Slashdot Mirror
PETA Offers X-Prize for Artificial Meat
Bored MPA writes "The Times reports that PETA is to announce plans on Monday for a $1 million prize to the "first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012." PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk addressed the controversial decision by saying, "We don't mind taking uncomfortable positions if it means that fewer animals suffer." An unexpected and pragmatic move from an organization that has a strong base of support from pro-organic vegans." The question I always had about this- if they can take one sample from one animal and clone it in a vat and feed this world, will the vegans be ok with that?
I think I've got a winning idea, thanks to this film. Hopefully those PETA folks won't ask too many questions. Then things might get... unpleasant.
Tofu? I'll take my prize in small bills please.
My work here is dung.
I like PETA, but I couldn't eat a whole one.
Just like people who comment on slashdot, vegans have a wider variety of opinions & reasons to arrive at their dietary choice. Trying to ask them collectively what they think about something like this is useless.
It would be like asking the slashdot crowd "would you buy Microsoft products if they open sourced them"
For those who prefer car analogies, it would be like asking
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
If they're vegans for more than one narrow reason (which they seem to be) this will not make them happy.
I can't recall the comedian, but someone once noted "Why do vegetarians need to make their food (tofu pups, veggieburgers) look like meat they simply wont eat? You don't see monks keeping blow-up dolls just hanging around."
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
While I applaud the intent here, I gotta say that if people have a problem with genetically modified vegetables, then meat grown in a laboratory will DEFINITELY not appeal to them. This would be a classic case of a concept that people will find instinctively suspicious and disgusting.
There is never any point finishing a car analogy on slashdot....
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that movements such as PETA are a sign of deep issues within our society. We have people who are so completely satiated and content with their lives, that they are willing to spend vast amounts of their time, effort, and money, in order to achieve something so truly inane.
We have hunger, diseases, war... and all these people want to do is to get everybody to stop eating animals. Considering that it was likely the consumption of large amounts of animal protein that allowed humanity to evolve rather rapidly in the last stage of our evolution, I find PETA's goals rather ironic.
It depends on why they're vegan. If it is to stop animal cruelty, then vat-o-meat should be fine. If it for health reasons, then vat-o-meat will have just as much fat and cholesterol as the real stuff.
I was a vegetarian for nine years, and only started eating meat again last year, for health reasons(only chicken, since I hate the taste of all other meat)
If meat can be grown that doesn't have a central nervous system and so can't feel pain, I would feel much better about eating what little meat I do eat.
Seastead this.
PETA loves meat. You do know it stands for People Eating Tasty Animals, right? :)
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
Reduce, reuse, cycle
My experience leads me to believe that you are unusual among vegans, or even among people who are fashionably vegetarian for some short period of time.
For many of your dietary bretheren giving up the opportunity to sit in coffee shop wearing pantaloons and blurt out pseudo facts about how meat eaters are killing themselves and the planet and all the animals would be too much to bear. I think they would continue to oppose in vitro meat just to preserve that pastime.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
"The question I always had about this- if they can take one sample from one animal and clone it in a vat and feed this world, will the vegans be ok with that?"
... ever seen a farm pig or a farm cow in the wild?
... freeing them is not the answer. Treating them well and with respect is.
They're not very rational. They'll probably demand you release the sample from its captivity.
All kidding aside, I'm a veggie myself and have a hard time being sympathetic to the vegan cause -- it's just so unrealistic.
Free farm animals will only result in the demise of the particular species
Current biological thinking is that domesticated animals were drawn into human habitat because their own habitat was taken over by more fit animals. Humans simply domesticated these animals, but otherwise they wouldn't have stood a chance in the wild. Following this reasoning, releasing farm animals would just condemn them to starvation, a horrible death.
Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly opposed to using farm animals as an industrial product, as this is what is common in bioindustry at the moment, but we're in symbiosis with these species
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
If it were viable right NOW there would be no need for the X-prize.
This sort of contest provide direction and potentially takes some of the sting out of development.
The hope is that by 2012 a process will become available that McDonald's, KFC and the others can perfect.
It should be very exciting!
If scientists are swiping there ideas from Torchwood episodes nowadays, they'd better be prepared to start shagging each other and coming back from the dead on a regular basis as well.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Other than that, yeah, good show.. I'm a big fan of growing food in vats instead of animals on grain and parts of other animals.
For a start, it makes real permanent space stations all that more feasible.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Molly and Armitage ate in silence, while Case sawed shakily
at his steak, reducing it to uneaten bite-sized fragments, which
he pushed around in the rich sauce, finally abandoning the
whole thing.
"Jesus," Molly said, her own plate empty, "gimme that.
You know what this costs?" She took his plate. 'They gotta
raise a whole animal for years and then they kill it. This isn't
vat stuff." She forked a mouthful up and chewed.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Agreed with the sibling post. I've known vegetarians who were vegetarians for health reasons, but never vegans who were vegan for health reasons...Lot of the vegans I know won't eat anything that was remotely an animal byproduct, to the point of only eating certain M&M's because one of the dyes isn't completely animal-free.
Most people just don't rank their health that highly. I am glad to see PETA finally doing something productive however...If your real goal is to prevent animal suffering, then this is actually a good method.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
What's so Odd about it? I don't eat red meat sans maybe Ostrich every blue moon. My diet is very Fish, Grain, and Veggie based and THAT gets me strange looks.
Even so, people feel the need to be apologetic when they order a stake if we go to dinner. My response is: "It's your body. Put into it what you what. Follow my example if you want, or don't. It's not MY place to force you to eat healthy"
If you try to force someone to see the world your way that will only get them to look away from it.
I'm ashamed that health and eco conscious people where more forceful in their views in the past making it harder for the people of today to be taken seriously.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Back in January, Hallmark Meat Packing got caught slaughtering sick animals, resulting in the largest meat recall in US history. Some of the animals slaughtered couldn't stand on their own feet.
What will we test to determine "fit to consume" when meat is grown in a vat?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
That's a commonly held misconception. They're in favor of ethical treatment of animals, which for them precludes farming. PETA actually offers free euthanasia for sick animals for people that can't afford to have it done by vets.
As for abortion, it's highly ironic that many of those who get riled up by killing of a pre-human lump of cells are just fine with their government getting into a non-defensive war and driving up food prices around the world through it's subsidy of corn based ethanol. There's this weird paradox in the pro-life movement that unborn life is elevated to sacredness but actual humans living on earth already who have memories and consciousness can be chucked aside without protest.
As a vegan, I can at least speak for myself: the answer is definitely "yes."
Veganism is neither irrational nor difficult to understand; if you're making an animal suffer unnecessarily, vegans are against it. It's amazing to me how such a simple position seems to confuse people.
There are actually some really good medical reasons for not being a cannibal...Basically you're probably not going to catch anything from the cow, because it's a cow, but a human? Make sure yours is extra well-done.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
bah! that's borderline enjoying-your-food (not that i'm saying m&m`s are food). everyone knows that the 'safe' m&m`s touch the 'unsafe' ones in the packet so any '_real_' vegan will avoid m&m`s altogether.
--
warning: post may contain failed attempt at humor.
Requiem for the American Dream
So..
can they alter the meat as well? less fat? more protein? extra vitamins? or can large corporations make them more addictive?
"buy your McBurger, now with the latest McD meat profiling taste and additives"
You know, we evolved canine teeth for a reason. Do you really think it's healthy not to use them?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Several years ago I remember reading an article in Wired title "Overcoming Yuk". I actually managed to find a link here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.01/morton_pr.html
Now since I am currently at work and do not have time to read the full artical (This is slashdot, after all) I will mention what I took from it on my first reading, not what it actually says.
I understood it to be commentary on how the future of scientific advancement revolved around convincing the uneducated masses (that includes me with regards to biology) that certain things we found naturally repugnant were actually perfectly safe when done correctly. This is not to say I would trust companies like Monsanto with their atrocious record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto) but if done by a party not driven purely by profit I can see this as being safe.
Unfortunately companies like Monsanto do nothing to convince people like me that the results of their research are safe when they try suppress news stories regarding the possible side effects of some of their products. See the section in earlier Wikipidia link on Related legal actions.
I dont read
Instead of a movie they need to watch cable. Force them to watch the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet nature shows.
If they are at all awake they will either realize that the whole world is designed around the idea of one thing eating another. (Or they might decide that God screwed up as they watch the lion take down that gazelle...)
Remember if they weren't intended to be eaten they wouldn't have been made out of meat!
Umm.. M&Ms are make of MILK chocolate. Last time I checked, milk isn't made in petri dishes.
crowbar??
"Here is that pound of flesh you ordered..."
My experience leads me to believe that you are unusual among vegans, or even among people who are fashionably vegetarian for some short period of time.
I like a nice bloody steaks more than most people, but most of the time I won't eat meet like the poster above. Its not because I care for the environment or feel bad for the animals, but if I just keep the meat intake on the lowdown I seem to spend less time with stomach sickness related events (aka Montezuma's revenge which I'm prone too) and I can keep a healthy weight.
And more of late, I've just been avoiding eating out and buying meat products because its been getting too expensive due to inflation.
If vat meat because viable I might eat more meat because it would be of course cheaper and hopefully less prone to e-coli related illnesses.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
How about like the HHGTG: Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
:)
Instead of artificial meat, you breed a cow that _wants_ to be eaten, and will indicate so.
My girlfriend of 3 years is vegan. I don't eat pork or beef... I never really did - but I eat occassional chicken, fish, dairy and egg products (I can't stay away from real chocolate chip cookies!) From what I've gathered from our discussions she chooses vegan diet for a variety of reasons. Some more belief based and others are more evidence based. And that is an important point to this conversation - as with everything in life - the reasons are many - not just singular. I think it mostly relates to animal kindness, environmental effects of raising animals for mass consumption (I can't really explain this one because I don't really know details) and health reasons. Ironically, we will tend to eat scientifically engineered products (boca burgers, THOUSANDS of soy products and various other products) So, I sometimes wonder about the health reasons. But recently we've tended towards more veggies, pastas and grains. As for replacement meat, I've found that Seitan http://vegetarian.about.com/od/glossary/g/Seitan.htm is one of the closest to the texture of meat (compared to Tofu) My concerns with this soy based diet are related to the concern of soy being a plant estrogen and it's concern specifically - to men's health... http://www.rheumatic.org/soy.htm To answer (for her and other vegan's I know) the topic's question - I say: They would probably NOT eat it.
"The question I always had about this- if they can take one sample from one animal and clone it in a vat and feed this world, will the vegans be ok with that?"
It depends on the type of vegan. Many will not be okay because they are abolitionists and believe that animals should have the right to be let alone, rather than made slaves for humankind.
Performing this kind of animal testing (which would no doubt have terrible effects on the animals) and keeping animals in labs for cloning is, to me, a terrible step in the wrong direction and is why nobody in the animal rights movement takes PETA seriously.
And finally, there is no way this could "feed the world." We have more than enough food to feed the world right now, we just waste it using inefficient farming (factory farming of animals being hugely inefficient) and the price would be too high for those in the third world, unfortunately.
I think he was talking about you actually...
Will mess up your browsing - on purpose of course. Very cleverly hidden within what looks like a Yahoo URL but redirects to "slashblog.notlong.com" which then redirects to on.nimp.org. Strongly suggest you don't click on the link unless you're running a sandbox and want to examine it from there.
Whatever you may think about PETA's tactics, at least in this case they are putting their money where our mouths are.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
By Pohl and Kornbluth if memory serves (can't be asked to look it up). Corporations control everything, including the government. Invasive advertising everywhere. That's 2/3. If Peta succeeds it'll be a full house!
All vegan's are vegetarians therefore a joke about a vegetarian would apply to all vegans.
most vegetarians are not vegans so a joke about vegans may not apply.
They'll fry up really nicely. And then we can start on the Chinese and the Indians. There's lots of them, so that's a herd that'll take a long time to cull out. In fact, we may never even need to eat the bony butts of east africa.
Just a modest proposal is all I'm suggesting...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
because they taste good and we evolved to eat them
the only reason eating animals is a problem is suddenly because we evolved higher mental faculties like empathy, morality
luckily, we also developed science, which will soon give us meat vats, and we can go on with our carnivorous delights and not a single animal need be killed anymore
but if you try to ask people to give up meat just because the animals suffer, you have just as much success asking people to stop having sex because of disease and overpopulation
it is a compulsion, hard wired into us. do not underestimate it. it is deeper and stronger this compulsion than our higher faculties
so much as birth control and penicillin sidesteps the issue of disease and too many babies as byproduct of our love of sex, so will meat vats sidestep the issue of cruelty and our love of meat
but you are really insane if you think a nice morality lecture will stop people from eating meat just because its cruel. as if a "just say no to sex" because of disease and overpopulation approach would work
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I've often had the same sort of idea - if a cow can take grass, water and energy and make steaks, why shouldn't we be able to do the same thing? Recently, however, I've decided that even if they figured out how to do it tomorrow, it would not be to our benefit. It would end up being like baby formula - a product that's been around for decades, keeps getting tweaked to add this or that nutrient or remove or reduce undesirable components, yet still can't compare to breast milk. Or it will end up being like margarine, touted for decades as healthier than butter until they discovered that trans fats in the margarine were much worse for you than the saturated fats in the butter.
If they could grow meat, they would be unable to resist the temptation to fiddle with it. Rather that simply duplicate the meat from a grass fed, non-corn finished animal, they would reduce the cholesterol, boost the omega-3's (or whatever omega is good for you right now), add beta-carotene, and fortify it with vitamin C and calcium ("a full day's supply in every burger"). Then, ten years later, there will be a report that eating too much factory meat causes liver failure. The food scientists will tweak the recipe, declare it safe and healthy and we're off to the races again.
I do think they'll figure out how to do it (the cow can do it, after all). I just think the food industry has a very consistent record that demonstrates their inability to improve on or even match what mother nature can do, despite all their claims that they can.
DD
"Can I finish? Can I finish?
Torturing animals doesn't serve a purpose. Killing them for the purpose of nourishment and consumption does.
Yes, perhaps it's in some ways distasteful, but - being omnivores - it's also part of our natural biological process. I'm sure this will cue the rant about vegetable and pill-based alternatives, but it's still not the way we're built to function.
You can't compare murdering somebody to the consumption of a food animal. It's not the same thing. And before you get into the "would killing be OK if we eat each other," that's also a no, as - except in cases of starvation - most mammals don't eat their own species either, and in many cases they don't kill each other except under a certain set of rules (territory, etc).
You don't chew with canines - you tear stuff apart. I use my canines every time I eat chicken off the bone, or ribs, or even some fruit and veggies.
*RIP-SNARL-GNASH-TEAR-GRRR*
Another dead carrot...
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
In other words, you act like a smug shitcock when somebody takes the time out to try to make you a little more comfortable.
Yes, and they are an ecological disaster.
It's not so mad to compare it to those dystopian futures like Soylent Green: PETA seem to be under the strange impression that if artificially grown meat was invented then all the farmers in the world would set their cows and chickens free to live wild with a cheer and a wave. In economic reality, however, if cheap artificial meat was invented, more and more farmers would very quickly send all their cattle to be slaughtered as no longer economic to maintain. It would be the animal apocalypse.
deal with it.
damaged by dogma
...I thought about that myself with our cattle. If such a thing happened as the cheap cloned steaks, and made this business just silly, I would get them all neutered and let them live out their lives in the pasture (where they are right now standing belly deep in lush spring grass), unless the government kept bumping up the land taxes too much, right now that's all they do, help pay taxes and I keep a side when I need one.