The synthetic meat is here: steak in Vitro!

[Janic]

And the manufacturers have the nerve to call it "cereals"!

these are killer cereals!

[Obamot]

... toutafé, Capone cereals, with holes all over the stomach, teeth and bones:! ah, ah, ah, ha ... you're too funny. And Janic is "thoroughly" .. lol:

Yes, totally true, these sweet, sour crap pump up all your calcium and eventually kill you.

Bein "wouarf, wouarf" then ...
... maybe they will also make us "Kibble for humans ..." ..

Yes it is ! Dry food for humans already exists: Chocapic, Weetos, Crack Pops, Frosties, Miel Pops, Chocos, Coco Pops, Cheerios, Choco Krispies, Extra Crush, Crunchy Nuts, Honey Loops, Sugar Smacks, Weetabix, Country Crisp, Chokella, Lion, Trix, Sucozos, Choco Clusters, Golden Grahams, Cookie Crisp, Crunch, Fitness, Nestum, and dozens of others are already dry food for humans, for babies more precisely. Junk food, you have to start early! And the manufacturers have the nerve to call it "cereals"!

[sen-no-sen]

This concept of "gene meat" (which has dragged on in the minds of mad scientists for more than 30 years) is still and always based on an intellectual swindle based on the strategy of the Devil (posing as a savior in order to ruin others):

It breaks down into three major points:

1) The Salutary aspect: feed a world that cannot survive without technical progress.

2) The ecological aspect: reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce soil pollution and deforestation.

And, the most beautiful for "hunger":

3)The moral aspect, there will be no more suffering caused in our animal friends!

Allelulia !!!

In reality, one and only goal of this technology is_ like GMOs_ the patenting of "living things" in order to guarantee a very lucrative monopoly to a few multinationals.

The logic of the totalitarian market system being as usual to deal with the consequences by technical and highly remunerative means rather than attacking the causes by simple and concrete means.

[Obamot]

Very interesting analysis, full of common sense amha.

Particularly well felt is the first paragraph

Yes indeed, these three points hide the aspect of the financial return of this presumed juicy business, which by definition will go to the opposite end of the qualitative component ...

[stipe]

Yes, but is it possible for someone to offer in good faith:

1) The Salutary aspect: feeding a world which cannot subsist without technical progress.
2) The ecological aspect: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing soil pollution and deforestation.
And, the most beautiful for "hunger":
3) The moral aspect,

Without being criticized for trying to make money?

Well, anyway if you are not fond of steak invitro, here is natural good:
http://www.terraeco.net/La-Nutraculture ... 42561.html

[manet42]

Synthetic cheese also exists
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... u5GKXC.pdf

jc

[Obamot]

So for synthetic steaks, assuming this is possible, this would pose huge industrial problems and the need to "feed" these stem cells would only shift the problem, not solve it.

This thread raises quite complicated but fundamental questions! Like to know:
- if the meat products are beneficial where not and in what quantity (!?) and;
- whether it is possible (or not) to follow a strict vegetarian diet or not without harmful effect / s on certain organisms;

Until we have answered, we can hardly take a position in one direction or in the other in a definite way! This is what I strive not to do (see taking a dogmatic position), even if it may displease ... And not to seek to know "who is rightJust to gratify themselves, which would make no sense.

On the other hand, we know that abuse can kill (meat consumption as much as a strict vegan diet, case by case ...).

So, assuming the meat is not unhealthy at required dose, the questions that follow here (with regard to the thread title) are:
- whether the consumption of meat from in-vitro culture still poses an ethical problem or not? (Since we no longer kill animals) ...
- if there is no contraindication to becoming a strict vegetarian? In this case, the question would no longer arise, since freedom of choice would become total;
- if and when, will the man be able to overcome the subtle and narrow psychoafective link that he maintains with food in general (so as to preserve a real capacity to choose his food bowl according to his needs personal, without ulterior motives)? And this, without the dilemma of choice itself, possibly becoming an iatrogenic component ...
- and subjective but essential: does the notion of "Freedom of choice of food" linked to the notion of pleasure, is it also a health component or not?

Until all these few questions are answered irrefutably, it will hardly be possible to answer the ideological and bioethical questions posed by the composition of the "food bowl", nor to take a position in one direction or in the other. 'another amha.

And I specify that it is necessary to consider the question apart from the very understandable personal approach (ideological, humanist, and or religious etc) otherwise we risk being influenced in its choice, and also since these considerations would fall, if two conditions were met :
- the irrefutable acceptance of the benefits of meat for all (!? What is not acquired, no more than not eating it!)
- to know if the conversion to vegetarianism would still be justified, if it is proven that the meat would be beneficial in small quantities and why? (And somehow it is theoretically given what it contains, and having regard to the needs of the organization).

Since this is what this new way of producing meat would allow, by no longer raising a conscience problem on bioethics.

[Janic]

to know if the conversion to vegetarianism would still be justified, if it was proven that the meat would be beneficial in small quantities and why? (And in a certain way it is it on the theoretical level taking into account what it contains, and having regard to the needs for the organization).

the question already asked and remained unanswered: What does or does not contain meat that would not be found elsewhere?

[Obamot]

Well, well, it is timely since your answer confirms that what concerns us is the general interest.

Because to repeat that is to admit tacitly "that the meat you would find elsewhereWould contain the nutrients required by the body.

In any case, to continue the debate, nothing prevents us from continuing to ignore this supposed difficulty. Because otherwise, everyone is camping on their positions.

As soon as we set the right priorities and respect the right mix:
— What food bowl? For who? When? Why and where?

[Ahmed]

I respond to stipe who writes, citing Sen-no-sen:

Yes, but is it possible for someone to offer in good faith:
Quote:

1) The Salutary aspect: feeding a world which cannot subsist without technical progress.
2) The ecological aspect: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing soil pollution and deforestation.
And, the most beautiful for "hunger":
3) The moral aspect,

Without being criticized for trying to make money?

The answer is no, unequivocally possible, because all these statements (denounced, quite rightly, by Sen-no-sen) are false.
1- it is not the progress of the technique that changes anything to the problem of malnutrition, they tend to make it worse, even in the countries of the north.
2- the production of artificial meat would be based on the massive use of energy and chemical substances in place of photosynthesis.
3- if the animals found their account there, it would however be a new economic violence which would reinforce the heteronomy of the populations, from now on incapable of assuming their meat diet (whatever the feeling that one carries on the value or the opportunity of such a source of food, it is indeed an attack on basic rights, in line with GMOs and other jokes).
So, as far as "good faith" is concerned, the argument is specious!