Priligy online now, save money

JUN 04

Recent Comment

"Though I do feel quite some sympathy with vegetarianism and super cialis veganism o..."

View all Comments

Lab-Grown Meat for Ethical Carnivores


My goodness we live in a strange world. Some scientists in the Netherlands are currently working on growing meat in laboratories with the eventual aim of eliminating livestock. Even though I find this completely gross, and I can't imagine how they could effectively market such a product, it might actually be a good idea.

Cows and pigs are one of www.chemistswithoutborders.org the http://visitkansascityks.com/online-viagra-prescriptions biggest contributors to buy xenical propecia global warming because methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Chickens alone produce about eight billion pounds of waste per year.

And then there's the whole "Omnivore's Dilemma." Should we choose to kill and eat other animals if we have a choice? Well, if these scientists have their way we'll be able to have our pork as well as our pig, and everyone will be happy. Oh...except the livestock industry.

Via TreeHugger and Reuters

Hits: 21617
Comments (24)Add Comment
0
...
written by Jim, June 05, 2007
Cows and pigs are one of the biggest contributors to global warming because methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Cows, kind of. Pigs, no.

"Ruminant animals (e.g., cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) are the major emitters of CH4 because of their unique digestive system. Ruminants possess a rumen, or large "fore-stomach," in which microbial fermentation breaks down the feed they consume into products that can be absorbed and metabolized. The microbial fermentation that occurs in the rumen enables them to digest coarse plant material that non-ruminant animals cannot. Ruminant animals, consequently, have the highest CH4 emissions among all animal types.

Non-ruminant domesticated animals (e.g., swine, horses, and mules) also produce CH4 emissions through enteric fermentation, although this microbial fermentation occurs in the large intestine. These non-ruminants emit significantly less CH4 on a per-animal basis than ruminants because the capacity of the large intestine to produce CH is lower."

Source:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/07Agriculture.pdf

If you look at Table 6-3, you'll see that enteric fermentation CH4 emissions in the US from beef and dairy cattle is 106.9 Tg CO2 equivalent, compared to just 1.9 Tg from swine (1.7% that from cattle).

Ignoring dairy cattle for the moment, the amount from beef cattle is 79.2 Tg. In 2005, the US produced 41.6 billion pounds of cattle and 27.5 billion pounds of pigs and cialis for daily use hogs. Those are live weight numbers, not net meat. That translates into 4.20 lbs of CO2 equivalent per pound of cattle and 0.15 pounds of CO2 equivalent per pound of swine. That's a ratio of best way to take levitra 27.6:1.

Then there's manure management. Table 6-6 covers that. Methane and nitrous oxide are emitted from manure. The document covers the http://www.toscanalifesciences.info/viagra-soft-gel details, but the largest contributors of emissions from manure are dairy cattle at 20.4 Tg and swine at 18.4 Tg. Beef cattle have relatively little, at 8.1 Tg.

So, total enteric fermentation and manure management emissions from beef cattle and swine are 87.3 and 20.3 Tg CO2 equivalent, respectively. This translates into 4.63 lbs CO2 quivalent per pound of beef cattle and 1.63 lbs for swine -- a ratio of 2.8:1. Swine would fare much better if it weren't for the recent shifts in manure management that have made them much more GHG-intensive than their digestive biology alone would contribute.

Globally, agriculture accounts for 15% of net GHG emissions, and within agriculture, enteric fermentation is 27% and manure management is 7%. So those two things are responsible for 5.1% of global emissions. In the US, 66% of enteric fermentation and manure management emissions come from beef cattle and swine, so if that can be applied globally, the estimated effect from those two animals is about 3.4% of total GHG emissions -- around the same amount as iron and steel production, or a little more than twice the emissions from air transport.

Of course, one can also probably attribute carbon sink losses from land-use changes that could be attributable to online generic cialis livestock production, but those numbers would be hard to estimate.

Chickens alone produce about eight billion pounds of waste per year.

Emissions from poultry manure are only 3 Tg -- about 4 to 5 one-hundreths of a percent of US emissions. Not a big deal. Horses and sheep put out as much as that.

The biggest emitter in agriculture, by far, is N2O emissions from soil management. It accounts for 68% of agricultural emissions in the US.
0
growing meat?
written by ct, June 05, 2007
eeewwwww!

yuck.

I don't think I can get over the idea of this...
0
To ct:
written by Mark Brown, June 05, 2007
Yes, ct, it is so much more pleasant to consider butchering and eating *real* animals:

For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and generic viagra canada wholesale brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of buying levitra dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the canadian female viagra parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and natural viagra for men sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds?


- Plutarch

Oh, and BTW: if you are still eating animal carcasses, please don't claim to be an environmentalist. You're like those folks who go to viagra on sale a "Save the Whales" rally, and then stop by MickyD's for a Quarter Pounder with cheese. N*gga, please.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12162

Evidence shows a meat-based diet is bad for the environment, aggravates global hunger, brutalizes animals and compromises health. So why aren't more environmentalists vegetarians?
0
...
written by Jim, June 05, 2007
Oh, and BTW: if you are still eating animal carcasses, please don't claim to be an environmentalist.

Give it a rest. Everyone knows the script and it's more dead than a carcass. Do you claim to be an environmentalist? If so, I assume you have carbon-free electricity, don't own a car, and source every possible material you use locally. Right? Oh, and you make a very large impact with your knowledge and wisdom that exceeds by 1,000s of times your individual consumption. Right?

No?

Please return to your illusory purity. Excuse this interruption.
0
...
written by Jim, June 05, 2007
Since we're quoting old texts:

Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five.

"Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the purchase levitra soft tabs house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no good.

"The middle way discovered by a Perfect One avoids both these extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana.

- Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta



Too many "committed to the cause" types forget (or don't realize) that both extremes are no good.
0
Gotta agree with Mark Brown
written by RK, June 05, 2007
I agree with Mark 100%. One thing he did leave out was the resources it takes to kill the animals, gut them, process them, bleed them, cut them, refrigerate and preserve them, and most importantly, transport them. These things don't magically appear -- it takes a lot of levitra samples in canada oil to cialis low price transport them in refrigerated trucks! Also, the energy we expend to raise the crops to feed them is lost in the chain to create the animal meat. It's a very inefficient transfer of energy compared to just eating a vegetarian diet.

At least think about why you eat meat. Is it some sort of tradition? Some idea that this is how you will get your protein? It tastes good? How much blood has to spill for your tongue to feel happy?
0
...
written by Jim, June 05, 2007
At least think about why you eat meat. Is it some sort of tradition? Some idea that this is how you will get your protein? It tastes good? How much blood has to spill for your tongue to feel happy?

I have a question. When you lecture to people like this, are you assuming that they don't know all that? Do you think that the "shock talk" is actually effective? Do you enjoy trying to http://www.asian-americans.com/buy-cialis-us make other people feel bad?

Ever listened to a rabid anti-abortion activist? Change a few words, and they talk exactly like you're talking. Do you think that's helpful or counterproductive? If you are pro-choice, are you more likely to dig in to your position when they speak that way, or to come closer to their position?

I'm pretty sure most people understand that meat comes from killing an animal. I'm also pretty sure most people understand the general steps it takes to get meat to their mouth. Despite all this, people ALL AROUND THE WORLD just keep right on eating. Do you think you will put a stop to discounted viagra it by getting on your moral high ground and levitra soft chastisizing your "moral inferiors" who are so "ignorant" that you think you need to tell them that meat comes from killing animals?

I am absolutely sure that I could come over to where you live and rip you a new one about all the destructive aspects about how you live. Would you like that? Would that make you listen to my position? Or would you react against that and hold on to your position more tightly? Do you enjoy it when people treat you like you're ignorant and immoral?
0
mouth to the gore
written by Dave Smith, June 05, 2007
ha ha, good old vegetarian debate. How did we come to this?
I just want to say that, despite being vegetarian, I think the canada cheap levitra idea of eating meat being disgusting is only a side effect of us removing ourselves from our natural environment more than we ever should have. Seeing a dead animal as a meal should raise our appetites as much as it would for other omnivores like bears or raccoons.
mmm, a delicious hunk of life sustaining goodness, like all other food.
0
...
written by Jim, June 05, 2007
I just want to say that, despite being vegetarian, I think the idea of eating meat being disgusting is only a side effect of us removing ourselves from our natural environment more than we ever should have.

So true.
0
Gotta disagree with Mark and Rik
written by Vadim, June 06, 2007
Hey, how about you focus on something bigger.. How about all the synthetic fibre you're wearing/own, the plastic keyboard your using, the chair and floor your on... what do you think they're all made of buddy? OIL.. so you think it would be more effective to wow)) buy cialis online uk combat the trasportation/processing of meat to help the environment? Don't preach, you only come off as pushy. Just encourage people to do as much as they can when they can.
0
Ah, this is great!
written by RK, June 06, 2007
Glad to see so much raw emotion here! Keep it up!

At least think about why you eat meat. Is it some sort of tradition? Some idea that this is how you will get your protein? It tastes good? How much blood has to spill for your tongue to feel happy?

Wow, I just asked questions, right? Why the huge reaction? Where did I say you should feel bad about it? I just encouraged you to think about it, not to feel guilty. If thinking about your food makes you feel guilty, then that is something you should deal with. If I said you should think about your marriage and you felt guilty for something, then would you still be mad at me? Let's be fair here. Okay, I'll concede on the blood part, but that's something that is there. If you have to eat meat and just try! cost of cialis somehow trick yourself into thinking there's no blood involved whatsoever, then how is that my fault?


I'm pretty sure most people understand that meat comes from killing an animal. I'm also pretty sure most people understand the general steps it takes to get meat to their mouth. Despite all this, people ALL AROUND THE WORLD just keep right on eating. Do you think you will put a stop to it by getting on your moral high ground and chastisizing your "moral inferiors" who are so "ignorant" that you think you need to tell them that meat comes from killing animals?


Children don't really understand this, but I wouldn't bring it up with them. Morality? That's up to you. I advocate vegetarianism as a means to conserve energy and help save the environment. Sorry, I'm a scientist and when I mentioned blood, I meant it more as a chemical than a symbol. Why did you put moral inferiors and ignorant in quotes? Are you quoting words I did not say?

I am absolutely sure that I could come over to where you live and rip you a new one about all the destructive aspects about how you live. Would you like that? Would that make you listen to my position? Or would you react against that and hold on to your position more tightly? Do you enjoy it when people treat you like you're ignorant and immoral?

Actually, I am open to visit our site generic levitra india new ideas. You'd be surprised. If you want to come and just plain ol' yell at me, then I may not be very receptive to your ideas. But if you want an open, realistic dialogue, I am down with that. Send me an email if you want to meet me: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . (I'm assuming "rip you a new one" is not literal)

Hey, how about you focus on something bigger.. How about all the synthetic fibre you're wearing/own, the plastic keyboard your using, the chair and floor your on... what do you think they're all made of buddy? OIL.. so you think it would be more effective to combat the trasportation/processing of meat to help the environment? Don't preach, you only come off as pushy. Just encourage people to do as much as they can when they can.

Yeah, we eat ~3 times a day. I buy a new peripheral every couple of years. Clothes, probably even less frequently. :) And please see above and then tell me I'm being preachy.

Let me rephrase what I said before: Eat what you want. Think about what you eat if you haven't before. If you have and are comfortable with your decision, that is great. If you have and feel guilty or ashamed, then maybe it is time for change. If you don't want to change because you are lazy, either think harder or just forget about. Then you will stop feeling bad. That is all.

0
...
written by Jim, June 06, 2007
I think what amazes me the most is how you're totally oblivious to how arrogant, condescending, and prejudiced your comments are. Notice how you never once even asked if I was a vegetarian? No, of course not. You were too busy pontificating.

Seriously. Who says, "Eat what you want." Is it up to you to allow me to eat what I want? What a ridiculous attitude you have, and I see you are simply proving my point that you're oblivious to how you come off.

Suggestion: try finding something out about the person you're speaking with instead of prejudicially assuming all kinds of things then giving them some sort of morally-charged guilt trip.
0
Re: Jim's last comment
written by RK, June 06, 2007
Jim--

It appears we got off to a bad start. I'm not trying to antagonize anyone. But, perhaps I'm subconsciously slipping morals into this. And I've only written the two comments above by RK. You're probably only addressing the two, but I just want to make sure. Anyway, let me try to clear some things up here.

The first paragraph after the first block of italicized text was directed toward all readers -- I addressed two people in my comment. As for the italicized block, that was just questions. What judgments are in there exactly? Perhaps something about eating meat being wrong. It was more like, if you (general you, not you specifically, Jim) think about it and feel it is wrong, then that sounds like a problem, just like if you download illegal music and feel it is wrong, then that sounds like a problem. Is this a guilt trip? I don't know, it can go either way, I suppose. There's one school of thought, where if you ask anyone a question, it's a guilt trip. The other school is of the mind where the amount of guilt comes from the responder entirely. If I ask, "Do you think about how much air you breathe?" is that question emotionally charged?

And I do not agree with you that people understand where their food comes from. It really is an out of sight, out of mind sort of thing for many people. It is not so improbable for this to happen. Eating is a habit and habits tend to not be questioned. I would say that is a faulty assumption. If one does not assume this and reads my italicized block of questions, the meaning changes.

For the record, I have no problem with people who have thought about meat and are okay with what it takes to get it on their table. In my experience, this is not that many people. Most people who eat meat have not visited a slaughterhouse, factory farm, or meat-packing plant or at least learned what goes on in them. I will say I think it is strange to meet people who eat meat without thinking of these things. There are a lot more of these people than you think and it is to them who I addressed my questions. And most of these people will not think of these issues spontaneously. Is it my job to make them? No, it is not. Did you assume I meant something like, "Think about it AND feel bad afterward, you sinner!" I did not. If you (general you, not Jim specifically) think about meat and are okay with it, more power to you. And if you are not okay with it, then perhaps that is something that should be looked into. If you're a vegetarian, then this is moot.

When I said, "Eat what you want," you interpreted opposite to what I intended. The decision to what people put in themselves is entirely up to them. Is there a right and wrong answer? Of course not. It's whatever they're comfortable with. I really don't understand your comment here, so yes, perhaps I am oblivious. Please explain what you mean. Draw it out in as simple terms as you like -- I won't be offended and I promise to address them as evenhandedly as possible.

I'm sorry if you have the wrong impression of me. I'm looking at this now as a learning experience about myself. I certainly do not want to be those things you described me as, so if you could elucidate on them, I'd appreciate it. Sorry for the extra work.
0
...
written by Jim, June 06, 2007
Please point out where I spoke about any of the following:

1) Whether I feel guilty in any way, shape, or form about what I eat
2) What my diet is
3) How much I do or do not know about the various types of vegetarianism and veganism
4) How much I do or do not know about the relationship between meat eating and the environment

Oh wait - on #4. I wrote an extended piece on that! How could I forget? But somehow you think you need to speak to me (and everyone else here) as if we don't know the most rudimentary things imaginable and have solicited your "permission" to "eat what we want" etc. I laugh only because of its extreme absurdity, but I cringe because that sort of tone-deaf approach to social change is what makes my life much harder than it needs to be -- ie, needing to deal with people's preconceived notions about "do gooders" and their tendency towards feelings of moral superiority and strong need to prosletyze and condescend towards people without ever getting to know them.

And I do not agree with you that people understand where their food comes from.

Once again, your attitude about your fellow humans is simply telling about your arrogance and condescension. People don't know that blood is spilled when killing an animal? That one kills animals to get their flesh? That the animals often live far away and their flesh is brought on refrigerated transport to their store? You would either have to be pre-literate (ie, an infant) or severely retarded not to understand that. Yet, somehow, you presume this is some great mystery to many people.

There are a lot more of these people than you think and it is to them who I addressed my questions.

Really? Where are these people? I count 5 or fewer people on this comment thread. And it's on a site which attracts people who are interested in environmental issues to the point of being wonks about it. So I'm wondering where your target audience is. It certainly isn't here.

And if you are not okay with it, then perhaps that is something that should be looked into.

Read that sentence to yourself and imagine for a moment that someone is saying that to you -- about something you are expert in and have spent considerable time and energy thinking about, struggling with, studying, etc. Wouldn't such a statement sound tone-deaf, pompous, and pointless?

Here's the bottom line, which you keep missing. You proclaim to care about the environment. You also proclaim to care about animals. You also claim to care about the eating of animals and the effect that has on the environment. So, that being the case, do you think the way that you look down your nose at people, assuming they're idiots, not asking them question about themselves before preaching simplistic things to them -- do you think that is effective or counterproductive towards achieving the ends you seek with repsect to animals and the environment? I know this isn't getting through to you, but one day maybe it will. YOU ARE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD with this approach of yours. Such approaches PISS PEOPLE OFF. People are not idiots. People are not immoral. And everyone is unique. And until you a priori treat people with the highest intellectual and ethical respect, and work to get to know them, they will not respond to you and your message in a positive manner. If you leap right in and act like a know-it-all and some backhanded guilt-tripper, they will not only tune you out, they will turn to 20 of their friends and tell them what a-holes environmentalists and vegetarians are. Then the rest of us environmentalists and vegetarians will have to deal with their hostility and prejudices, even if we don't guilt trip or prosletyze to them.
0
...
written by Jim, June 06, 2007
you interpreted opposite to what I intended

So you blame your audience for taking your words for what they actually mean? "Eat what you want" means you are telling me that I (note your use of the word "you") can eat what I want, and that you are in a position to grant me that. That's precisely what that means. I don't need you or anyone else on this planet saying such a thing to me. Of course I'll eat what I want and it's none of your business.

Look, I'm sure you're a nice person, but you strike me as someone young and somewhat new to this whole thing. When you're young, the injustices of the world come as a shock if you haven't been aware of them. The natural response to it is trying to purify one's own life. However, the revulsion with the destructiveness of everyday life also leads to a lack of ability to hold one's tongue with respect to the behavior of others. All of a sudden, everyone seems lazy, stupid, in denial, selfish, greedy, destructive, and unethical. So, with one's newfound sense of "enlightenment", it is very common to start prosletyzing, and being completely oblivious to how you come off sounding.

A good test of this would be to take one of your comments/series of questions, memorize it, then recite it verbatim to random people at a mall. Or go to a low income part of town and say it. Or go to a Chamber of Commerce meeting and start saying it to people. Try videotaping the whole thing and watch how people respond to you. Make sure to reach out to people of all stripes -- not just a bunch of 20-something hackysack-playing potsmokers at a tempeh barbeque. Watch their body language. Look at their faces. Watch what happens. You may get one or two "converts", but you'll get 50 times that in pissed off people.

When you take a middle path, lead by example, and accept people for where they are without all these backhanded little morality comments, you'd be surprised at the results. It sometimes can take a very long time, but I am constantly pleased to see that simply how I live influences how people change without ever saying one word to them. It all starts with respecting them, their intelligence, their ethics, their perceptiveness, and the choices they make. Any comments about those things, when unsolicited, almost never lead to something positive.
0
No need to respond
written by Jim, June 06, 2007
I'm outta here.
0
Thanks
written by RK, June 06, 2007
Thanks Jim, even though you won't read this. Perhaps I did need a wake up call. In my defense, I "talk" on the Internet differently than in real life. I'll talk about my vegetarianism only if someone else brings it up. But, even then, perhaps I do get preachy. Definitely something to think about. I definitely did not think about the audience. Bad habit of mine -- I just assume everyone reads everything. I know, bad assumption. Sorry, you folks who are here and managed to read this far without throwing up. :)
0
typical "american" view.
written by xris, June 06, 2007
What most people don't realise is, that aside from the methane that cows etc produce, they can also devastate the land/ecosystem.
Take Australia for example. The entire continent basically evolved without hoofed animals. That's basically no domesticated mammals.
When you introduce cloven feet into the picture you set off a huge chain reaction. Forget the methane.
Australia would be infinitely better off eating kangaroo's or other native animals.
Picture this:
You want dairy cows. You clear bush to make paddocks. By removing trees, apart from all the other issues, you're taking away the ability of the trees to keep the water table down. Let's say you're near a river, so you heavily irrigate to grow your grass. The water table starts rising. Then suddenly (current era) you've got salt on top of the ground because the water table is basically at the top of the soil. Now you've got all that land unusable generations.
Let's look at something else. The cows are walking along a slope, but the vegetation has never had to deal with these hoofs. It can't handle it and dies. Within a short time you've got no vegetation on a particular area, and bang, next time the rain comes, half of that slope is gone. Particularly because in a lot of Australia, rain comes in heavy downfalls.
Erosion from the loss of vegetation has a exponential effect, and... well you get the picture.
Australia is in dire straits from the introduction of non-native species, and European Agricultural practices.
In North America the main problem may be just the methane, because you've had the Bison and Deer and what not there for a long time, but in other parts of the world, introduction of domesticated animals like that can and has had unrecoverable (at least in the foreseeable future) consequences.

Synthetic meat? Who cares really. We're eating synthetic everything else anyway.
It is a MUCH more efficient method of getting meat.
Oh, and in regards to fat making meat taste better? Maybe you need it on cows, but game meat, and Roo especially has less than 0.1% fat, yet will beat the crap out of any other fatty meat you throw at it taste wise.
0
RK is OK
written by Dave Smith, June 06, 2007
I just wanted to say that I thought RK's comments were largely understanding, and later apologetic... as much as possible without interjecting "sorry if you know this, no offense" every other sentence.
I don't really understand why Jim's messages seem to become increasingly angry.
Maybe all that meat Jim is eating is affecting his mood. ha ha. (assuming Jim eats meat there is a joke, in case that was too subtle)
0
Man vs. Environment
written by Fungus, June 07, 2007
All this talk about being realistic brings me to a grim thought. Even if we eat meat, pee in the streams and dump motor oil in the back yard, our species will probably be destroyed intentionally by our own hands. So live a little, nature will fix it self after we are all gone. :)
0
Frame of Reference
written by Jinks, June 08, 2007
I just wanted to put the choice of being a vegetarian or omnivore in a different light. (maybe too abstracted, you tell me)

Consider that we are primates (self-aware, intelligent albeit, but primates nonetheless) and we are engaged in the same age-old struggle to rearrange Earth's atoms to our own advantage for the sake of the survival of our species. If we choose to steal carbon from the cells of other animals or from the cells of plants, I fail to see the difference. Especially if you also consider that some of the atoms in the tomato you had at lunch were at some point in a very different form and in all likely hood have resided as skin molecules of a cow or perhaps even Albert Einstein. So what does that mean to you, vegetarians?

Just food for thought, I am an omnivore myself, but would much prefer to kill & prepare my own meat than buy it wrapped in cellophane at a grocery store. But hunting in the city is impossible. I love vegetables too :)
0
... completely gross ?
written by Johan, June 14, 2007
Not as gross as killing animals and making your body into their graveyard.

Our loving nature as humans will overcome our desire to satisfy our hunger for meat eventually. Without the weight of the suffering we cause other species on our conscience, we will find it easier to look our, and their Creator in the eyes. This is quite a magical experience.
0
...
written by Jen, June 18, 2007
I think that synthetic meat is a great idea, but my questions are more a matter of
A.) Is it completely safe?
B.) How quickly can it be produced?
C.) Could they grow it healthier than the cattle we currently eat (or, if vegan, don't eat)?
D.) How much will it cost if mass-produced and/or grown in larger quantities?

I feel that is a pretty basic set of questions we all should know of if we find an interest, am I wrong?

0
Growing insect larvae?
written by Eran, June 25, 2007
Though I do feel quite some sympathy with vegetarianism and veganism on a pure moral basis, I don't think Ecogeek is the means to discuss this part of the story. And I agree it will not make much difference to keep on arguing that people should change their (moral) behaviour. We look for practical solutions to environmental issues. I think the question here is: does this artificial meat growing thing look like a promising solution or not?

I subscribe with the questions Jen put forward and I'd like to add one: is this artificial meat produced by GMO's? Or did the scientists find another way? Though I know this can lead to another moral discussion, the difference is that it is one of possible environmental importance: do we want to take unknown environmental risks (using GMO's) to solve another?

Maybe just as interesting as the artificial meat growing thing is the recent research on growing insect larvae as a substitute for meat (and even milk). They might become our major protein source one day, at less then half the environmental costs of livestock. And most probably also much cheaper. Just think of the possible environmental advantages.....
I know the idea of eating insects larvae will probably not appeal to most peoples appetite, but one will eventually get used, because the insect products they try to develop are to look and taste like real meat and milk. Besides of that, many people on this planet already eat insects or their products (honey is one!).
Only for the purest vegetarians I'm afraid this insect thing won't offer any solution. The amounts of larvae to be killed will be an enormous multiplication of the amount of livestock that is currently being brought to death in order to feed us. That brings us to the intriguing question whether it's better to kill one cow in stead of the meat equivalent in chicken? But of course that's not one for Ecogeeks to discuss.....

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?




The Most Popular Articles