Artificial Meat May Feed the Planet, Scientists Say

Hey animalia, would you eat vat grown meat?
I'm just curious to get a vegan's take on lab meat, lol.

If we keep "feeding the world", I have a feeling the population will keep growing.

Of course it's easy to say when I have food, and of course I'd have a different opinion if I was starving, but facts are still facts no matter how you feel.

That makes a lot of sense -- in opposite land.

I am a vegetarian, and hell yeah I would eat in-vitro meat. I am hoping it will become popular in my lifetime.

That's a good point... because it's grown rather than harvested from animals... that would technically make it vegi-meat?

Disparity of resources is an extremely troubling thing, and food, like all basic human rights, should be accessible to everyone regardless of money/power. But every species uses the amount of resources available to control their population. Why exempt humans? Tearing down the rainforests in Brazil to grow soybeans puts the needs of human animals above all others. If that's not immoral, I don't know what is.

Why not use population control to ensure that we don't continue to destroy the habitat of other animals who ARE living within their means? We share this earth, right?

"It's a fact that if your whole family was murdered today, that would be a number of less mouths to feed. "

It all makes sense now, you've really put things into perspective for me I can't believe I ever said that we should let staving people di- /sarcasm

What are you trying to do, guilt trip me into reconsidering my position because it could be my family starving? WHO is starving is irrelevant.
If we continue to feed a starving population, the population will continue to grow, and perpetuate the problem. You're saying that because it makes you sad that people starve, we should give them food, and ultimately make the problem worse? Your emotions are clouding your judgment. It's hard for me to ignore such a basic ecological fact, but you make it look easy.

You think this is about racism? Give me a fucking break. This is about a simple fact: more food, more people; and it is perfectly logical. Of course it's cruel. Are you having trouble accepting that life isn't fair? People will starve and people will die, there is no ending that.

You can prove me wrong if you like. I'm completely willing to change my position on this provided you give me a good reason why the population would not continue to increase if we feed the starving. Birth control? Perhaps, but I'd have to see that to believe it.

The only humane way around this that I can see would be to cap food production and spread around what food we have now. But lets face it, that's probably not going to happen. So who is really the cruel one? It is all of us, who have more than we require and aren't willing to give it up.

Either way, someone has to die, which you evidently have a problem with. I'm merely trying to get you to understand the predicament that humanity has put itself in, and you keep replying with irrelevant bullshit. What, exactly, is wrong with what I've suggested? The fact that it's inhumane, or that you disagree with its premise? Well I guess we already know the answer is the former. No one has to die a horrible death if we would just spread around the food we have at present. But we won't. As long as we increase food production to feed the starving, this problem is just going to get worse. The higher you climb, the harder you fall. Yet all you can say in defense is that it's cruel? Which is more cruel: A few million people dying today or a few billion tomorrow?

Where is your solution to world hunger?

Fuck. It's been a few days since your initial comment so I kind of forgot how this started. Sorry, if I went on a bit of a tangent, I should have looked back at your initial comment. Yes, something along those lines would work, but you assume too much. People will not give up meat, which makes yours an unrealistic solution. The only solution to world hunger is either cap food production at its present state and spread the love (very unlikely) or cap food production and let the starving die (less very unlikely). I'd rather we do one of those before the carrying capacity is reached and all hell breaks loose. So, take your pick. In either case, people will die; fewer with the former. Unfortunately, neither will happen in time.

What does disease have to do with your comment? You said "the population will keep growing regardless of food", which completely contradicts biological realities. The world population continues to increase because we continue to increase food production. Doesn't take a whole lot of brains to figure that one out. Stop increasing food production, population growth stops. It is hardly independent of food, since, last time I checked, its kind of hard to be alive if you don't have food.

Same here

they better have good flavors

MMMMMMM...Barbecue!