Slashdot Mirror


Emergence of Lab-Grown Meat Poses New Questions for Religious Leaders (wsj.com)

Lab-grown meat is becoming closer to a reality. But this new technology poses new questions for people who typically avoid meat for religious or ethical reasons. An anonymous reader shares a report: Lab-grown meat has sparked a debate among rabbis in Israel about whether cell-cultured is the same as conventional meat and should fall under the same guidelines for keeping kosher. "There is a disagreement about it and there is a conversation. Also, definitely, there are new questions about lab-meat," says Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, an expert on kosher tradition and bioethics. WSJ has posted a video in which you can hear more from Rabbi Cherlow.

55 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. Someone Somewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone somewhere will start a religious campaign or social media protest over it in one way or another.

    1. Re:Someone Somewhere by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      For me at least....the most IMPORTANT thing I would insist upon is that whenever artificial meat is sold, whether in a grocery store OR in a restaurant...I want by law to have it CLEARLY labeled as such.....so I can readily avoid this shit.

      If others want it, more power to them, but I want it clearly labeled so I can make that choice.

      We should all be able to easily know what our food is and where it comes from so we can better make our individual decisions on what we and our families ingest.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Someone Somewhere by srmalloy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, if you want to get really technical, since meat grown in a lab neither chews its cud nor has cloven hooves, all lab-grown meat will, by definition, be trayf. It may be thrashed out that the lab-grown meat, because it is essentially nothing more than a remotely-grown part of the donor animal, inherits the status of the donor animal -- so lab-grown pig tissue is still trayf, because it's still from an unclean animal -- but I don't expect that pork will be determined to be parv just because it's no longer connected to the animal the original tissue came from.

    3. Re:Someone Somewhere by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure why you think you should have any control or knowledge about your GRAPHICS CARD if your purchase it. If you want to control what you PUT IN YOUR COMPUTER, you should BUILD it yourself. Otherwise you are being sold PLASTIC AND PRECIOUS METALS and nothing more. Nobody is making you buy it.

      How does that logic sound? Look forward to getting a refurbished Voodoo II card next time you 'upgrade'.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Someone Somewhere by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmm... personally, I'd think that artificial meat would be less contaminated with antibiotics and growth hormones, but to each their own.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Someone Somewhere by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Ethically, lab meat is going to enjoy a big advantage. Vegetarians may start eating it because no killing is involved. But because religion is perennially behind the times on adapting to new things, a ‘revelation’ may be required for it to become accepted into dietary law.

      The same is going to hold for vegans, who are basically the religious wing of the vegetarian movement.

    6. Re:Someone Somewhere by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea! I read enough Science Fiction to know anything man made with science is going to backfire and cause a dystopia type of future.

      Your statement is full of contradictions. I am fine with clear labeling, but because it is artificial you automatically place it on the avoid list, because you want to make a decision if it is healthy or not. Not based on science or research, but from a culture that is portrayed via science fiction that all things artificial is bad.

      Now if we can meet our protein requirements, with a food that meets our nutritional needs, while being easy, cheap and more environmental to create without having to raise and slaughter animals, all the better.

      Now our natural food, is filled with a bunch of toxins both natural (as every life form that exists, seem to have evolved some protection from being too healthy to predators) and artificial (pollution, medication, unsanitary living environment) that is going to kill us anyways. A clean lab grown meat, may be much better for us, and not be abomination food of the future, that we have been warn about. The main reason why it was warned about wasn't based on science, but needing something that will cause conflict in a story to make it interesting.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Someone Somewhere by Evtim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't bother with his choice, it is his to make. We should have clear labels on our food, period.

      Westerners are becoming dangerously collectivists. The name of the game today is "If I don't want it, you also can't have it" Stop this shit!

    8. Re:Someone Somewhere by Can'tNot · · Score: 2

      It is critical that genetically modified food be labeled, so that we can make informed decisions about whether we might be eating something that's been tainted by creepy science that I don't understand.

      It's necessary that the asbestos content of packaged foods be marked clearly, in large print, so that we can avoid it. How am I supposed to know how much asbestos is in my food if it isn't labeled?

      Foods that aren't made out of 100% whole grains absolutely need to have flashing lights and warning sirens to ensure that I know that these grains don't meet my minimum standard for wholeness.

      What? Arbitrary distinctions without any basis or rational? I know exactly what should and should not be in food! I've been eating for almost my whole life!

    9. Re: Someone Somewhere by ezelkow1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I love lamp

    10. Re:Someone Somewhere by ranton · · Score: 2

      I don't understand the purpose of your analogy. Is it to agree with him? Do you think you have the ability to determine where each part of your video card was built and through what process it was built? Do you think you know each line of proprietary code which allows it to function?

      People buy video cards based on reviews and company reputation (or perhaps just shiny ads). Cultured meat would be no different. If Tyson chicken started selling cultured meat without labeling it, and its quality wasn't as good as normal chicken, people would simply start buying chicken from other brands. They would be able to fool people for a while, just like NVidia could if they started selling subpar video cards to save money, but soon the brand would take a significant hit.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    11. Re:Someone Somewhere by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      Don't worry. That extra tentacle is a feature, not a bug. Here's a link to japanese hentai cartoons that prove my point! (link redacted)

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    12. Re: Someone Somewhere by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      I'm less of a fan of the PHP stack.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    13. Re:Someone Somewhere by Calydor · · Score: 2

      No, my point is that when you buy a graphics card, or a pair of pants, or pretty much ANYTHING, you want some amount of control and knowledge on what it is you're buying. The AC suggested you should just shop blindly and be thankful for what you get, or do a Back To Nature skit where you make everything yourself from scratch.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    14. Re:Someone Somewhere by aicrules · · Score: 2

      But it's not an animal to start with so none of your follow-up criteria even apply. Fruit has "meat" but it's fruit, not animal. Yes, the kosher rules of how the food is handled and prepared apply, but it is not an animal that must be sub-classified by its physical characteristics. Not as clear cut as you make it sound.

    15. Re:Someone Somewhere by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      US Federal law prohibits the use of (added) hormones in most meat animals. The use of antibiotics (for treating illness) must be followed by sufficient time to clear the system before slaughter. The EU has similar legislation in place, and just passed even stricter legislation, set to take effect in 2020.

      The meat you're buying right now is "hormone and antibiotic free"[1].

      [1] All meat contains naturally-occurring hormones to some degree

    16. Re:Someone Somewhere by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      The reason that currently available alpha-test lab meat looks like "ground" beef is that getting to the structure and mouthfeel of steaks, chops, etc. requires further development. Meat will have to be grown on a scaffolding that properly emulates cartilage and bone.

    17. Re:Someone Somewhere by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you'll read the Wikipedia article on lab grown meat, it requires lots of additives. Unlike plants which convert CO2 in air plus trace elements nitrogen and potassium, etc. to food, lab meat requires a "growth medium" and a collage "scaffold".
      Cultured meat production requires a preservative, such as sodium benzoate, to protect the growing meat from yeast and fungus. Collagen powder, xanthan gum, mannitol and cochineal could be used in different ways during the process.[66]
      They currently use "fetal bovine serum" (don't ask) as a growth medium.

      One skeptic is Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who speculates that the energy and fossil fuel requirements of large-scale cultured meat production may be more environmentally destructive than producing food off the land.[28]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    18. Re:Someone Somewhere by ranton · · Score: 2

      We should have clear labels on our food, period.

      You cannot possibly label food with every possible piece of information someone may or may not care about. Should all non-organic food be labelled non-organic? Should you label the state it was grown in? Should you label the month the animal's mother was born in? If you don't draw the line somewhere, anyone with a good PR campaign could mandate anything be present on labeling.

      Treating anything that is different than the norm as something which automatically requires new labeling requirements is not something I agree with. Food companies are certainly free to add labeling such as "non-cultured" if they think consumers would care enough to purchase more of their product. You can easily find foods labeled non-GMO or gluten free or hormone free or free range if you care enough about those things. The same would be true for traditionally grown meat once cultured meat becomes common.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    19. Re:Someone Somewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The objection to antibiotic use in meat production has nothing to do with them being present in what we consume; it's that the heavy usage of antibiotics in production promotes the growth of resistant strains of bacteria.

    20. Re:Someone Somewhere by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

      Should you label the month the animal's ... was born in?

      OMG, this hamburger contents was born in at the end of February? That makes it a Pisces -- it's not a hamburger, it's a fishburger! Pisces and I don't get along well -- get that sushi away from me!

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  2. Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not discuss real problems instead of spending time discussing how the invisible master in the sky may think about artificial meat?

    1. Re:Waste of time by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      They never do, why start now?

    2. Re:Waste of time by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because we have to start somewhere. This is essentially grownups acting like little Timmy, claiming that his invisible friend Bob said that broccoli is bad.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Waste of time by CeasedCaring · · Score: 2

      I'm with Bob on broccoli...

    4. Re:Waste of time by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why not discuss real problems instead of spending time discussing how the invisible master in the sky may think about artificial meat?

      More to the point, why did editors and moderators feel this qualifies as "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"? Oh yeah, that's no longer on Slashdot's banner. Still, why would people who are nominally scientifically minded and technologically sophisticated care about kashruth, halal, and the like?

      Then again, given the extent to which science and technology have been impeded through the ages by superstition and religious dogma, perhaps this discussion DOES belong here. Then again, (again), perhaps it's good to have some countervailing force in society to check the (sometimes heedless and dangerous) headlong rush of scientific and technological advancement.

      Slashdot - the place where I can argue with myself in public and not be bothered by the police or the psychiatrists...

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    5. Re:Waste of time by PseudoThink · · Score: 4, Funny

      I came here to post a similar thing. I don't mind seeing this stuff in the news, because I think it's relevant, because a large section of the world's population is religious. That said, I would still appreciate if the news headlines did less to normalize religions, since I think that is part of why it's so common.

      I suggest a new headline: "Emergence of Lab-Grown Meat Reveals Additional Contradictions In Delusional Thinking".

      Of course, no media outlet will, since religious people are a large part of the market. Alienating them would affect profits, and we can't have that. #sarcasm

    6. Re:Waste of time by skam240 · · Score: 2

      "More to the point, why did editors and moderators feel this qualifies as "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"?"

      Huh? This totally news for nerds. It's literally exploring how emerging technology is affecting the world we live in. Much of the best science fiction is this.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  3. Cheeseburger? by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    Lab grown meat with lab grown cheese. Is it kosher? Does it need to be inspected like other sources of meat?

    And if meat isn't murder, will PETA support it?

    1. Re:Cheeseburger? by spazmonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      PETA has had a nasty schism over it that may well turn into a full civil war. The members that primarily care about ethical treatment of animals welcome it. They are apparently a minority, however. Most seem VERY strongly opposed. The arguments I heard were that without cruelty being involved in the process, it weakens the arguments for the elimination of meat from society. Yes, that means much of PETA is not actually interested in animal suffering other than as another tool to eventually legislate mandatory veganism. Nutty as that sounds, that is where they see society going, and eliminating cruelty to animals removes what they see as a powerful tool for their agenda to bring society to more 'enlightened' age where meat consumption is a criminal act.

    2. Re:Cheeseburger? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who cares about animals being treated ethically and humanely, I hate PETA. Their extremist actions paint everyone who cares about animals in a bad light. If lab grown meat tears PETA to bits, I'll welcome lab grown meat for multiple reasons.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  4. About the ethics by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But this new technology poses new questions for people who typically avoid meat for religious or ethical reasons.

    As far as ethics goes, I see growing a cell culture for food as entirely ethically positive. I see killing an animal for food as ethically dubious on its very best day. I have zero problem with cultured meat; no ethical dithering arises there at all. Make it practical, reasonably edible, and bring it on. The follow-on economic consequences, such as fewer farms where animals are packed like sardines in order to maximize production, look to me to be broadly positive. That the operators of such enterprises will suffer when they fail seems to me to be entirely appropriate.

    As to the other, I'm not religious. I have no idea how this will play out in that area.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  5. Lab-grown closer to reality by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    Lab-grown meat will be commercially available and consumed as soon as self driving cars arrive and start driving without "safety" drivers. About the same time the Mars colony starts and the first commercial Hyperloop opens.

  6. Who knows? by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My wife is Jewish (while I'm agnostic -- former Roman Catholic).

    One thing I've come to realize about Judaism is, they have a lot of rabbis and "fervently religious" who seem to believe a big part of the faith involves a lot of poring over scriptures and making philosophical declarations about what they do or don't mean for fellow Jews.

    IMO, some of it borders on the ridiculous, with all the rituals they put themselves through to make sure they're not violating them.... But I suppose that's easy for me to say as an "outsider"? (I'm also convinced that part of the attraction to Judaism is the feeling that they're part of a closer-knit community BECAUSE they have so many strange customs. You know how HAM radio geeks seem to take a strange pride in knowing all sorts of esoteric stuff about radio waves and antenna design? Yeah ... kinda like that.)

    But frankly, the different factions of Jews (Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, etc.) appear to me to have come about because there were various levels of commitment people were willing to give to all of these rules, too. People still felt an identity as a Jew but didn't always agree on how much ritual they had to go through as part of it .....

    So I'm sure this debate on "lab grown meat" will rage on and on for them, with no conclusive answer that all Jews accept.

    1. Re:Who knows? by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just settle it empirically. Feed a few Jews some lab grown bacon and see whether or not Jehovah smites them. Why risk interpreting scripture incorrectly if you can easily test it.

    2. Re:Who knows? by Can'tNot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Having been raised in a predominantly Christian area, something I didn't understand for the longest time was that when Jews go to ridiculous extremes to follow their rules, that's the point. It's not that they don't know it's ridiculous, it's that the more ridiculous it is the more it shows your dedication when you do it anyway.

      It's analogous to a Christian test of faith: Christians get into god's good graces through belief rather than works, so when something arises which exposes that belief as... poorly considered, then they demonstrate their devotion by persevering anyway.

    3. Re:Who knows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know how HAM radio geeks seem to take a strange pride in knowing all sorts of esoteric stuff about radio waves and antenna design?

      You realize how wrong it is to compare Jews to HAMs?

    4. Re:Who knows? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      One thing you've got to realize about Judaism is that it's massively decentralized. If you wanted a ruling on lab grown meat in Catholicism, it would be easy. The pope (or some bishop under the Pope) gives it the thumbs up and Catholics everywhere grab lab grown steaks in their local supermarkets. With Judaism, though, it's more like thousands of rabbis, each with different opinions and different numbers of people following their rulings. The Conservative and Reform movements are somewhat organized. If their main group says lab grown meat is fine, most of those rabbis will follow this ruling. The Orthodox isn't really a single group, though. There will undoubtedly be Orthodox rabbis that rule for lab grown meat while others rule against it. The debate will go back and forth for years without one clear answer.

      To give a different example, look at kitniyot. On Passover, Jews avoid (among other things) leavened bread. Anything that could leaven is also forbidden to the point that many people even use different pots/plates/utensils during Passover. A long time ago, things like corn, rice, and beans were stored in sacks that once held flour. To avoid any cross-contamination, these items - called kitniyot - were banned for Jews from Europe. (Jews from Spain and Africa had a tradition of eating these and still do today.) The reason for this ban has long since disappeared. It would be trivial to buy corn/rice/beans that have never touched flour. However, the kitniyot ban continues due to social momentum more than anything. Some rabbis have said it's okay to eat kitniyot. Others have said to stay away from it. There's no one ruling so, in general, the default ban remains in place.

      There are many times when having a decentralized religious system is advantageous, but it also can have its downsides.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Who knows? by scamper_22 · · Score: 2

      As a secular Muslim who grew up pretty orthodox, it's the same thing. Lots of day to day details. Have to sit down to pee. I got some good beats for standing and peeing. Which foot to enter the washroom with. What to say before each and every activity...

      There's a million different sects and everyone kind of follows their own leader who makes whatever ruling they see fit.

      There is definite pride is following more rules.

      I'm not here to say these are bad. In some ways, it is very practical. It kind of forces the community to support itself. I know we've always bought halal meat from our own community butcher. And even now as it gets into regular stores, there's still a Muslim supplier/authenticators.

      I suspect the same is true of Judaism as you keep that same community and supply chain strong.

      Even very secular Muslims will often stick to halal meat when at home.

      I definitely suspect some major sects to claim this lab meat is not-halal. There is a prayer that must be done on the 'animals' in addition to the slaughtering method.

      Others will be okay with it.

  7. Why is there even a debate about this? by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, if lab grown "meat" is able to replace the majority of animal meat in terms of safety, taste and nutritional needs, then what's the fucking issue?
    No...we better keep cutting huge swaths of forest to graze cattle so I feel a little better about what I'm eating. Better to keep risking those Chicken and Pork viruses which pass to humans because Jesus told you in the bible that you cannot eat lab grown meat... Hint, it doesn't say that.

    1. Re:Why is there even a debate about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      because Jesus told you in the bible that you cannot eat lab grown meat... Hint, it doesn't say that.

      And that's not what the summary or article are saying either. It's about kosher guidelines.

      Also FYI, most Jews don't care what Jesus had to say anyway.

  8. Lack of divine foresight by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only going to get worse. If we ever discover life off the earth, there's going to have to be a ridiculous amount theological retrofitting and reinterpretation that goes on. At some point, when your tool doesn't work anymore, most sane people start looking for another tool, rather than continuing to bash away ineffectively with their current one while making excuses.

    If your god didn't have the foresight to see this shit coming and provide some guidance, perhaps it's time to let go. In the last several hundred years, we've come up with a number of more modern, functional systems of understanding and ethics. We're well past the dusty myths of goat herders, as stories like these clearly illustrate. Time to let go, and catch up with modern times.

    It will be better for everyone.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    1. Re:Lack of divine foresight by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 5, Funny

      Speak for yourself, Judaism has accepted the possibility of alien life for millenia.

      And did the rabbis conclude it is ok for us to eat the aliens or not?

    2. Re:Lack of divine foresight by aicrules · · Score: 2

      Do they have cloven hooves and chew their own cud?

    3. Re:Lack of divine foresight by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

      If we ever discover life off the earth, there's going to have to be a ridiculous amount theological retrofitting and reinterpretation that goes on.

      Given that the Vatican has its own observatory and hosts astronomy scientific researchers, you can be pretty sure that the Catholic Church has already worked through the implications of extraterrestrial life:
      https://www.vofoundation.org/f...

    4. Re:Lack of divine foresight by alexo · · Score: 2

      You athiests claim to be the opposite of thiests, but you have one giant thing in common: you're both absolutely sure of the unknowable.

      Lumping all atheists in one basket is silly, especially since there is so much disagreement over what "atheism" even means.

      Many of us use the word in its original literal meaning. The Latin prefix "a" means "absence" or "lack of", so an "atheist" would translate to: a person "without god", or "lacking religion", and as you know the absence of belief is not the same as a belief in absence.

      Contrary to what you imply, we recognize the lack of conclusive evidence and make a choice based on practical considerations like the scientific method and Occam's razor. We are also quite ready to admit that we do not know the answers to some questions but are quite capable leading productive and fulfilling lives without worrying about it too much.

      And if you do come with an answer, we will be open to accept it if it can be empirically verified to be better then the others. Once you present a reproducibly testable and falsifiable proof of a higher power, quite a number of atheists will be willing to change their stance and accept it, although it may not be the same higher power that you believe in. I think the FSM is a reasonably strong candidate.

    5. Re:Lack of divine foresight by alexo · · Score: 2

      OK, first, I apologize for implying that all atheists are cocky. Here on slashdot, you can probably see how I got that impression.

      Slashdot is not a representative of the broad population, and I would respectfully submit that your impressions are based on just a tiny vocal minority of users. Most people that I came in contact with, believers and unbelievers alike, keep their beliefs (or lack thereof) to themselves unless asked.

      The term "atheist" is universally used to describe a person who claims that god does not exist

      No it isn't.

      Quoting Wikipedia:
      Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

      Claiming that the narrowest definition is "universal" is at best incorrect.

      not a person who answers "I don't know" or refuses to answer the question. Those people are universally known as agnostics, not atheists,

      Gnosis refers to knowledge, not belief. The terms are orthogonal, in the sense that both theists and atheists can be gnostic or agnostic. I suggest reading the Wikipedia article I linked to above, it is quite an interesting summary and will help you understand people that categorize themselves as atheists while not falling under your chosen definition of the word.

      But let me show you that it also works without allowing a "null" answer. You just need to ask two seperate questions.

      Take the question, "Do you believe that god exists?". A true theist would have to answer "yes". A true atheist would have to answer "no".

      What would a True Scotsman(TM) answer?

      What does an agnostic answer? "I don't know", of course.

      Wrong.

      An agnostic may answer either "yes" or "no". They will answer "I don't know" when asked "does god exist?" which is an entirely different question.

      If you can pose the question "Do you believe that god exists?" as a boolean, then I can negate the question and pose it as a boolean too: "Do you believe that god does not exist?"

      Belief is not a boolean proposition and therefore your question is invalid.
      A valid question would be "how strongly do you believe that god exists?" If you go outside and ask a hundred random people that question, I doubt you'll get many similar answers.

  9. What a waste of energy by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

    If only "religious leaders" - or anybody spending more than 10 seconds per year reflecting on religious issues - spent their time and efforts trying to solve the real problems of this world...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  10. Re:What disagreement could there be? by michiganbob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the mindset that has taken over conversation on the internet. "My thoughts on the matter are correct, therefore there can be no discussion. Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot!"

    Maybe someone else has a differing view. Maybe they even have some good points. Of course, you'll never know because you don't want a discussion. You just want to be right.

  11. Medival beliefs and fairy tales by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 2

    Scientific Knowledge and Progress Pose New Questions for Religious Leaders

    FTFY.

    Seriously, what is this shit doing on /.?

  12. Ridiculous by sjbe · · Score: 2

    IMO, some of it borders on the ridiculous...

    "Borders"? No it IS objectively ridiculous. You don't need the qualifier. There is no utility in most of it at all. It's just following whatever irrational thing their cult leader told them to do.

  13. Re:What disagreement could there be? by aicrules · · Score: 2

    Is lab-grown meat even an animal? NO, so none of your questions apply.

  14. Why less contaminated? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd think that artificial meat would be less contaminated with antibiotics and growth hormones

    Why? They have to get it to grow somehow and I don't see why, if growth hormones are legal in your country, they would not also help grow artificial meat just as much as natural meat. You might be right with the antibiotics since presumably the meat can be grown under sterile conditions but, equally, there will be no immune system to fight infections so if sterile conditions are hard to maintain for some reason I could easily see some company bathing the meat in antibiotics or worse since anti-bacterial chemicals that might kill an animal could be used e.g. the US already chlorinates its "natural-grown" chicken.

    There will always be a company willing to cut corners to reduce costs and increase profits. Apart from the above lab-grown meat will offer all sorts of potential for exposure to new chemicals in the food chain with only minimal testing on the long-term effects to human health simply because this is extremely hard to do and will never be as good as the real-life test of selling it to millions of consumers. Lab-grown meat may well be the way of the future for a lot of reasons but, personally, I would hold off buying it for a few years until the long-term and large-scale health effects have been well tested by the early adopters/guinea pigs.

  15. Re:What disagreement could there be? by alexo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is lab-grown meat slaughtered pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods?

    The bible does not prescribe any methods for slaughtering meat, it prescribes methods for slaughtering animals.

    Is lab-grown meat cleaned of its blood pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods?

    It could be. There is nothing that prevents it to be washed and salted prior to preparation (other than ruining the taste but that's a completely different subject).
    Not to mention that lab-grown meat may not have any blood in it to begin with.

    Lab-grown meat is not Kosher. END OF STORY.

    Spoken like a true opinionated ignoramus. You would make Dunning and Kruger proud.

  16. Re:What disagreement could there be? by alexo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks for being willing to listen to my opinions on why pedophilia is good for children.

    Listening to your opinions can enhance our understanding of the pedophile mind, which can lead to better approaches to prevention and treatment.