

Should we create pain-free animals for eating? - awans
http://stuckk.net/post/187402539/guiltless-chicken-and-beef

======
quant18
Wouldn't animals without a pain response just stand there quietly while
farmers poked them with cattle prods trying to get them to move off the
railroad tracks, hailstones pelted them bloody, predatory birds pecked them to
death, etc.?

Anyway, yeah, like everyone else said, for all these reasons, in vitro meat
seems like a massive win over this idea.

(Of course, if in vitro meat does deliver on its promises of lower-cost, more
sanitary meat, you're probably just trading less animal suffering for more
human suffering: lots of people are going to become unemployed, and the bulk
of them will be found in relatively rigid economies, especially in the
developing world, who can't easily switch from agriculture to to other
economic sectors due to structural reasons)

~~~
patio11
_lots of people are going to become unemployed_

Lots of people becoming unemployed from agriculture practically _defines_
development.

There is another human suffering tradeoff: poor people will be able to eat
meat on a regular basis. For many people, this is actually one of the defining
things that makes them un-poor. It is routinely advanced as one of the "We've
made it, guys!" signs for Japan in the post-war era, for example. (The truly
poor can then transition to the health problems of the rich: obesity caused by
overconsumption of cheap tasty food. See the lower socioeconomic strata in the
US, who on a global scale are so un-poor it hurts my head to see the two
compared with each other.)

~~~
quant18
Good point.

And a third benefit I didn't think of in the first place: third-world
governments not only often misprice water, but also can't effectively enforce
water access rights --- which often leads to violent conflict (between tribes
with different modes of production, etc). Shifting food production towards
richer economies would reduce the strain on water resources in the third
world.

------
pavlov
Industrial meat production is ecologically unsustainable. Replacing cows, pigs
and chickens with these soulless flesh-trilobites would do nothing to solve
the real problem: there are billions of people mainly in Asia aspiring for the
Western lifestyle, and the Earth can't support it. (Sounds like a recipe for
global war.)

In the Roman era, clothes were washed with human urine. Fortunately modern
detergents are not merely synthetic urine... Similarly, we need to give up on
the notion of somehow producing indistinguishable ersatz-meat, and instead
invent something fundamentally better.

(Personally I think the Chinese already did it a thousand years ago with the
invention of tofu, but I know most people don't agree.)

~~~
daniel-cussen
I'd eat tofu if they got the keto-estrogen out. I'm not eating something that
will make me androgynous.

------
mingdingo
Wow. Never thought of it like that before...

My biggest gripe with factory farming is the suffering. Animals are cramped
together, pumped up with hormones, treated callously, and dragged kicking and
screaming to their deaths. And some videos are truly sickening. (I know all
meat production is not like this, but a lot of it is)

I'm not opposed to people eating meat, I just abhor the way animals are
treated. If the suffering were eliminated, then I would be OK with farming
animals for food.

However, this wasn't what I had in mind. Seeing a pig get "mistreated" would
still bother me a lot, even if I knew the pig couldn't feel pain. I don't know
whether it's the intelligence or appearance of the pig that's influencing me.

It also gives you a new perspective on abortion. I'm still pro-choice, but
this article did help me understand the other point of view.

I think generally, there seems to be an inherent respect for Nature's
creations that varies among people.

EDIT: I do hope this idea never advances past the "what if" stage. We should
end suffering by treating animals humanely and compassionately. And
Vegetarianism would be an ideal long-term goal.

------
human_v2
genetic engineering will be old hat soon. Our kids will be writing 'Hello
World' in DNA++. As for creating pain-free livestock to eat? Why not go one
step further and create livestock without any awareness at all? Better yet,
just add engineered nanobots to a nutrient solution to create the perfect
steak? Livestock would be obsolete. Future generations will think us barbaric
for killing other sentient life.

~~~
patio11
_Future generations will think us barbaric for killing other sentient life._

I think that it is more likely they'll look at us with bemused semi-contempt,
much like we currently look almost all practices rendered economically
irrelevant with the exception of a very few (slavery, child labor, etc).

"Man, that sure must have sucked back when they had to grow a whole darn cow
just to have some beef to eat. Can you _imagine_ how inefficient that is?
Heck, the cow bits would be so valuable, you'd probably actually save the ones
you didn't eat, so that you could eat them later! Imagine how absurd that
would be!"

(If this dialogue strikes you as unlikely, consider what you would say to any
friend who, on deciding they were done drinking from a glass of water, put a
saran wrap cover on the top of the cup and put it in the fridge "so I can
drink it for leftovers tomorrow". Local caching of water made plenty of sense
up until quite recently, historically speaking.)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I often drink water from a refillable bottle, when I've had enough I don't
throw the rest away but instead replace the cap and then drink the water
later.

You must be from the USA?

Water costs plenty in production and produces waste due to energy requirements
and chemical processing. Whilst water is cycled through their is a substantial
lag involved meaning that water reserves can be damagingly depleted.

Throwing consumables away that are still directly usable is unnecessary waste
- put the rest of the water on your pot plants or pour it in the kettle to use
later.

One other thing, do you saran-wrap (aka cling-film) a glass of water sitting
on the counter in the kitchen? Why then do that when it sits in the fridge? If
you find you need a cover then use a reusable container with a cover.

Local caching of water still makes plenty of sense.

~~~
Poiesis
Yeah, we're saving our own spare water (extra from a glass; leftover water
from cooking, etc.). We have a jug in the kitchen with a funnel. But we're in
an area with mandatory water restrictions.

------
chrisduesing
As an omnivore I don't really have a dog in the race so to speak, but I
suspect an activist would argue that an animal that is killed without
suffering is still 'murdered'. The lack of pain isn't really the point, is it?

~~~
dejb
Actually for a lot of people who chose not to eat meat the pain inflicted on
animals is a significant part of the problem. I don't think there are too many
people who are arguing that an animal life is the direct equivalent to a human
life. I would actually argue that for animals, torture is worse than death but
for adult humans the reverse is true. This is because the value of a human
life is significantly greater but relative ability to feel pain is likely to
be a lot more similar. It isn't really fun to logically delve too far into
this which is why I guess a lot of people don't do it.

~~~
thirdusername
There are actually a lot of people arguing that animal life is equivalent to
human life.

See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_liberation_movement>

Richard Dawkins recently put up an interview he had with Peter Singer
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU> in 2008 about it which convinced
me they are right but I still eat meat as I can't stand nearly all the vegan
food I've tasted.

~~~
dejb
> There are actually a lot of people arguing that animal life is equivalent to
> human life.

The reference you've provided doesn't really speak to the absolute or relative
number of who hold this view. They certainly exist but I'd say they would be a
small minority. Most people who cared about animals in a way that compelled
them to act wouldn't see a direct 1:1 equivalence.

Interesting video.

------
cvg
We already have some pain-free meat in the form of invertebrates: shrimp,
crab, mussels, etc. Also, I'm not sure how I feel about devolving the pain
reaction out of animals that have it.

------
sgwooduk
Yep animals are a really inefficient way to convert the Sun's energy into
edible calories - why don't we hear more about synthetic meat research?

I'm no veggie but this recent book is making me question a lot about current
food production systems: "Waste" by Tristram Stuart
<http://www.tristramstuart.co.uk/>

------
rms
Probably, but we might as well just skip to the meat grown in vats.

~~~
haupt
[http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2008/may/in_v...](http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2008/may/in_vitro_meat/steak_500.jpg?t=1248631099)

Mmmmm, sludge-steak. :)

------
ilyak
Should we grow meat in-vitro?

------
skwiddor
how do you measure mental pain?

