dorjeshugden.com
General Buddhism => General Buddhism => Topic started by: negra orquida on May 29, 2012, 04:33:19 PM
-
Just came across this interesting article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17113214 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17113214)) (and pasted below) published in February this year. Scientists are currently working towards "growing" meat using stem cells from animals, which could mean that in the future, slabs of meat can be produced without having to slaughter animals.
As a vegetarian, I personally feel that something is still not quite "right" with this idea and wouldn't eat such meat, even though no killing of animals is involved (or so they claim).
This statement by Professor Savulescu did make me think:
"People who are vegetarian for moral reasons - the environment, the treatment of animals - have a moral obligation to eat this meat. They need to do this because it will contribute to an ethical alternative to conventional meat. Moral vegetarians need to promote, use and consume this test tube meat. Then it will become cheaper."
I can't say I agree with this statement. How could vegetarians eating synthetic meat influence conventional meat eaters to switch to test-tube meat, if vegetarians can't convince meat eaters to stop eating meat on the basis of non-violence to animals/saving the environment/health... the purpose for producing such meat is based on the same causes!
What do you think?
Article:
The world could get its first lab-grown burger this year, with scientists using stem cells to create strips of beef. But could vegetarians eat it?
Scientists in the Netherlands hoping to create a more efficient alternative to rearing animals have grown small pieces of beef muscle in a laboratory.
These strips will be mixed with blood and artificially grown fat to produce a hamburger by the autumn.
The stem cells in this particular experiment were harvested from by-products of slaughtered animals but in the future, scientists say, they could be taken from a live animal through biopsy.
One usually assumes the main motivation for vegetarianism - aside from those who practise for religious reasons - is about the welfare of animals. The typical vegetarian forswears meat because animals are killed to get it.
So if the meat does not come from dead animals would there be an ethical problem in eating it if it one day lands on supermarket shelves?
It's not as simple an equation as that, says Prof Andrew Linzey, director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. He says the burger as currently envisaged isn't an acceptable substitute for vegetarians, but is still a step forward.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
People who are vegetarian for moral reasons - the environment, the treatment of animals - have a moral obligation to eat this meat”
Prof Julian Savulescu
Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Ethics
Synthetic meat grown in Dutch lab
"Synthetic meat could be a great moral advance. It won't be suitable for vegetarians because it still originates in meat by-products, but bearing in mind that millions of animals are slaughtered for food every day, it is a step forward to a less violent world."
According to the Vegetarian Society, a vegetarian does not eat "any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or the by-products of slaughter".
The lab-grown meat created so far has been grown from stem cells taken from foetal calf serum. This is usually a by-product of slaughter, although stem cells could be harvested in smaller volumes without killing animals.
Prof Julian Savulescu, the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Ethics, says it doesn't matter how the product is made and "the fact that the meat is made from animal by-products is morally irrelevant".
"People who are vegetarian for moral reasons - the environment, the treatment of animals - have a moral obligation to eat this meat.
"They need to do this because it will contribute to an ethical alternative to conventional meat."
For many vegetarians though, the issue is a complicated one.
"Some are waiting with bated breath, keen to experience the taste and texture of meat without actually harming an animal, while others find the whole idea utterly repulsive," says Su Taylor from the Vegetarian Society.
Beef stem cells are being grown to make the first laboratory burger
The UK Food Standards Agency's Public Attitudes to Food survey of 3,219 adults in 2009 found 3% of respondents were "completely vegetarian" and an additional 5% "partly vegetarian (don't eat some types of fish or meat)".
Just because the meat has been grown artificially doesn't mean it is vegetarian, says Vegetarians International Voices for Animals (Viva). But Viva insists vegetarianism and veganism aren't religions so individuals should make up their own minds.
"Certainly, with over 950 million land animals slaughtered in the UK each year," says Viva spokesman and campaign manager Justin Kerswell, "and the vast majority of them factory farmed in awful conditions, anything that saves animals from suffering is to be welcomed."
There's already been discussion about whether meat eaters could be persuaded to eat the artificial meat, but at the moment the price tag is likely to be prohibitive. The first lab-grown burger is likely to cost in the region of £200,000 to produce.
Savulescu says most people won't give up meat, but if there was a palatable alternative, conventional meat eaters might move to it.
"Moral vegetarians need to promote, use and consume this test tube meat," Savulescu said. "Then it will become cheaper."
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or the by-products of slaughter”
Vegetarian Society definition
The research on artificial meat has been prompted by concerns that current methods of meat production are unsustainable in the long term.
But to Kerswell, the research seems unnecessary, particularly as many vegetarians believe a diet excluding meat is more healthy.
"Why grow it in a Petri dish or eat the meat from a slaughtered animal when plant sources of protein and meat replacements are ever more commonly available and are better for our health?"
Of course, there are plenty of nutritionists who speak of the value of eating some meat. Dr Elizabeth Weichselbaum, a nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, says meat is an important source of a number of nutrients in our diet, including high quality protein, iron, zinc, selenium, vitamin D and some B vitamins.
"It can make an important contribution to a healthy and balanced diet. Meat and other protein sources, including eggs, beans and nuts, should be eaten in moderate amounts."
So could vegetarian chefs be persuaded? Denis Cotter, who runs a vegetarian restaurant in Cork, Ireland, says "after an instinctive shudder of revulsion" he can see the benefits of the burger, but it won't be making its way on to any of his menus.
"Personally, I don't like synthetic food, and avoid all that soy-based fake meat stuff aimed at vegetarians. So, no, I wouldn't be interested in using it, either as a restaurant product or on my plate at home. But I would back it as a better way to produce meat than burning down rainforests and gobbling up useful farmland."
-
"The stem cells in this particular experiment were harvested from by-products of slaughtered animals but in the future, scientists say, they could be taken from a live animal through biopsy."
The fact that just getting the stem cell to produce these test tube meat is already inflicting harm to the animal. In case there are some people other there that find this 'okay' as the animal is not being killed... let me remind you about the Bear bile industry and also the milk industry... see how those animals are treated you'll know how these 'stem cell life animals' will be treated as well.
Bottom line is... no, I wont eat a test tube burger and I do not agree with Professor Savulescu's statement.. he obviously is not vegetarian because most of the time, many people are disgusted by the texture of the meat after switching to a vegetarian diet.
-
"The stem cells in this particular experiment were harvested from by-products of slaughtered animals but in the future, scientists say, they could be taken from a live animal through biopsy."
The fact that just getting the stem cell to produce these test tube meat is already inflicting harm to the animal. In case there are some people other there that find this 'okay' as the animal is not being killed... let me remind you about the Bear bile industry and also the milk industry... see how those animals are treated you'll know how these 'stem cell life animals' will be treated as well.
Bottom line is... no, I wont eat a test tube burger and I do not agree with Professor Savulescu's statement.. he obviously is not vegetarian because most of the time, many people are disgusted by the texture of the meat after switching to a vegetarian diet.
I agree with Q, i wont take test tube burgers too as it is still bringing harm to the animal. moreover the attachment for meat is still in the mind if one to take the so called test tube burgers meaning we still will want to take meat and i feel the intention of taking real meat will still be there and the 'desire' to taste meat will compound daily and eventually one will like to taste real meat again. again this is just based on my assumption that this test tube burgers although will bring alternative ways of not killing the animal but still there will still be actions on harming the animal in terms of caging and giving the animals more vitamin boosters to make the ingredients in the animal's essence to be more tasty and you will not want to imagine all the torture for the animal to go through all the tests and experiments.
-
Good lord, why not just stick to vegetables. It’s so much easier, it’s non-synthetic, and of course it is healthier. You don’t have to worry about any possible side-effects of eating cultured meat! And with quorn and stuff like that, a good imagination and a willingness to experiment, vegetarian food tastes pretty damn good.
You know that eating meat is not really so attractive. Try boiling a steak or grilling one without adding salt or pepper. It’s pretty much like eating an old sock. We are seduced by seasoning! That’s all! It’s really all delusional.
-
So could vegetarian chefs be persuaded? Denis Cotter, who runs a vegetarian restaurant in Cork, Ireland, says "after an instinctive shudder of revulsion" he can see the benefits of the burger, but it won't be making its way on to any of his menus.
"Personally, I don't like synthetic food, and avoid all that soy-based fake meat stuff aimed at vegetarians. So, no, I wouldn't be interested in using it, either as a restaurant product or on my plate at home. But I would back it as a better way to produce meat than burning down rainforests and gobbling up useful farmland."[/i]
This last statement pretty sums up how I feel about it. At the end of the day, the meat is not real and certainly not an alternative source for me. As with cloned animals and eventually cloned humans (?), I am totally against it. However the reality is, people still want to eat meat in this world and if this cloned meat contributes to reducing the slaughter of more animals then I would support it as an alternative source for meat eaters.
-
The concept of vegetarianism is so that animals will not suffer. Well, that is what I believe. This "test-tube" meat seems good. I would eat it. However, no animal must be harmed in the process of producing this form of meat. If animals are harmed, then it will never be eaten by me. After being vegetarian for 2 years, I have lost most of my attachments towards meat. Now, seeing meat makes me feel sick because I would be seeing a corpse and restaurants are like mortuaries. Sickening! Also, at the current price of this "test tube" meat, which is 200,000 pounds, I do not think that people would buy it, even if it goes cheaper. Buying mock meat is fine by me, I eat mock meat because I still have my attachments but I know I am not a murderer anymore. I would still buy mock meat and not this "test tube" rubbish.
-
I totally agree with Wisdombeings! Just stick to vegetarianism and stop eating meat.
Firstly for health reason, eating meat leads to long list of health problems
Secondly habituation, one we start to eat meat (even though from test-tubes/chemically manufactured) we go back to the habit of meat-eating and soon tube-tube or farm-fed, we will resume the bad habit of killing for food
Thirdly man-made/manufactured food stuff are not natural, they might even be worse than those genetically-altered plants that would bring harm to our body in the long run.
Just stop eating meat and stick to healthy wholesome grains and greens - make it simple! We eat to live, not live to eat.
-
Instead of investing so much in high tech R&D, market research, experiments, so much resources are spent, so much talented brain powers are used up which i find to be a total waste. It sounds to me that it's yet another toy project for scientists, for some investors, for someone to be a pioneer in something new.
Yes i know I sound sinicle and i make no apologies for it.
I see it's so much more beneficial if all these resources are being used to promote vegetarianism, non-killing, fight against animal cruelty, and hey afterall, there is enough to proof that humans are not meant to eat meat!
-
To harvest stem cells to produce meat, scientists need to draw from a meat-source. That entails pain, in whatever degree it may be. Thus there is still the element of causing pain to the donor.
Why not just go for mock meat if you still have an inkling for meat? The taste and texture are artificial when you compare to the real meat. I believe going for mock meat is just satisfying your craving for food with "meat" labels.
I would not want to eat a "test-tube" burger. No need to. Just toss a salad and have some bread.
-
Synthetic meat could be a great moral advance.It won't be suitable for vegetarian because it still originates in meat by products.The burger as currently envisaged isn't suitable for vegetarians .A diet excluding meat is more healthy.The main motivation for vegetarians-aside from those practise for religious reasons-is about the welfare for animals,as the typical vegetarian forswears meat because animals are killed to get it.
Is this artificial meat a better solution than simply making smarter choices by opting for tofu or other vegetable based products?
-
No, I don't want to eat "test tube" meat. The reasons are:
1) Test tube meat are manufactured with artificial grown fat and its not natural. Anything not natural is not healthy.
2) I think there will be some pain inflicted onto the animals as the stem cells are taken from live animal through biopsy and from foetal calf serum.
3) I think it is ridiculous to spend such a huge amount of money, time and effort on the research. As a vegetarian for sometime, I have no craving for meat whether it is real meat or manufactured meat.
I feel it is best to stick to being a vegetarian and to spend that huge amount of money on promoting vegetarianism instead of finding an alternative to produce meat.
-
Instead of investing so much in high tech R&D, market research, experiments, so much resources are spent, so much talented brain powers are used up which i find to be a total waste. It sounds to me that it's yet another toy project for scientists, for some investors, for someone to be a pioneer in something new.
Yes i know I sound sinicle and i make no apologies for it.
I see it's so much more beneficial if all these resources are being used to promote vegetarianism, non-killing, fight against animal cruelty, and hey afterall, there is enough to proof that humans are not meant to eat meat!
Yeah i agree, why not just stick to vege and try develop something from there towards a healthier lifestyle? instead of making rounds and rounds of tests and experiments on how to enhance our attachment towards meat while being a vegetarian, why not focus on something on veges and try break through to another new level of bettering the organic level that doesn't harm the animals and environment?
And we do not need to specify more on the benefits of being a vegetarian, one gain better health because of healthy eating rather than eating meat, we get all sorts of complications because of the chemicals being put into the animals and we do not want another dose of the contaminated animals essence into our body. We have got enough toxics in our body already. Thank you very much!
-
I wonder if there would be any health implications in future if one consumes too much of this? I think growing meat out of a test tube is quite gross. A Vegetarian shuns meat in any form, why produce meat for a vegetarian who'd rather eat vegetables? I don't get it. Anyways, I dont think there would be a market for this with Vegetarians - all the testing I'm sure would have used up alot of resources. Dont think it is financially viable.
Eventually, using biopsy to extract the stem cell from the cows would cause them pain and hurt anyways so what's the difference?! I can already forsee that if ever this business becomes a cash-cow, people will exploit and the welfare of the animal will not be taken care of anyways.. so it all goes back to square one.
-
Test-tube meat is still meat. I don't think vegetarians will be attracted to it. But there is one advantage in producing test-tube meat. It will reduce the number of animals slaughtered for meat. The demand for meat by meat-eaters will be met with less costs. In a way this is kinder as it does not involve killing of animals for food.
-
Don't think its going to be as delicious as the real thing. But is it going to cause any heath issue? As of now, its bad enough to have so many various sicknesses while we are consuming the 'natural' apparently. Will test tube meat manifest new kind of health related issue for us...no one knows, but with the artificial fats? Really got me thinking. Why do we spending so much time and money to develop something which is (i felt) superfluous. A vegetarian will not going to change his/ her diet simply because there's no killing involved. A meat is still a meat, i personally do not think it is going to have any impact on a vegetarian.
Another thing, let's imaging test-tube meat is well receive in the market, will the real meat eventually became a delicacy and only for the rich? With less demand for the real thing without doubt will leave an impact to animal farming industry. So are you willing to pay for a real burger with a caviar price?
-
Eating meat is already something not appetizing for vegetarians, what more on something that is genetically engineered? It is against nature.
There are various reasons for someone becoming a vegetarian. It could be due to:
1. Religion - a practice of no killing and be less attach to cravings
2. Health - most diseases comes from animals like mad cow, bird flu, H1N1 virus etc. Eating meat will expose us to more diseases.
3. Personal preference - it's a matter of choice
4. Allergy (medical condition) - something that can't be chosen
5. Against animal cruelty / killing of animals - save the planet
Even though a "test tube" burger does not involve killing of an animal per se, the way it is developed is from an animal.
We can get protein from other sources like vegetables, grains and fruits. Vegetarian do not need to eat meat to have protein. Also, if we are cutting away our attachment on meat, it does not make sense for us to start to eat meat again even though from a genetically engineered slab of meat.
Does technology really advances humanity? Or it makes us less humane?
-
The intention seem good and pure but to me this is just another marketing gimmick to make money and hoping that existing vegetarians will support and promote it. Products were created by knowing the demands and needs, to resolve issues and opportunities for success. If they have done their research well, no doubt this may take off and be successful. Otherwise why bother?
So NO ... I am not agreeable to this, I am not agreeable to anything unnatural in the first place. Why do people like messing with the nature of things anyways? To me, making such statements are kind of blackmailing and psychoing vegetarians to think that they need to support and promote this if they truly care about animal cruelty. Honestly, if I were to promote this to others, I would rather promote giving up meat entirely by educating them that eating meat creates negative karma and intense suffering to animals. Health wise karmically and scientifically proven is also better when one stops consuming meat. Besides, the result of vegetarians eating any form of meat (this includes mock meat) has already been mocked and called hypocrites by meat eaters.
For those thinking of switching to vegetarian for cruelty reasons but can't give up the attachment to meat just yet, this could be a better option than to continue eating corpse. However, one will always be stuck and not be able to give up the attachment to the taste of meat forever.
-
These scientist may think that creating test tube meat and eating them is morally correct. I begged to differ as the whole reason for being vegetarian is not just based on no cruelty to animals only, but also includes other factors some maybe for healthier diet, some for religious purpose and environmental issues. The scientist said that stem cells needed to be harvested from dead and live animals and that is farming. They still need animals to harvest and that is already morally wrong. Imagine a cow had to be biopsy 10 times a day. Since the scientist can develop stem cell meat, why not they experiment on themselves, they can harvest the stem cell from their own and and produce test tube human meat. Then market it with a tag line "eat you own meat" :o That way no need to kill or harm other animals to extract stem cells. Is that morally wrong scientist? If the scientist think that's wrong than how come doing it on animals is morally correct?
-
There are many reasons why people become vegetarians. Some for spiritual reasons, health reasons and lifestyle reasons. So it is a personal choice amongst the vegetarian community whether or not he or she chooses to eat meat.
As for myself, I'm not eating meat because of spiritual reasons. I don't believe in killing to feed my stomach. It's a practice of being compassionate. In Buddhism, it is ok to eat meat of a dead animal that died naturally. So logically, I can eat "test-tube" meat. Whether or not I still like the taste of meat, I really doubt it. Currently, even the smell of meat puts me off.
-
Personally if we are vegetarian because of the moral reason of not to hurt animals for our desire why look for the replacement which is still coming from the animals. We should completely stop thinking or looking for any animal base substitute. I doesn’t make any different to me at all. Instead of spending time for such research and testing why don’t put the same effort and resource to look for more productive vegetable that able to give the same nutritious or better for our fellow vegetarian friends.
Stop looking at any alternative that will still reflect on the animals because just not changing our motivation from having them as our food.
Pls just treat the animals as our friends then our desire of food.
-
"Why grow it in a Petri dish or eat the meat from a slaughtered animal when plant sources of protein and meat replacements are ever more commonly available and are better for our health?"
This is one instance where I agree that sometimes scientists do their lab researches just for the sake of doing them.
It has already been researched and concluded that non meat diet contribute to good health. I started vegetarian diet 2 years ago; when I did my annual blood test, the result showed my good cholesterol count went up while the bad one came down. During these 2 years, I hardly had any regular exercises.
Besides benefits for health, on a spiritual note,keeping to a vegetarian diet also help train us on detachment from sense pleasures. If we sincerely wish to embark on this training, why fool ourselves with mock and synthetic meat?
-
I kept an open mind whilst reading the report until I came to this few paragraphs:
The lab-grown meat created so far has been grown from stem cells taken from foetal calf serum. This is usually a by-product of slaughter, although stem cells could be harvested in smaller volumes without killing animals.
Prof Julian Savulescu, the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Ethics, says it doesn't matter how the product is made and "the fact that the meat is made from animal by-products is morally irrelevant".
"People who are vegetarian for moral reasons - the environment, the treatment of animals - have a moral obligation to eat this meat.
"They need to do this because it will contribute to an ethical alternative to conventional meat."
I am in particular, very suspicious of all activities that is only loyal to the bottom line i.e. profit. This venture, as odd as I find it says that the stem cells are "usually" procured as a by-product of slaughter. I don't like the caveat in using the word "usually" because it says to me that it is also not unusual for animals to be slaughtered to obtain the stem cells.
More disturbingly at some point I suspect it will be more cost effective to harvest foetal calfs from say cheaper cows to produce stem cells for "choice" meat. When this happens, the foetal calf from where the serum comes, will no longer be a by-product, but very much the primary product.
Also I cannot even remotely tune into Suvalescu's suggestion of vegetarians having a moral duty to eat artificially produced meat. Such a desperate attempt to sell his idea. What a waste that people with intelligence and gift of the brain do not use it for something far nobler such as inventing ways to break the vicious cycle of starvation in the truly poor nations.
Anyway, here is an article connected to the same subject matter of foetal calf serums, that everyone should know:
http://news.change.org/stories/pregnancy-at-slaughter-what-happens-to-the-calves-part-2 (http://news.change.org/stories/pregnancy-at-slaughter-what-happens-to-the-calves-part-2)
-
I believe stem cells are still very much "alive" and the whole purpose of being vegetarian is to not kill. Hence whether it is killing a whole animal or a part of the animal is still killing. Or am I being a little to extreme here?
Whatever the case is, I think playing creator God is kinda warped and if one uses the logic of creating food to feed the hungry, isnt it a lot better to plant vegetables and fruits?
The only good thing I feel that comes from stem cell research is the fact that doctors can now regenerate human skin from skin grafts from stem cells. That I believe is a wonderful breakthrough!
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/11November/Pages/Skin-grafts-from-stem-cells.aspx (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/11November/Pages/Skin-grafts-from-stem-cells.aspx)
-
Wisdom Being has got it right. Why spend so much time and money on researching test tube meat when it could be better spent on other things! But, getting down to the question, I am of two minds when it comes to this test tube meat.
If it reduces the killing of animals, the test tube meat would be the lesser of two evils. At least, fewer animals are killed or harmed, compared to the conventional method. For this reason alone, I would back it.
However, on the flip side, extracting stem cells via biopsy causes its own form of suffering and distress to the animals. And, for those who are vegetarian for health or spiritual reasons, test tube meat does not help in any way.
Which brings me to another question - if test tube meat is acceptable, why dont moral vegetarians eat roadkill?
-
Why waste so much time , effort and resources in research and development in producing synthetic meat ? When all these should be focused on how to produce more staple diet (example: wheat , rice , soy , corn and etc )for the world at large to address the worlds hunger issues.
Alot of resources such land space are used instead to farm animals and feed them valuable nutrition that could directly feed us humans. Just to produce one kilogramme of meat we waste so much , now we are even gonna use up more resources to "create" synthetic meat ! What next ? When some weird chinaman says human meat taste good and that it can be produced synthetically , are we gonna grow some test tube human lump of meat ?
Can't imagine what will become of us when we humans achieve such technological advancement and sucess whilst lacking moral and spiritual wisdom.
-
You know, I am only vegetarian because the animals suffer so much and I find it such a contradiction for eating meat and reciting Dorje Shugden's mantra with the same mouth. As long as no animals are harmed in the process of growing the stem cells, I don't see why I can't eat meat. I am not that attached to veggies and I am not really a health buff. But I am quite attached to delicious foods of all sorts.
It was already hard getting used to a vegetarian diet but i could go back to a meat-based diet in a big way! Hehe! I believe it will be very beneficial if people who are not used to a vegetarian diet get to enjoy their guilt-free meat. That would change the karma of so many people! I know whole meat industries will shrink and eventually collapse. That would be so good.
-
I kept an open mind whilst reading the report until I came to this few paragraphs:
The lab-grown meat created so far has been grown from stem cells taken from foetal calf serum. This is usually a by-product of slaughter, although stem cells could be harvested in smaller volumes without killing animals.
Prof Julian Savulescu, the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Ethics, says it doesn't matter how the product is made and "the fact that the meat is made from animal by-products is morally irrelevant".
"People who are vegetarian for moral reasons - the environment, the treatment of animals - have a moral obligation to eat this meat.
"They need to do this because it will contribute to an ethical alternative to conventional meat."
I am in particular, very suspicious of all activities that is only loyal to the bottom line i.e. profit. This venture, as odd as I find it says that the stem cells are "usually" procured as a by-product of slaughter. I don't like the caveat in using the word "usually" because it says to me that it is also not unusual for animals to be slaughtered to obtain the stem cells.
More disturbingly at some point I suspect it will be more cost effective to harvest foetal calfs from say cheaper cows to produce stem cells for "choice" meat. When this happens, the foetal calf from where the serum comes, will no longer be a by-product, but very much the primary product.
Also I cannot even remotely tune into Suvalescu's suggestion of vegetarians having a moral duty to eat artificially produced meat. Such a desperate attempt to sell his idea. What a waste that people with intelligence and gift of the brain do not use it for something far nobler such as inventing ways to break the vicious cycle of starvation in the truly poor nations.
Anyway, here is an article connected to the same subject matter of foetal calf serums, that everyone should know:
[url]http://news.change.org/stories/pregnancy-at-slaughter-what-happens-to-the-calves-part-2[/url] ([url]http://news.change.org/stories/pregnancy-at-slaughter-what-happens-to-the-calves-part-2[/url])
Thanks Vajratruth for sharing this link. I had no idea about cell culture and what it is used for and where it is derived from until now... it is terribly appalling news to me. From very quick and shallow research, it seems that Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) is a preferred source for cell cultures due to its high content of growth factors.
According to Wikipedia, "Mass culture of animal cell lines is fundamental to the manufacture of viral vaccines and other products of biotechnology" and "Vaccines for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox are currently made in cell cultures".
Oh dear! I've had some of the vaccines mentioned above when i was young... I wonder if the vaccines were derived via the harvesting of FBS in the manner described in the link at the time =(( It seems that humans are so dependent on animals to (among many others) protect us from diseases... Why must man find the most cruel way to get what we want/need from animals...
-
Why do we always make things so complicated?
Why do we spend so much time, so much money, and so much creative skills to solve non-problems?
I won't eat that meat, not because it's un-ethical - it is not un-ethical, there is no killing involved! - but because its ridiculous. A solution to a non-problem...
-
I'd like to share a story I read from the Tipitaka:
"And how is physical food to be regarded?
Suppose a couple, husband & wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up & depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours, dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.'
So they would kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat & jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son? Where have you gone, our only baby son?'
Now what do you think, monks: Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for putting on bulk, or for beautification?"
"No, lord."
"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through that desert?"
"Yes, lord."
"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this world.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.than.html)
It is great that we can have meat without having to kill due to advanced technology, but what we need to contemplate on is why such craving for meat when there is a variety of options that has no connection with getting food source by harming / killing another being. What's wrong with vegetables, grains, etc? Why must there be meat in our diet?
-
Wisdom Being has got it right. Why spend so much time and money on researching test tube meat when it could be better spent on other things! But, getting down to the question, I am of two minds when it comes to this test tube meat.
If it reduces the killing of animals, the test tube meat would be the lesser of two evils. At least, fewer animals are killed or harmed, compared to the conventional method. For this reason alone, I would back it.
However, on the flip side, extracting stem cells via biopsy causes its own form of suffering and distress to the animals. And, for those who are vegetarian for health or spiritual reasons, test tube meat does not help in any way.
Which brings me to another question - if test tube meat is acceptable, why dont moral vegetarians eat roadkill?
Hahaha... I love your last statement, Thor. It goes to the core of why we are vegetarians. What the motivation is. For me personally, not eating meat is on two folds. One, I cannot bear the thought of another being suffering for my own selfish wants and desires especially something as mundane as food. Yes, I find food mundane... we should really eat to live and not live to eat. I am pretty simple when it comes to nourishment of my body. I get all the nutrients for my body with a well balanced vegetarian diet. It is simple in this day and age. And two, I don't really fancy the taste of meat (nowadays) and for me having something tasting like meat is defeatist really. The whole point of not eating meat for me is that very taste! Here are some very interesting facts which points to why we really should be vegetarian:
How humans are not physically created/evolved to eat meat
Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment teeth, jaws, and digestive system favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.”
And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man’s body hasn’t adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, “Man’s structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food.”
Comparison between carnivores, herbivores and humans
When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.
Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws
Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores
Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits
Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)
Clearly if humans were meant to eat meat we wouldn’t have so many crucial ingestive/digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.
Why do people eat meat?
Many people ask me, “If we weren’t supposed to eat meat than why do we?”. It is because we are conditioned to eat meat. Also, the ADA (American Dietetic Association) tells us that “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on a vegetarian or Lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.
A popular statement that meat eaters say is; “In the wild, animals kill other animals for food. It’s nature.” First of all, we are not in the wild. Secondly, we can easily live without eating meat and killing, not to mention we’d be healthier. And finally, as I have already shown, we weren’t meant to eat meat. Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.
The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this. All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.
If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and bloody. The thought of eating such meat makes one’s stomach turn. This is my point on how we as humans are conditioned to believe that animal flesh is good for us and that we were meant to consume it for survival and health purposes. If we are true carnivores or omnivores, cooking our meat and seasoning it with salt, ketchup, or tabasco sauce would disguise and we as humans would refuse to eat our meat in this form.
-
[...] why dont moral vegetarians eat roadkill?
Thanks Tor for this question.
I am what you call a "moral" vegetarian, and I would eat roadkill, for there is no contradiction there.
If the animal is dead, if he is dead accidentally, naturally, if he has not been killed out of delusion, if he has not been killed for consumption, then of course eating the meat has nothing un-ethical about it. Nothing. Please show me where it is un-ethical?
However, if afterwards I find myself wishing that this or that animal drop dead so I can eat it, then I'll know I'm not even ready to eat roadkill, because my attachment for the taste of meat makes me develop anger-some thoughts.
Then the refraining from eating any type of meat (all the way to tets-tube meat) is not only motivated to refrain from killing but also to lower my attachment to a sensual pleasure (of eating meat).
But if I am free of these thoughts, then , definitely, why not eat roadkills?
Why not?
-
[...] why dont moral vegetarians eat roadkill?
Thanks Tor for this question.
I am what you call a "moral" vegetarian, and I would eat roadkill, for there is no contradiction there.
If the animal is dead, if he is dead accidentally, naturally, if he has not been killed out of delusion, if he has not been killed for consumption, then of course eating the meat has nothing un-ethical about it. Nothing. Please show me where it is un-ethical?
However, if afterwards I find myself wishing that this or that animal drop dead so I can eat it, then I'll know I'm not even ready to eat roadkill, because my attachment for the taste of meat makes me develop anger-some thoughts.
Then the refraining from eating any type of meat (all the way to tets-tube meat) is not only motivated to refrain from killing but also to lower my attachment to a sensual pleasure (of eating meat).
But if I am free of these thoughts, then , definitely, why not eat roadkills?
Why not?
Now this is certainly interesting as it conjures up very disturbing images of people lining up at highways waiting for roadkill!!!! Not a nice thought... but... hang on a moment, is it not happening in the supermarkets? The carcases in the freezers were not killed by me or by us... so what is wrong with that? I do not wish the animal to be killed but I just walk in and see that it is on the shelf and buy it... Any different?
One can also debate the fact that, the animal is already killed and dead and I/we certainly did not wish it so and on top of that, would it not be a waste if left to rot on the shelf? Similar to roadkill?
Yes perhaps the killing was not accidental like in a roadkill but does the fact that I/we did not wish it to be killed make a difference and "justifiable"?
-
The carcases in the freezers were not killed by me or by us... so what is wrong with that? I do not wish the animal to be killed but I just walk in and see that it is on the shelf and buy it... Any different?
the difference between the dead animals that are frozen in the supermarkets and the dead animals that are flattened on the road is that the former were specifically mass bred by humans to be mass killed for mass human consumption, whilst for the latter case.. the animals' time was just up, not like they were born to be hit by a car. i'm assuming the road kill is like wild animals or stray animals.
anyways, i wouldn't eat road kill. unless its like a life and death situation. i'm not sure what kind of energy would be stored in the meat as a result of the animal dying under such circumstances.
One can also debate the fact that, the animal is already killed and dead and I/we certainly did not wish it so and on top of that, would it not be a waste if left to rot on the shelf? Similar to roadkill?
every dollar we spend on meat is like a vote cast for "yes - i want meat". how do the suppliers get you meat if they don't kill it? if the meateater said "i did not wish the animal to be killed" then what... they expect to keep the animal alive but cut bits of meat out each time they want a pork chop? i'm pretty sure that the animals certainly did not tell the butcher "pls kills me, cos this guy wants to eat my meat". and i can't imagine anyone who would aspire to work in an abbattoir since they were a child as its a glamorous and respectable job (ok maybe i'm just biased) and make it their life long mission to kill animals for others. they are doing it just for the money, they live off your desire for meat, and basically people who buy meat are paying someone else to kill the animals for them.
as for "such a waste to let it rot" - imagine if the whole world stops buying meat forever... yes there would be huge load of rotting meat everywhere initially but companies are clever and they won't continue to make something that no one wants to buy. so rotting meat is just a short term "cost" or "waste". but really, this is not likely to happen soon... so why worry? definitely someone else would buy the meat you did not purchase.
-
i not really sure what a process of making test tube but my point of view is if we can avoid it, that's the best. Since there are also mock meat for us to eat if we really want to eat something that have look, texture and test similar with meat.
i don't think i will eat animal from road kill either, for me it does not matter how the animal was killed as long as it dead, its a corpse so we should not enjoy and satisfy in eating corpse which is other beings life.
-
This entire thing about making test tube burgers sounds like a great initiative to reduce the slaughtering of farm animals. We live in a world where millions of animals are slaughtered for food every day, we can't possibly stop the entire production anytime soon, so why not reduce it? Even if we can expect more problems to arise out of this new venture, does it even equate to the problem that we are facing today i.e. cattle breeding being the main contribution towards global warming? At least these people are contributing towards a great cause besides being greedy (profit driven).
On a spiritual note, the slaughtering of living beings is lessen and we rejoice to it, which moved to the issue towards the attachment for food. Being a vegetarian actually stopped me from being picky in what I eat and I treat food merely as fuel for the body (eat to live). Therefore, I don't find it wrong to eat meat when killing is not involved.
Honestly, besides the possibility of having harmful side effects, I would be curious to try them out when they're more commercialized in the market (meaning that it doesn't cost $200,000 a pop!).