I'm also curious about y'all's take on imitation meat as well.
My assumption is no harm to foul but I am not educated on the subject. Also I mostly mean conceptually, I am aware that lab grown meat is no where near efficient or viable for mass production
The vast majority of it is dependent on fetal bovine serum which is taken from pregnant cows killed in slaughterhouses, and therefore is not vegan.
The small percentage that currently can be produced without FBS is vegan but imo seems significantly less energy and material efficient than just growing legumes or peas, if it can even be made to scale at all
100% correct. The purpose of lab grown meat is to be a vehicle for venture capital and stock market grifting. To the extent that it isn't, it is a pipedream. R&D on this is a bad use of time and effort at best, at worst greenwashing for rich treat brained nitwits.
The best part of being vegan for a long time is no longer even thinking like this sounds like something I'd try even if it were ethical. I love beans!
I see, that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunate to hear though as I was under the impression they didn't need to harm the animals :/
Here is an article that goes into a deep dive about it
You can search serum to scroll down to the section about FBS and other animal serums used
Lab-grown flesh inherently and explicitly revolves around animal exploitation, and for that reason alone, I must condemn it.
Lab-grown flesh being validated in the animal emancipation movement reminds me of all of the harm that Singerian utilitarian brainrot has done to veganism, and Singer's facade is too damn strong. The man is literally not even vegan by the layman's definition of the word vegan, yet for some reason, too many damn people in the animal liberation movement uphold him as some prominent figure to use as an example of what a strong supporter of animal liberation looks like.
Shit like lab-grown meat is seen as a loophole because it appeals to the human supremacist mindset a lot more. Those who still feel like they don't want to clear themselves of the mentality that non-human animals are okay to treat as slaves think they need something like lab-grown meat as a crutch just to give animals the basic decency and respect that they deserve, and it still doesn't do that!
I'm also curious about y'all's take on imitation meat as well.
Things that emulate hamburger patties and sausage links without involving animal flesh and secretions are fine to me. My mentality has gotten to a point where I've distanced that stuff from flesh very well. To me, a burger made out of soy doesn't make me think of even comparing it to a burger made out of flesh. I literally take it as what it is: a burger made out of soy. It is its own thing to me. With enough time being vegan, I was able to disconnect the association honestly.
I'd have moments where I'd tell a friend that I tried this delicious macaroni and (cashew) cheese recipe while omitting the "cashew" portion of the sentence by mistake because it sometimes doesn't cross my mind that most people see cheese as something that comes from cow titties. The moments where I snap back into reality and focus on the fact that 99% of the world is carnist, however, end up making me frown.
My galaxy brain take is that all the lab grown meat should go to people I'm always hearing about with weird dietary restrictions or pets who need it. Since it'll never be able to be produced on the scale that meat is produced now, it's unethical to eat it unless you have an actual need for it.
Besides, if you stop eating meat regularly it's harder for your stomach to digest it. There's excellent imitation meat already anyway.
Good if we can find a way to produce it ethically, efficiently, and at scale, but that's a big if.
My position is it is mostly it is a bad thing unless we can remove the animal component to them, when we can do that i have no issue with it as a personal choice tbh, but will most likely stick to whole foods. I want a open source implementation of it though so people can make "craft lab meats" of sorts, so like small scale farming of it for people who want to avoid corporations if they want, though i doubt that is possible or will happen even if it is, though i would love that.
I would buy it for pets if they required meat but I would never consume it myself.
I'm happy with my bean team
Black bean burgers are so good btw, forget that impossible sludge
My take is that the focus on this as "a solution" is essentially a grift that gives libs a sense of "something is being done" much the same way recycling or many other green tech related things are. I don't trust that it would be scalable or possible resource wise if the people telling me it is operate from the system we currently live in.
If we were not doing profit, I think stuff like this could be tried and studied absolutely, but then again humans could live without meat just fine too. So to me putting those resources to farming soy would make much more sense than manifacturing fake meat in factories.
It seems like it's a luxury product for a world of scarcity to make some feel that they better off than others. Essentially the whole thing feels very capitalist logic coded.
~~I think trying to imitate meat goes against some of the basic philosophy of veganism. We should move away from trying to get the taste of animal blood and fat to make a meaty flavor. It's trying to create the illusion of commodified animal suffering. At least that's how I see it.
It's energy and resources better spent on making food available to others.
And besides, meat just isn't that healthy.~~
Edit - tried to cross out what I said.
The basic philosophy of veganism is rejecting that animals are not commodities, resources, or slaves to abuse and exploit for human benefit. If the making of an imitation meat dish does not involve any of that, then it, in no way, goes against the very basis of what veganism seeks to assert.
I personally disagree with the framing that you're getting at, and I think it could be counterintuitive to say things like this to carnists, many of whom are already confused by the fact that veganism doesn't inherently entail a disgust or discomfort with the taste or even appearance of flesh itself. How you feel about this actually may be true for many vegans, and the way you feel, the way that things reminding you of such products even if they're only imitations is uncomfortable, is not invalid in and of itself. However, it's a very abstract kind of point.
Some of the flesh products that plant-based alternatives imitate aren't really kinds of products that exist in a raw, unprocessed form of meat anyway. For example, a "sausage" is a human culinary invention. Whether you're making it out of a dead animal or a plant, it's something that came out of human innovation to start with.
There's a reason why carnists freak out when they see something that resembles what seems to be a chicken head in their bucket of Kentucky Fried Carcass. Plant-based alternatives aren't striving to make plant foods resemble animals; the form that most of the flesh that people eat already distances itself from such a resemblance.
And yes, meat isn't healthy, but once again, the problem with this framing is that it's irrelevant to what veganism actually is as an ethical stance, but my apologies if that's not what you meant by bringing that up.
There are unhealthy vegans, but that doesn't speak to say that their support for animal liberation must be any bit of a different level than vegans who do eat healthily. And besides, at the end of the day, products that imitate meat are still not actually meat, so animal flesh being unhealthy is not wholly relevant to imitation meat itself necessarily being unhealthy anyway.
I get where you're coming from, but I dislike this framing because it seems linked to a personal repulsion, yet it seems like it's trying to paint the philosophical aspects of veganism broadly, e.g., "I think trying to imitate meat goes against some of the basic philosophy of veganism..."
I think I understand where you're coming from. I will be more mindful with my framing in the future.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea is that if we can perfectly replicate a steak, as long as no animals are hurt in the process, that's totally fine?
I guess at that point, animal details on a piece of meat are purely aesthetic and wouldn't inherently make people more violent towards animals. It feels wrong to me, but I see how that's more of a 'me' thing.
Thanks for replying the way you did.
No worries! I mean, "perfectly replicating" is an interesting phrase to use. I wouldn't say that any efforts to make say, a plant-based steak, would be viewed as the exact same as a steak made from flesh, but that doesn't make it any less tasty, and it sure as hell is totally ethical whereas meat-based steak obviously is not.
When you say "perfectly replicate," it makes me think back to how my beef (pun very intended) with cultivated meat isn't necessarily whether the replication is accurate or not. It's more about the fact that it still involves animal exploitation. Also, when you were talking about imitation meat in particular, though the title is about lab-grown meat, I was mostly thinking of plant-based takes on things like sausages, burgers, etc. rather than the cultivated stuff.
Materially speaking, it is totally fine to "imitate" meat as long as doing so does not come at the expense of another animal. It seems like, however, you may have felt like that it's at odds with a "vegan mentality" even if the action itself is vegan. However, just know, I love things that "taste like meat" but I, without exception, am vehemently opposed to animal exploitation, abuse, and slaughter. Another thing I could add is that the way my mind works seems a lot different than yours. I'd say I'm on the opposite end in the sense that I perceive mock meats as "their own thing" more than I see them as something related to flesh.
For instance, nuggets that are made out of tofu and fried in a similar fashion to how some chicken nuggets might be to me are just that: nice little, crispy, bite-sized pieces made out of soy. My mind disassociates any relation to chicken or flesh. It's just a tasty product made out of soy, and that's how I perceive it. It's happier that way.
I'm ND, so yeah, I guess I would be perceiving meat in a different way. I can't help but make the connection to animal consumption when eating fake meat.
I sometimes see western culture as drawn to an imitation if they can't afford the original. I feel like if we keep a door open on replication, there will be an obsession with the authentic or the original. Like rich bros a hundred years from now getting authentic steak with the belief that it's somehow better than whatever we can replicate. So even if it's perfectly replicated, having the original is somehow better.
I feel like if we step away from items or aesthetics associated with meat, we can step away from the desire from the real thing. Like totally divorce ourselves from the animal as much as we can.
I feel like by holding onto aesthetics reminiscent of meat, we might never get to the point of making eating an animal as equally unthinkable as eating a person.
That said, I think there are things like nuggets or sausages, or patties that can be easy enough to separate from animals. The principle is pretty uniform regardless of the components. Take a source of protein, grind it up, and cook it. Sure, I can abstract far enough to know that animals are made of protein, and can thus have their parts made into a nugget, but that just feels like a basic understanding of biology and cooking.
But yeah, I've thought a lot about this with the assumption technology can and likely will get to perfect replication.
I'm ND as well, so we all handle this differently! One thing that I think is very important to note is that I find it important to push against this false idea that vegans have animosity to what meat is in the context of taste, texture, appearance, etc. This is a common myth that carnists believe, but it's not true. The problem with meat isn't any of those things; it's where it comes from—a victim.
It's also important to note that veganism is not an emotional stance. Someone can love the taste of meat, feel zero repulsion to what it is, and have no issues with how it looks and still find a logical reason to be vegan. There are people who do operate this way, and it's important to remove veganism from heavy emotional components like "compassion," "disgust," or even "tears" because even people who don't cry when they see a pig's throat getting slit should be able to logically process why they do not have a right to another creature's body.
Focusing so much on the aesthetics is what got you in that frame of thought it seems, but it's important to note that the aesthetics are a very small part, if even existent, of the battle. A world that goes so far to ban animal exploitation but still eats things that imitate animal flesh is a vegan world, even if the aesthetic is in the "meat" that they eat. It's about the mentality of rejecting that animals are resources for human beings to exploit, and if anything, saying "I enjoy the taste of this animal, but why should my sensory pleasure be placed above its right to live and be free? As inconvenient as it may seem to others, I'm going to start going out of my way to enjoy a similar taste while still granting the animal the respect it deserves." fulfills that a ton.
Also, the line starts seeming kind of arbitrary if we ask ourselves what exactly counts as "imitation meat." For instance, does tofu count as imitation meat because even though it's not a "direct" alternative? It's often used as one or even flavored and prepared in ways that makes it taste like certain dishes typically made with flesh, such as General Tso's tofu. Is it a problem if someone prepares jackfruit to taste like what someone knows as pulled pork?
It's also important to remember that carnists abuse the shit out of victim erasure. The reason why carnists can stomach eating meat so much is because, to them, steak is not a cow, pork is not a pig, and hell, chicken isn't even chicken! There's a reason why carnists say mind-numbing shit like "Eating meat is a personal choice!" They've gotten so detached from the notion of there being a victim, that it seems like they truly believe that there is no victim. However, I'd rather be detached from the notion of there being a victim because there actually isn't one.
In this vegan future, what I see, as someone with my kind of mentality, is these products existing but not being tied to their violent counterparts that their ancestors barbarically consumed eons ago. They're just their own thing. There are no more "chicken" nuggets. There are just nuggets made out of whatever they're usually made of at this point.
That makes a lot of sense. It's not about what I can view as acceptable consumption. It's about the actual material harm present.
I think I've been getting caught up on abstract hypotheticals when yeah some people just like the taste and texture of meat. I've got to accept that as a fact and not as a moral failing to correct.
I hate that every now and then I crave meat. I haven't eaten any in years, and I don't think I will again at this point. I didn't mean to start unpacking those feelings now, but I'm seeing it better after this conversation.
Your version of the future makes sense too. At As we improve the flavor and texture of nuggets, they may start to resemble meat in certain ways. They don't somehow become more or less ethical if the material harm to animals remains the same.
Seriously thank you for carrying this conversation with me. I'm trying to be a better vegan and this definitely helps.
And don't get me wrong, I love imitation meat and dairy products.
I've never felt like I missed real butter over oat butter, but I feel like the implied default that comes with the label of 'real' gets conflated with 'superior'
