On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:47:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
..
>On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:45:01 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 11:34:33 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>.
>>>It's here, ****wit: laboratory produced meat grown in a container. No
>>>cattle were brought into existence and "got to experience life" in order
>>>to produce this beef.
>>>
>>>http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,7945932.story
>>>
>>>
>>>By Ricardo Lopez
>>>
>>>August 5, 2013, 8:29 a.m.
>>>
>>>For a $330,000 burger, taste testers thought the flavor fell a little flat.
>>>
>>>The hefty price tag, however, wasn't for some fancy, rare cut of meat.
>>>In fact, this meat had never so much as mooed in a previous life: It was
>>>beef grown in a laboratory.
>>>
>>>Dutch scientists Monday unveiled their ambitious research project, years
>>>in the making, with a public taste test of their cultured beef in London.
>>>
>>>Volunteer tasters sampled hamburger made from the lab-grown beef made
>>>from stem cells. Scientists hope it can one day alleviate a food crisis
>>>as the world's population swells and help combat climate change.
>>>
>>>To make the meat, scientists at Maastricht University in the Netherlands
>>>used muscle stem cells from two organic cows and combined them with a
>>>nutrient solution. The muscle cells then grew into strands of meat. It
>>>takes 20,000 strands to make a 5-ounce burger.
>>>
>>>Taste testers said the meat lacked the fat of a conventional burger,
>>>making the taste a little underwhelming, the Associated Press reported.
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>So, it's not quite ready for market, but this could soon be the way
>>>*all* meat is produced. It would be cheaper and less environmentally
>>>destructive than raising livestock. If it comes to pass, then billions
>>>and billions and eventually trillions of animals will never "get to
>>>experience life" - their lives will be prevented, and "vegans" won't
>>>have anything to do with it.
>>>
>>>I'm not saying it will come to pass, but if it does, the fact that
>>>trillions of animals will never exist and "get to experience life" will
>>>be meaningless. No one will care.
>>
>> I've agreed with that the whole time Goob and I've mentioned the eventual
>>situation you presented an example of too. But that doesn't prevent millions of
>>animals from benefitting from lives of positive value NOW, in the past, and in
>>the foreseeable future Goots. And nothing prevents me or anyone else who
>>actually can appreciate decent AW over elimination from appreciating the fact
>>that they do, have and will, Goo. A similar example you MIGHT but probably can't
>>relate to is with horses Goob. There are a lot less horses now than there would
>>be if cars still had not been invented. That doesn't matter Goober, but it would
>>matter if they DID exist as it did matter when they did exist. We, so far, are
>>in a similar situation with food animals...they exist now but in the future they
>>eventually will no longer. We are in a position to appreciate their lives more
>>than the lives of working horses though, if having to work as the horses did
>>reduced the quality of life for them so that a higher percentage of their lives
>>were of negative value because of the labor they had to perform. Of course each
>>situation would be different Goo and some horses no doubt enjoyed their work and
>>having a purpose, while others were overworked and suffered from the abuse. But
>>everything like that is necessarily over the heads of people who can't
>>appreciate when any domestic animals have lives of positive value:
>>
>>"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>>"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>>
>>much MUCH less can they/YOU appreciate a distinction between when they do and
>>when they do not, Goo.
>
>No, that's a lie

Your're lying again since you can't appreciate a distinction Goob. You can't
even appreciate that many domestic animals do experience lives of positive value
Goober, so you certainly can't comprehend any sort of distinction between when
they do and when they don't.
....
>animals "getting to experience life", as you so wretchedly put it

You have proven without doubt that you can't think of a better way to put it
Goots, nor even anywhere near as good. That has been proven by you and is not in
dispute, Goo.