Vegan Bites: Responses To PETA Reward, Vat Meat, & The NY Times
Print This Post
The NY Times recently wrote about in vitro meat, also called “vat meat” “test tube meat” and “iMeat.”
The article is about PETA’s new campaign to offer a million dollar reward to whoever can develop a marketable in vitro chicken meat by 2012.
All the vegans are weighing in with their reactions to both PETA and to the NY Times article.
Well, I sure could think of better uses for a million bucks, but I can also think of worse.
I think vat meat has got a real chance to succeed and if it does I think it could mean great things for animals. But that’s 30-50 years down the line, at least. I think this is what the CAAT was talking about in regards to food animals in video 3 here.
I personally won’t eat it. It’s just too gross.
Jason at SuperVegan says:
Like many vegans, I have conflicted feelings about in vitro meat (and about PETA, for that matter), but mostly I see this as a pure publicity stunt. 2012 is really soon for something like this. And $1 million isn’t all that much money for something like this. I don’t think PETA’s actually going to inspire anyone to develop better “fake” meat faster, and I think they know that. But the promise of $1 million is a quick way to get a lot of press attention and discussion.
I don’t know, is that really so bad? I think it’s good to remind the public that alternatives to animal slaughter are on the horizon. No reason to keep people in the dark. And free publicity is well, free. PETA’s always been great at that. So, it’s not like anyone’s wasting money here. And the goal is promotion of animal issue discussion, so it’s working.
But I worry that it may inspire apathy and laziness. If people think new technology will solve all our animal ethical problems within a few decades, they might be less willing to act on behalf of animals now.
Naturally, the NY Times writers don’t really understand or agree with animal liberation theories. The Times wrote this:
This has often seemed as if it were the logical conclusion of some radical animal-rights activists: better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance that they would suffer.
We prefer a more measured approach.Ensure the least possible cruelty to animals, by all means, and raise them in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound. But also treasure the cultural and historical bond between humans and domesticated animals.
As if GMOs are part of our culture and it would be oh-so-shameful if some were never bred into existence.
Mary at Animal Person wrote:
This editorial is a perfect example of what happens when you focus on cruelty: you open the door for what the Times “prefers,” which is “a more measured approach.” Once you couch your objection in the language of suffering, you have no choice but to accept any resolution that seeks to reduce suffering, otherwise you look like you’re against reducing suffering.
To the Times’ claim, that slaughter is a precious piece of culture, Erik at Vegan.com wrote this in response:
You know: the cultural and historical bond that involves one party cutting the other party’s throat. Yeah, let’s treasure that.
I like Erik’s response. What’s your response?
I wonder if it is equally sound reasoning to maintain the culture that results in female mutilation, for example, or cannibalism. “Culture” has become a sacred word that needs another look.
Quote:
“This has often seemed as if it were the logical conclusion of some radical animal-rights activists: better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance that they would suffer.”
I wrote a post about statements like this here:
http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/2008/04/an-interest-in-being-born.html
Interests prior to conception – that doesn’t even make any sense. Peter Singer also responds to this by substituting a young boy for an animal currently suffering in animal agriculture and asks, “Is it really moral to bring this boy into the world just so he has the chance to exist?”
The NYTimes writer also wrote:
“It will be a barren world if the herds and flocks disappear in favor of meat grown in a laboratory tank.”
This is absurd, vegans believe that we owe direct duties to those animals currently in existence, which would result (in a “vegan-world”) in the prevalence of large flocks of animals because those animals currently being exploited would be allowed to exist independent of our intervention – this would be respectful treatment and vegans believe we ought to treat all sentient beings with respect. Land limitations and over-population might necessitate some controlled reproduction; however, many animals would be able to reproduce naturally. Ergo, our world would not be barren; in fact, those “herds and flocks” would be existing far more peacefully in these idealic settings the Times writer imagines, which ought to make this writer appreciate life and nature even more.
Alex’s last blog post..An animal Bill of Rights?
Alex is right. The Times editorial presumes “Interests prior to conception” and is right to conclude “that doesn’t even make any sense.”
In fact, the Times editorial is NOT about ethics regarding human-animal interaction. Nope, the editorial is a crude and illogical justification for the human tendency to exploit and abuse.
I wrote a deeper analysis and deconstruction of the Times editorial here:
http://www.elainevigneault.com/deconstructing-meat-propaganda.html
And I sent a letter to the Times, too. Their email address is: letters@nytimes.com
3 letters to the editors @ new york times…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/l26peta.html
Yes, there were three published letters. Here are excepts from two of them:
wrote Patti Breitman. Thank you, Patti, indeed, there is no good reason to breed, confine, and kill animals for food.
wrote Vadim Liberman. Thank you, Vadim. True, our exploitation of animals is immoral and should be abolished regardless of historical or cultural significance. Ethics trump history and culture. Period.
This is exactly what I was looking for, one more reason I’m vegan! Thank you and keep up the great work!