The Warring States of NPF - Here, have some Shmeat!

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)

- - Here, have some Shmeat! (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=34011)

Here, have some Shmeat!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Dictionary

n., a lab-created meat product; essentially, animal tissue which has been cultured for the purpose of consumption without harm to animals.

http://media.npr.org/programs/mornin.../steak_200.jpg

Hmmm... tasty! AND PETA seems to love it!

Quote:

So is this the right time? One unlikely nonprofit thinks so: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA recently announced a $1 million contest to create commercially viable chicken meat, sacrificing neither chicken nor egg. The deadline is 2012, the contest rules Herculean and the prize money paltry. But the thinking is pragmatic: If people must have meat, and factory farming is an animal nightmare, why not find a high-tech alternative?

source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=90235492

Quote:

But forget about people...what about the poor ANIMALS who get killed every day just to fill our bellies? PETA is a fan of shmeat. They are offering a one million dollar award to the first manufacturer and marketer of lab created chicken meat. This reminds me of a Margaret Atwood book, Oryx and Crake, but in that book, the animal rights activists try to free the lab created "Chikie Nobs," which aren't animals at all. They are lumps of lab created chicken breast, just like the product PETA is calling for. The Chickie Nob chain is a KFC-like fast food restaurant, whose best selling product is the "Chickie Nob Bucket-O-Nubbins." The animal rights activists release the lumps of flesh into the wild where they pulse away looking for nourishment until they dehydrate. In reality, PETA wants a meat alternative that doesn't hurt animals.

Source: http://www.progressiveu.org/130608-f...uld-you-eat-it

So, are we ready for Sci-fi... sorry... SyFy Soylent Green stuff now? Or are crazy PETA people just crazy?

Either way, i don't think i would eat a Shmot Dog or a Shmbarbecue... i mean... cheaper meat? Really? Couldn't they invest more on those Super Vegetables people were so crazy about a few years ago?

Also, the idea of a Shmeat Jerky Beef is quite... untasty

Shmeat is actually the combination of the two words "Shit" and "Meat". Basically, shitty meat.

The idea of it being produced in a lab makes it sound a little... inedible. But if it promises to take the same or close enough... who am I to complain?

I'm fairly opposed to synthetic foods of any sort so to me this seems like a terrible idea. I suppose that it allows vegans to eat meat without really eating meat, but in my mind that kind of defeats the purpose. I see choosing not to eat meat because it hurts animals as a mostly symbolic gesture that is more or less destroyed when you start finding loopholes for your own lifestyle choice. Manufacturing meat just doesn't seem like a good idea when you can get the real more easily and it's probably better for you.

I'm also kind of curious as to the long term effects of lots of synthetic processed foods. Long term effects of food grown in labs are largely unknown, whereas long term effects of food grown on farms is fairly well understood.

I have a general squick reaction to it, but, if it works for them, I say go for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vault Of Thrones (Post 906964)

I see choosing not to eat meat because it hurts animals as a mostly symbolic gesture that is more or less destroyed when you start finding loopholes for your own lifestyle choice.

What? I've been fond of this idea for a while because when we have the technology to eat meat without harming animals, we should. The point of being vegan (which I am not) to me always seemed that products were avoided because animals were hurt to produce them. I don't really anything symbolic in it.

Unless, and this just occurred to me, you are thinking of how the animals would feel about us eating something that resembles something made from them? Reminds me of that news story I heard about gimmicky tofu made to taste like human flesh.

Feel free to tell me if I've missed the point entirely.

In the shmeat's defense, this is just an early experimental prototype and it's quite plausible that, years down the road, the process of growing meat tissue that is authentic to the original source could be accomplished. The current results are nothing that could be marketed or really even receive FDA approval, I'd imagine.

I doubt it'll be as good as the real thing, and it's a shortsighted solution to what these groups view as a problem. However, when looking at it from a longterm, big picture point of view, one realizes that if you were to actually stop the use of live animals for food production, it would decimate those species. 99% of all cattle are alive today purely because they are delicious, and if there's no longer a market for their meat, very few people will be willing to breed or care for them. Same with chickens, naturally. These animals, through millennia of selective breeding, are entirely incapable of self-sustained survival. But, as marketable livestock, far more of them are bred, raised, fed, and cared for, and the laws are set up to make sure that they are cared for humanely. They live good, happy lives, and their deaths provide for the vast majority of the rest of the species.

If groups like PETA got their way, these animals would be doomed.

Don't forget the huge industry revolving around breeding animals for food and the entire support industry of products and equipment that is required to keep those animals healthy, tasty and within regulation....

Well, in this case I'm merely trying to note the shortsightedness and hypocrisy of PETA's agenda, as I don't think they've even really considered the welfare of humans for any serious length of time.

Huge ammounts of crop plants could be grown on the land that is at present used for herding cattle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viridis (Post 907000)

The reason I see it as symbolic is because there isn't really enough of a vegan population to change things globally, it's more a gesture of respect to the animals and it's a choice of lifestyle. The vast majority of people are still going to eat meat; eating fake meat so you can be more like the large group kind of defeats the purpose in my opinion. It'd be like if you chose to forego shoes for some reason or another, but then decided that wrapping sheets around your feet was an acceptable alternative.

I can see where you're coming from though, and I can see where, from a nutritional perspective, that meat may be required. I'm on the more utilitarian side though, and I have trouble identifying with a their motives for not eating animal products, so if my argument seems to ignore their reason, that is why.