The question of whether or not we can justify the animal suffering and death necessary to perpetuate meat consumption.

How high above are we talking? Where does objective morality come from? Are you arguing there is no objective morality?

[removed]

No.

Edit: well, maybe after many, many generations of a population eating an exclusively vegan diet we could lose the enzymes that allow us to eat meat.

So if we decide to become vegetarian, we risk losing that ability?

[deleted]

Because we are omnivores, we are able to decide what to eat and develop ideas about what is moral or immoral to eat.

Which ethics is that?

[removed]

No, my point is that the ethics we choose should make allowance for who we are and where we come from. The idea that there is some absolute ethics imposed from above is anathema to me.

So is your point that because evolution brought us to the point where we can consider things ethically that we should not consider things ethically and instead just appeal only to evolution?

But without that process, there would be no ability to understand and consider ethics.

Our brain probably evolved through natural selection, which is a very distinct process from ethics.

Is it not the case that the reason that we as a species developed our large brain and reasoning faculties is because we ate meat?

This just sounds like the naturalistic fallacy to me.

It's also a red herring because we are omnivores and thus capable of making a choice one way or another. This is where ethics come in.

Ugh!

> Is the question of harming animals anything but an ethical question? What else would it be?

That sounds like the same sort of reasoning that suggests that carnivores should be genetically modified to be herbivores. Which is nonsense. Nature has made us what we are. I believe that to be a justification for being that way.

Ah, I thought by "utilitarian" you meant utilitarianism.

> Also, the article doesn't actually claim that lab grown meat is being developed for "utilitarian reasons".

The paper says:
> The moral problem stems from the fact that we will likely switch over to lab-grown meat because it is cheap, or thanks to its benefits for human health or the environment. That is, we will do it for our own sake and not for the sake of animals.

Did you read the paper?

[removed]

Is the question of harming animals anything but an ethical question? What else would it be?

Also, the article doesn't actually claim that lab grown meat is being developed for "utilitarian reasons". Did you read it? The final section is titled:

> Moral crises can’t be solved by technology

Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position. Given that we evolved from omnivorous predecessor species this is not a strong position to adopt.

Even if we accept that inflicting harm on animals is wrong, the suggestion that lab-grown meat is being developed for purely utilitarian reasons is nonsense, and again no justification is given for this assumption.

But remember, kids of different races and national origins won't all be worth the same economic value because of our shitty species being what it is.

Some are more like a quarter, some will be a dime or nickel and then you got your pennies.

So if I manage to save 100 children's lives, rather than just getting gratitude, can I now cap and trade that to a company who pollutes a river and get one of those new Ford Bronco's or something?

No, it's your hard earned African children so you can choose how to spend them obviously.