Would you be willing to eat meat that was grown In Vitro? In Vitro Meat is the up and coming solution to the “moral problem” of killing animals for food. The rationale is quite simple. If one is opposed to killing animals because of the suffering that animals go through, then why not bypass the suffering part by growing just the meat? Yet, not surprisingly, the issue has caused a divide in PETA. Some in PETA are “purists” who think that animals are not on earth to be eaten by humans and that we shouldn’t “enslave” and butcher these sentient creatures. Somehow these “purists” think that growing meat is a continuation of this problem. But if this mentality tells us anything at all it is simply that some in the animal-rights movement are more concerned about the continuation of this political religion than they are about suffering. In Vitro meat is the perfect solution for the animal-rights advocates. If the point is indeed to limit suffering, In Vitro meat should be encouraged because it meats that goal. [Sorry for the pun.] If In Vitro meat were perfected (i.e. safe), I would be very willing to eat it. In the mean time, I will eat the genuine article.

Surely if In Vitro meat were perfected and mass produced, fur would be next, or perhaps milk, eggs, etc. Soon we would have any animal product we wanted without having to cause pain to the animal. But PETA would still have plenty of other causes to fight for. There are still those evil hunters to go after. And that is where my first concern comes in… I am a hunter. Wait! Shh. Quiet.

Shh.

Let’s allow the hunter-hating readers to scurry on to the next blog…

OK. Cool. Here’s the thing. I am all for In Vitro meat and I would happily eat it when it is safe. I can picture many, many benefits to growing meat. First, it does not cause suffering as long as there is no nervous system. Second, we should be able to perfect its qualities to make it as healthy as possible. Third, it should drastically drop the price of meat as a staple food. Fourth, it would free up land for agriculture, thus dropping the price of foods like corn, soy, etc., which is currently flying through the roof because of ethanol production, fuel costs, etc. In other words, as far as costs are concerned this would be a double-whammy, perhaps even a triple-whammy. Meat costs would drop because of the mass production of meat. Potentially, the cost for growing the meat will be lower than feeding cattle. Land would be freed to grow more crops. The price of crops would drop. In other words, all food should drop in price. I see tremendous benefits arising from this.

With all that being said, I don’t think that In Vitro meat should be mandated on anyone. If one does not want to eat In Vitro meat, they should have the choice of eating old fashioned meat. Hunters should be free to hunt. Ranchers should be free to raise cattle. I should be free to buy a cow and raise it for slaughter. Certainly, we can expect PETA to argue that eating old fashioned meat should be outlawed. They will argue that those who oppose such a law are extremists who are clinging to their old ways. But there are inherent dangers in mandating In Vitro meat.

First, think of all the debate that is currently taking place over genetically modified crops. Some believe that these crops are not as good for us as naturally grown crops, that there are potential side effects that we haven’t yet discovered and that people may become allergic to the food. This is in addition to the effects on the environment. These concerns trickle down to the animals that eat the crops, i.e. cows, pigs, etc. Truly the problem with GM corn is more pervasive than IV meat would be because the corn is used in just about everything today via High Fructose Corn Syrup, but the potential dangers of IV meat are such that we have not yet realized. In 500 years time, however, all these issues could well have been addressed and everyone may be eating IV meat and IV vegetables too.

Second, I think that one should be allowed to decide for one’s self what he eats. My argument is that if I decide that I want to raise a cow and grow crops and provide for myself, I should be allowed to. No one else should have control over what I can and cannot eat. My argument here can be taken to its logical extreme (and should be). Would I support a person’s right to eat another human being if they so desired? No, I would not support such a practice, because it clearly crosses over the line and directly effects another human being, but I honestly wouldn’t care if human flesh were grown for consumption since it would not cause suffering in another human being. I do not, however, put animals on the same level as humans. Some could also question if I would support the eating of Bald Eagles, whales and bottle-nose dolphins. Honestly, I couldn’t care less as long as they are not endangered. I don’t think we should wipe-out species. But I also recognize that 99% of the species that have existed on this planet have already gone extinct and mostly had nothing to do with humans.

What about hunting? I think that we should be humane, but I am not against killing animals. This is why I do not have a problem with hunting. I mentioned earlier that I am a hunter. To be more accurate, I used to hunt and I will likely hunt again. I haven’t hunted in about 7 years, but not because I have any moral objection to it. I understand that most hunters aim to kill with one shot, limiting the suffering to that shot and that most hunters eat what they kill. I have no respect for people who do not eat what they kill and I have no respect for trophy hunters. I also understand that most hunters are conservationist and hold to the motto “carry out what you carry in,” meaning, don’t pollute. Indeed, most hunters I know will pick up any trash they find in the woods and bring it out with them. In other words, most hunters are actually environmentalist by practice, though they would not fit the stereotype of the political environmentalist.

Do I raise the Human above the animal? I do indeed. And I don’t feel bad about that. I don’t deny that animals suffer and that we should limit how much we cause animals to suffer, but I also recognize that a cow will never write a great novel or find a cure for cancer. This doesn’t mean I can beat them with a stick, but it does mean that they are not as important to me as Humans are. I already mentioned some of this in my prior arguments concerning abortion:

The best way to answer the question of whether or not human life deserves special consideration is to answer the question raised in the following dilemma (a variation on the Marc Hauser moral dilemmas used in [Richard] Dawkins’ book [The God Delusion] on pages 222 through 226):

There is a runaway train with one person on it. Down the tracks is a wall that the train will slam into, killing that person, unless the train is stopped somehow. A large object can stop the train. You have a lever that will divert the track to a side track on which stands a cow. The cow will be killed if you divert the train. Let’s even go so far as to say that the cow will suffer terribly from being hit by the train. Would you divert the train and save the one human life by taking the life of the cow? Or would you let the human die? My hunch is that the vast majority of people will save the human. It seems obvious that we will value that life which most closely resembles our own. I imagine the cow would not hesitate at saving a cow and killing a human, if such a reversal were possible.

Still, I recognize that both sides in this debate, as with all other debates, have strong arguments. I despise when animal-rights advocates interfere with others (i.e. throw paint on someone wearing fur, interfere with hunters, etc.), but I support their right to fight for their cause using protests and information.

The most important service that the animal-rights people provide is information. We deserve to know what happens to the animals that we eat. We should also understand that PETA, etc., have a vested interest in showing the worst of the worst when it comes to how animals are treated. It is with this in mind that I share the following video. Be aware that it is graphic and will surely upset anyone with a heart. Yet, this video does not make me want to be a vegetarian; it makes me want to eat free range chicken, etc.

BE FOREWARNED THIS IS A GRAPHIC VIDEO.

To see the video: click here.

[The photograph at the top of this post was taken by Jeff Welsh]

Here's my guess. If the economy goes up, Obama's rating will too. If the economy goes down, so will Obama's rating. Now let's watch it right here. It may not happen immediately, but it will usually follow.

Subscribe to my RSS Feed