Let's say that you are 100% convinced lab grown meat is totally as healthy as the healthiest highest quality natural meat.Again, I know that's up for debate and there's issues with how expensive it is to produce but for sake of argument: It's as cheap to produce per pound as natural meat and as healthy.Do you ban animal agriculture? Yes or no. I'm not a vegan but if I was convinced of it being as healthy and the price issue was fixed I 100% would ban it. Why harm animals for no reason? I ask this to see are you an illogical meat romanticist (you have nothing to do with the process of meat production besides buying it and consuming it but for some reason your brainwashing makes you crave an animal to suffer and die for you) or are you a luddite who hates any and all tech.Let's also say hobby hunting and the consumption of such meat is legal. So don't go "But hunting fun" I'm talking about the 99% of meat that's consumed from factory farms.
>>538612083No, because I don't believe animals have moral significance, I don't believe eating animals significantly harms the environment, and in the absence of a major externality, no one should have that kind of authority over how others want to live. If someone tries to ban hunting in my state like they're trying to in Oregon, I will literally hunt them instead.
>>538612083But lab grown meat is too inefficient for mass consumption
What happened to the horse after the car was invented? The population of horses rapidly decreased. Animals that are useful do well under humanity. Those that don't, don't do well. I would rather eat animal meat because it will protect those animals from humanities psychopathetic self interest. We already have leftist complaining about how much cows fart. Imagine if they were expendable.
The government should interfere with our lives as little as possibleThey exist to protect us and to settle disputes and that's where their legitimate mandate ends
>>538612083>Do you ban animal agriculture? Yes or no.No, because if you're doing lab grown meat and you have any, even brief loss of infrastructure you severely curtail the food availability in regions that are otherwise capable of getting meat in short order from local livestock.
I'm a Luddite. Get rid of shit that pollutes. Don't steal jobs from smart young people.
>>538612083Cultured meat is literal, actual tumor tissue grown in lab-grade culture. It requires fetal cells from live cows. It's not some perfect solution and it's eating tumors. You aren't wired right if you think that's OK.
>>538612083but if we banned eating cows, they would likely dwindle in number, and be replaced by farms that might bypass the allowance of any form of life except for the crops destined to feed this newly vegan populace. At least cows grazing in fields live a long life with humans to look after them.
>>538612231Leftists happily killed millions of minks because of a chinky coof.
>>538612206So if somebody rapes a dog and then skins it alive you're totally cool with letting him babysit your kids?
>>538612241correct
>>538612083But I am a luddite.
>>538612229I already said assume it's as efficient as factory farms>>538612244Obviously in my hypothetical I am accounting for that. >>538612336You didn't answer my question. I said assume you are convinced 100% of its safety. >>538612437Yeah the cow population would dwindle as did the horse population
>If you [deny reality] would you do thing 2 that is now completely and totally equivalent to thing 1?These hypotheticals are always fucking stupid
>>538612592They aren't if you aren't an emotional nigger. You failed. It's like asking a vegan "if you were 100% sure animals didn't suffer would you eat meat" some would say no because it's become their identity.
>>538612592I'm seeing who is against it just because "science lab bad!!!" as opposed to people who are currently opposed because they haven't been convinced of it's safety or that it will be cheap enough in the near future. If you can't see that you're a faggot.
>>538612696And I'm also trying to see who wants animals to just needlessly suffer for "Muh traditions"
>>538612083Commercial farming is banned for the simple fact that people cannot be trusted with the well being of animals when there's money involved but if you want to larp as a homesteader with your two cows and five chickens then go right ahead (if you're found to be abusing your animals in anyway we chop off your balls).Simple. Effective. Fair.
>>538612083But I am a luddite and im right to be one.
>>538612083fuck off commie fuckwit, go back to singing imagine and thinking star trek is the future if only people would throw more dilithium crystals into their matter reactors, prove you arnt a retard and list out how many dystopias do you want for humanity till your jew addled myoptic garbage views are satiated.
>>538612083I don't eat meat like a degenerate.
>>538612582But I did eat breakfast.
>>538612083If I can't eat animals I will eat people. Your move.
>>538612811>CommieCommunists are braindead faggots, now answer the question dumb nigger.
>3 replies in a rowYeah, called your ass out and you got mad.
>>538612083>It's as cheap to produce per pound as natural meatThat's 40 - 80 years off.By that time we'll have a radically different world.>Do you ban animal agriculture? Yes or no.We need to downscale animal agriculture anyway because of the price fixing and poor quality output that comes with mega farms.In some places the amount of cows tripled while the amount of farmers got cut in half.So a sane policy would've massively reduced the size of farms by then anyway.I don't think a ban would be necessary by then since it would've become a fairly artisanal pursuit at that point anyway.
>>538612592>incapable of understanding hypotheticalsnigger
>>538612083Bill Gates can suck my lab grown meat
Hello fellow lab grown meatbagsyou should eat more of your own kindcannibalism is healthy for you
When will Jews invent lab-grown foreskins to eat?
>>538612083The answer is no, because fuck you.The hypothetical is non factual.
>>538612083No, it's not a question of whether or not I'm 100% convinced of its effectiveness. I still would not ban it. If it is truly healthy and priced well, then there is no reason to ban animal agriculture. The majority of meat people eat would eventually become lab grown, and real meat would become a niche luxury product.If it can compete on every level (including taste and texture) it would likely completely replace real meat almost entirely. Even less a reason to ban real meat.
>>538612083Do you ban coal power plants because you built a nuclear power plant?
>>538613173If factory farming was made obsolete it would just be a useless torture holocaust. I'm sure there's a market for cat gore videos but it's still illegal
>>538612083You would get issues with overpopulation of some species, we have that already with boars and deer. We will need to kill some of them, can we eat those?Anyway, if in theory I could eat a pill with all the right nutrients and keep me from being hungry, would you ban all agriculture?
>>538612229But I did have breakfast
>>538612083I would ban factory farming but small single owner farms should remain for culinary, cultural, and agricultural development. Animal husbandry ( but not factory farming) is a valuable cultural pursuit. Also banning it entirely causes destruction of the wide diversity of human managed breeds
>>538612083grow a human vulva in a lab and sell it to people, lots of cannibals would buy it and no humans will be harmed while making it
>>538612083>Do you ban animal agriculture? Yes or no.No. Because i value the ability of people to be self sufficient and i don't want the state to have control over my life and death by keeping a coercive grip on my meat sources.Maybe i would ban mass agriculture for economic exploration, but i would always allow privately owned animals for self consumption.
>>538612083If it's just as safe as quality meat AND tastes just as good, I'd eat it.
>>538612229>>538612592Absolute sub 100 IQ moment. Why don’t you us about your breakfast?
>>538612241you can have dreams.
>>538612083>Do you ban animal agriculture? Yes or no.The corporate scum would undoubtedly try to make a monopoly out of the production to control the market and they would surely want it banned (out of some bogus environmental/animal cruelty reasons), but the main reason is profit of course. So no, I would not ban it 100% and I would not allow privatization. I would let anyone raise their own animals as long as it's only for their own consumption. massive cattle farms and slaughter houses would be a thing of the past.
>>538612083>ludditewhat's up with this new buzzword, i keep seeing it everywhere. Is this the best shill thinking tanks can come up?
>>538612083>Suppose automobiles are made as efficient as walking, do you ban jogging?
>>538612528Tell us more about your ASSTR postings anon.
>>538613775Jogging doesn't torture billions of sentient beings every year...
>>538612661Dying sucks for animals who don't want to die, even if it's not a painful death.
>>538613793>Jogging doesn't torture billions of sentient beings every year...By that logic, surely we should ban governments.
>>538612083>Let's say that you are 100% convinced>convinced But how is this actually is?
>>538613826>Ban governments Which governing body is going to enforce that. And I should add NEEDLESSLY torture animals. While human governments cause pain and suffering on the whole they are totally better than anarchy. I'd rather live in Iceland, USA, Norway, Brazil. Japan, etc than some anarchist state of nature
>>538612083>Do you ban animal agriculture?Best case scenario is to have lab grown meat cheaper than normal animal meat. That way luddites dont chimp out.
>>538612891As long as it's the ones I hate, I'm all for this.
>>538613173>Do you ban coal power plants because you built a nuclear power plant?If you have enough nuclear power, absolutely.This shit is why multiple perfectly good rivers and lakes are no longer available for fishing.Coal is the worst fossil fuel and it's not even close.In fact you literally can't convert a coal plant to nuclear because the radiation levels are too high.
>>538613884>While human governments cause pain and suffering on the whole they are totally better than anarchyYou don't actually know that. You're just a scared bitch who is willing to endure structured suffering rather than embrace freedom and uncertainty.
>>538612891>>538613908To clarify: I'm all for you* doing this. I love eating chicken, beef and pork more than I love my own family. But if it's between veganism and eating long pork... I vill eat ze $oy
>>538613981You can go live in anarchy in the wilderness, nobody is stopping you. Go to the Congo or Amazon or PNG. Hell, you can go to some parts of the US even and be totally removed from human civilization. And even then that's you making a consensual choice. The babies in primitive societies dying of preventable diseases wouldn't have a choice.
>>538612206>I don't believe animals have moral significanceYes, you do.>If someone tries to ban hunting in my state like they're trying to in Oregon, I will literally hunt them instead.No, you won't.
>>538612083Once everyone contracts alpha-gal syndrome the only protein choices you will have are crickets and cultured meat from Taylor Swift as the culture will be consuming the flesh of idols in moclery of communion with christ.
>>538612229Most literate yank.
>>538614050I'm going to bring the anarchy to you and disrupt your comfortable life of structured suffering. And I don't give a single fuck about babies dying in primitive socities.
>>538614097Alpha-gal doesn't effect fish (yet). It's also not hard to meet protein requirements through chickpeas and lentils.
>>538612083All my people in Space Haven eat artificial meat.
>>538612083>Do you ban animal agriculture? Yes or no.Ofc not, wth.
>>538614165>I'm going to bring the anarchy to you and disrupt your comfortable life of structured suffering.
>>538612206/pol/tards in a nutshell
>>538612083>Prove you aren't a ludditeI am a luddite. Fuck off back to hell.
>>538612083Animal agriculture in general or factory farming?If you can replace factory farming with lab grown meat that is more efficient go for it. Leave everything else alone. Something like 70% of farmland is non-arable land that's only good for raising livestock on.Meat synthesis is cool and all but decoupling and further removing people from how they source their food and gating it behind proprietary bioreactors is psychotic.
>>538612083Here are my conditions. 1.) If factory farmed meat becomes as cheap as livestock while having identical quality, ban factory farming but allow field farming with humane slaughter to continue with no other restrictions. Farm owners can continue to raise livestock the natural way, compete in the meat market, and let the market decide what they want. But that's the point where we can no longer justify any sort of factory type farming. 2.) Just make brainless cows. Give them just enough brain mass to chew. No pain, no thoughts, no suffering, doesn't even know when you kill it. Why aren't we just doing that?
>>538614828*If vat grown meat becomes as cheap as livestock
>>538612206>muh precious humans, let me worship youconservacucks like you are the most embarrassing, pathetic scum that exists
>>538612528Why do americans rape dogs?In my culture dogs are sacred and cows are not. Simple asa
>>538612231retardtheir problem is precisely that someone is using themif they weren't being used that would be great for them, they wouldn't be bred and tortured and killed then
>>538612083No, because in doing so, you actively have to force extinction on multiple species of animals
>>538612083People forget that beef is already a selectively bred substitute for the megafauna that prehistoric humans hunted to extinction. If you're going to make it in a lab, make it better.
>>538612083Look man I'm open to compromise. Can't you wire their heads into some sort of simulation? You know just like we are? Why aren't we taking tips from the extra-dimentional loosh farmers?
>>538612083Animal meat is something entirely apart from some lab grown proteinsEven if we're using stem cells to generate raw muscle meat, or something similar, we're likely missing the fat, and additional viscera that add to the nutrient profile.There is already some evidence to suggest that 'over consumption' of muscle meats in diets of wealthy nations correlates with the supposed negative affects of high animal product diets (opposed for example, diets better balanced in consumption of both muscle meats and organ means, to say nothing of marrow, and so on).The closest analog is something like eating sugar beats versus refined sugar. See blackstrap molasses (or molasses generally). Nutrient dense stuff containing all the stuff stripped from the glucose that might otherwise make consumption of high(er) amounts of glucose somewhat healthy.Just applied to meat.So not to necessarily get pedantic, but I think for a legitimately healthy comparison we would need to contrast veritable lab grown ANIMALS outright to produce the broad spectrum of animal based proteins that would properly constitute a healthy animal based diet. Which brings up entirely different sorts of ethical questions.If you were to ask me about lab grown animal fats however, that might be a different story. I think a case could be made to produce animal fats via a similar hypothetical to replace vegetable derived fats, especially for cooking.
>>538612206You should be a cannibal and hunt niggers instead
>>538612083Depends on the taste, I dont think we should necessarily ban animal agriculture completely though, thats retarded, the supply chain for meat shouldn't be hostage to a lab
>>538613233We have an overpopulation of brown people, why don't you hunt and eat them instead?
>>538612083>I'm not a vegan but if I was convinced of it being as healthy and the price issue was fixed I 100% would ban it. Why harm animals for no reason? I kinda am a vegan, vegetarian or whatever the fuck people who eat mainly veggies and fruits and get their protein from eggs and dairy are called. Lacto-ovo-vegetarian? I don't care about the gender identities, but yea, I don't eat meat. Yet, I really don't trust the lab-grown meat hype.The problem here is market capture. The people who want to be the food supply aren't doing it for altruistic reasons, the reason is power; Control oil and you control nations, control food and you control people.>Again, I know that's up for debate and there's issues with how expensive it is to produce but for sake of argument: It's as cheap to produce per pound as natural meat and as healthy.But it isn't, this is like "would you like to get a cancer if it wasn't this and that?" "Would you like X if it wasn't X?" We live in a reality where the laws of thermodynamics pretty much dictate what's what, so hypotheticals contrary to that is just pointless fantasies. I'm pretty sure you cannot make it cheaper except for a limited time to starve the competition (farms), to capture the market. Then you can pump up the prices or manipulate the food so it has the effect you want (nutritional deficiencies, forced "vaccinations" which is another pet peeve of that one asshole who keeps pushing the lab-meat agenda, etc)Even if omitting all the maliciousness and lust for power angles of this: we don't know everything, "the science" doesn't know everything, we've been wrong more about things than we have been right. Yea sure you can "What if.." this too, but then it once again is about fantasies.
>>538612083Theoretically, if you could absolutely guarantee that I was eating the exact same safety and quality profile as a 100% organic grass fed and finished steak, yes I would. However, you cannot and it is impossible to imitate. Every time we go against nature, we lose.
>>538612083Pretty sure they can't grow a steak in a lab so I wouldn't ban animal agriculture
>>538617446>I think a case could be made to produce animal fats via a similar hypothetical to replace vegetable derived fats, especially for cooking.This is actually a great idea imo, I'd buy that
>>538612231They are expendable.Leftist.Cows are delicious.
>>538612083seems grossi don't want it
>>538612083I'm an hardcore luddite really>posted from high-end pcBecause the only shit what matters is whenever I take the tech pedoligarchy's dick up in the ass and say thank you or not.
>>538617983>the version without blood and piss and shit and vomit seems gross, i want the version with blood and piss and shit and vomit
>>538612083Why is it faggots like you enjoy wasting infinite time asking hypotheticals that attempt to divorce options from their context and the patterns of their consequences?You might as well ask if we'd like to eat shit if shit wasn't made of shit. What brain parasite causes your fascination with vacuum chamber fantasies?
>>538612083>Let's say that you are 100% convinced lab grown meat is totally as healthy as the healthiest highest quality natural meat.of course it is, you can control the water and nutrients that go into it, filtering it for microplastics and heavy metals before it even comes close to ti.and vaccines. regular cows in the field, in america? get like 20 vaccines before it reaches your mouth, and covid mrna cow vaccines are already in development. youd be fucking insane to not prefer lab grown meat
>>538618259what if you didnt eat breakfast this morning?
>>538619245Show flag, Moishe. We know they are going to vaccinate the lab grown meat with all kinds of bullshit for spurious "public health reasons".
>>538619352>show flaglike that changes anything, lmao. well, for you, the standards for meat in the united states are horrifying.btw thanks for the tariffs, china started buying all their beef from us and shit was off the chain, fr frnow how are you gonna backtrack
>>538619643oh your uk, even worse lmao
>>538612083Immediate issues with your hypothetical thus rendering it undebatable until a new draft is crafted:1. Your usage of "luddite" seems incongruent with its definition as it implies someone who's resistant to new technology and has no logical or well-reasoned or well-meaning concerns stated.2. Banning of animal agriculture is more nuanced than a simple yes or no considering the complex economic chain of infrastructure surrounding it.3. "Harm animals for no reason" though I wish to not harm animals myself, we'd have to discuss religious practices that allow for the grotesque and, in my opinion, needless sacrifice of animals to appease some deity. There's a whole 'nother discussion in that entirely.4. You paint the people you're questioning automatically as "illogical" and having been "brainwashed" which sets up a strawman we have to argue through before even reaching the actual conversation, especially the part about "craving an animal to suffer and die" - not to mention misinterpreting a "luddite" in the same line as someone who hates "any and all tech" which is not how it's defined at all.5. As much as you want to avoid the topic of hunting, it's tethered at the hip and would come into play in the conversation, and people do it for more reasons than just "fun" which you fail to even consider.I give your argument a 7/10. Fix a few of these things and see me after class. You could push this discussion to a 9/10 easily with some drafting.
