WaPo article on being carnivores

[mzteris]

He talks about "growing meat" - which point I've not personally dealt with yet - but the arguments about not eating "animals" are very interesting.




Dilemma of A Carnivore
By William Saletan
Sunday, May 28, 2006; Page B02

W here were you when Barbaro broke his leg? I was at a steakhouse, watching the race on a big screen. I saw a horse pulling up, a jockey clutching him, a woman weeping. Thus began a worldwide vigil over the fate of the great horse. Would he be euthanized? Could doctors save him? In the restaurant, people watched and wondered. Then we went back to eating our steaks.

Shrinks call this "cognitive dissonance." You munch a strip of bacon, then pet your dog. You wince at the sight of a crippled horse but continue chewing your burger. Three weeks ago, I took my kids to a sheep and wool festival. They petted lambs; I nibbled a lamb sausage. That's the thing about humans: We're half-evolved beasts. We love animals, but we love meat, too. We don't want to have to choose. And maybe we don't have to. Maybe, thanks to biotechnology, we can now grow meat instead of butchering it.

With all the problems facing humanity -- war, terrorism, poverty, tyranny -- you probably don't worry much about whether it's right or wrong to eat meat. That's understandable. Every society lives with two kinds of moral problems: the ones it's ready to face, and the ones that will become clear or compelling only in retrospect. Animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, slavery, the subjugation of women -- many traditions seem normal and indispensable until we're ready, morally and economically, to move beyond them.

The case for eating meat is like the case for other traditions: It's natural, it's necessary, and there's nothing wrong with it. But sometimes, we're mistaken. We used to think we were the only creatures that could manipulate grammar, make sophisticated plans or recognize names out of context. In the past month, we've discovered the same skills in birds and dolphins. In recent years, we've learned that crows fashion leaves and metal into tools . Pigeons deceive each other. Rats run mazes in their dreams. Dolphins teach their young to use sponges as protection . Chimps can pick locks. Parrots can work with numbers. Dogs can learn words from context. We thought animals weren't smart enough to deserve protection. It turns out we weren't smart enough to realize they do.

-MORE-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601709.html

[LaurenG]

1. Growing meat in a petri dish... ?

Interesting article. Thanks!

[mzteris]

4. I wasn't really posting it

for the fake meat part - but the arguments about being humans being carnivorous..... and the dichotomy it takes to embrace it.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Interesting. in a very weird way.

Not sure that GROWING MEAT is the answer. Bioengineered food does not seem to be the answer to me, and petri-grown meat isbioengineered food, to me.

[mzteris]

5. Not that I was

posting it for that reason - I was focusing more on the pet lamb/eat lamb thing - BUT - at the very least "growing meat" in a dish would save needless suffering and animal lives, wouldn't it?
Not to mention what it could do for the ecology.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Good point.

:thumbsup:

[LeftyMom]

3. There was an article on this in a recent VegNews

To me it sounds as nasty as real meat, just for different reasons. I'm really not into fake food. I suppose anything that decreases the demand for animal suffering is a good thing, but I'd certainly not eat it.

[RebelOne]

11. I read that article. It was quite interesting.

I would be willing to try it. It would be nice to have a steak or pork chop again and not feel guilty because I would know that animal didn't have to die.

[flvegan]

6. I read this, but there's a glaring problem...

"The case for eating meat is like the case for other traditions: It's natural, it's necessary, and there's nothing wrong with it."

That statement is a total failure of fact and logic. Hear me out...

Eating meat: it's natural.
No it bloody well isn't. Our bodies aren't designed for it. Also, unless it's cooked, I hope you find the bathroom's decor enchanting and the potential stay at the hospital as a worthy vacation.

Eating meat: it's necessary.
Good one. How so? Okay, if you're an eskimo or another native living in an area where you simply CAN NOT live without the intake of local animal protein, then this statement fails on it's face. It's been proven ad nauseum that eating meat is not necessary.

Eating meat: there's nothing wrong with it.
That's true considering that "wrong" is up to the end user's definition of wrong. If one were to consider and adopt a universal "what's right/what's wrong" belief system, this would also fail. BTW, under this same concept, buying an H2, supporting an illegal war and turning a blind eye to vote stealing would also fail. Whoopsie, what did I just say? Nevermind.

To suggest that simply we should reconsider certain animals because they can pick locks, work with numbers or learn words is still speciesism and based in ego. Life is life, and to end the life of another being, unjustified, with intent...well, we have a word for that. That word is murder.

To be clear, I'm attacking the basis of the statement, not the article, and most certainly not mzteris for posting it (for which I'm thankful).

And that's the bottom line. (fighting real hard to keep myself from adding "cuz flvegan said so")

[mzteris]

7. um . . .

did you read the next sentence after that one?

"But sometimes, we're mistaken."

To me, the article was a lot about this statement: "Animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, slavery, the subjugation of women -- many traditions seem normal and indispensable until we're ready, morally and economically, to move beyond them."

At least that's how I read it. That we "used to believe" these things were "normal" - but when you "grow up" - morally - you realize it's NOT *normal*.

[flvegan]

9. Right, but

it's not sometimes. One makes a case, then says that sometimes, it isn't so. No, it's not sometimes. Here are the reasons why it is so.

These people need to take the "sometimes" out of their "objectiveness" and just state fact. But then, that would be turning the majority of journalism on its ear.

[peacebuzzard]

10. thanks for the article and for the posters here

for your presence of mind, for your compassion of animals, and for your minimalist view and sustainablity of life.