identifiable capacity
for moral agency, then are we required to prevent them
from killing colubus monkeys and other animals?

On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi wrote:
On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert wrote:

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.

Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?

Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline.

We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific
research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain
knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which
Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research".
We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on
cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to
do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide
some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the
project on the chimpanzees but not the humans.

We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have
untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is
frequently made on this newsgroup.

This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not
currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman
animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some
humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs
to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion.

As to Jonathan Ball's points in his more recent post, well, we might
talk about them later. Sometime soon I'll write the first chapter,
giving a more precise version of the two hypothetical cases above and
stating the aims and scope of the project. In particular, I'll specify
which writers and arguments I'm going to examine. Then you can give me
feedback about whether the writers and arguments I've chosen are a
good selection.

On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points.

You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I
have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and
arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how
open-minded you feel I am being.