Your question was deemed too stupid for No Stupid Questions

Highasakite - Norway

For me the main benefit of it would be the ability to try local/cultural dishes while travelling, if lab grown meat was an option.

I’ve been vegetarian my whole life and vegan for ~4 years or so, and I would definitely eat lab grown meat (assuming the conditions you stated).

I almost certainly wouldn’t eat it often but there is sooo many cultural dishes I haven’t ever tried due to them containing meat, which I would love to try sometime.

Admittedly I expect that most things I would not end up liking, but the ability to try would be really nice.

I’m vegan, and agree with you 100%

From twitter or like, from the human species?

I would be so curious to see what the player counts of different games were during the 24 hours. Sometimes it feels like there are almost no women playing games, because they (understandably) never use mic

I’m not trying to make a case for or against veganism, or hunting. My point is that “we are animals and animals sometimes do X” implying that makes it ok, is bad logic. Animals also sometimes eat their young, or murder or rape other creatures of the same species.

Now like I said, I’m not arguing against or for veganism here, I think there are good arguments for both sides, I just don’t think that the “we are animals” argument is one of them :)

I respect your viewpoint, but I wanted to point out that I think the argument of “animals do X, therefore it’s ok” isn’t a really good one, imo. In fact I think one of the features of being human is being able to rise above what other animals do, when we think it is a good idea. (Whether it’s a good idea here though, is another topic)

Calling a group of people condescending, then accusing them of having limited brain function is a little hypocritical doncha think?

I think part of the issue is people tend to conflate “does something immoral/less moral than an alternative” and “is a bad person”.

I think most meat eaters would acknowledge that meat is inherently worse for the environment, and also less moral due to more animal suffering, than not eating meat. Doing so does not make them bad people, just like owning an iPhone doesn’t make someone a bad person, etc. And yet when the topic of "meat is immoral " comes up, people very quickly seem to think it is an accusation of them being a bad person?

I’m not sure why you are making up imaginary arguments. Have you ever heard anyone ever accuse someone else of “not being vegan anymore” because they ate a non vegan product? I know quite a few vegans, I try to be vegan myself (but quite often cave, cheese is delicious), and all the vegans I know would be simply thrilled to know that someone was making an effort at all. Literally no one cares if you aren’t 100% vegan, basically no one is anyway. But if you decide once a week to eat a vegan meal instead of a steak, great!! That’s still helping the planet, better for the animals, etc.

But making up these ridiculous vegan cliches doesn’t help anyone, it just makes more people annoyed at each other.

But I mean, that’s literally what their ideas are, how else should they promote them? Are you mad that they aren’t just pretending that meat is good, for the benefit of the listeners?

Weet-bix. Australia

This seems incredibly adult to me 😅

SNOW!!!

I think where the difference lies is that you are interpreting “cost X lives” to mean “cost X lifetimes of Human experience” while the interpretation I, and articles use is more like “cost X people their status of being alive”

That is not what costing something means. Cost is to lose something which you have, it does not mean to lose the potential to something you don’t have. If an apple costs a dollar, it means you had that dollar, and now you don’t. The impact of the apple was for the number of dollars you have to decrease by one. If you buy it with 100 dollars it obviously doesn’t cost 100 dollars because you get 99 dollars back.

When talking about lives, we don’t get them back. People have lives, and if something causes them to lose them, it means costs them a life.

If I own a car, then after ten years of owning and driving it, I trade it to buy something else, that thing still cost me a car. The amount of car I have does not decrease over time but through use. It’s quality might, but the count does not care about quality. Same with life. People who are middle-aged do not only have half a life, they are still fully alive.

How is the language extreme? For something to “cost lives” means exactly for those lives to be cut short, there is no other meaningful definition. The language used is exactly as extreme as the scenario it describes, by definition.

Do you apply your same logic to other scenarios too? Like would rather that “the tsunami cost the lives of 55 people” be reworded as “the tsunami shortened the lives of 55 people”?

You could say this about anything though. A serial killer isn’t taking lives, merely shortening them. Suicide isn’t ending a life it’s just shortening one. Literally all death can be seen as merely the shortening of an otherwise longer life, which makes your distinction pointless.