Well, looks like you want to argue about semantics. I re-read my reply and I think the point's clear: whether you want to say that nature "provides" our foodstuffs or not, it's irrelevant, I can accept that yes nature is "providing" that which we take from the environment. But lab-grown meat is no more "unnatural" than the tomato I grow in my pot or the high-fructose syrup, assembly line-made, preservatives-filled "cereal" bar I buy. Some are healthier than others, yes, but their "healthiness" is not reliant on them being "provided" by nature or the lab. Nature can "provide" contaminated water and soil the plant you eat absorbed to the rim, while the lab can provide the perfect, safest, healthiest foodstuff to ever have been consumed by a human.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I wasn't trying to argue semantics, I was asking you to re-read the sentence where you said that "there is nothing strange or unnatural about lab-grown meat" which is clearly a false statement.
Natural, from Oxford:
Strange, from Oxford:
Moving on...
By any definition of natural, both the cereal bar, and the lab-grown meat are far more unnatural than the tomato is. In one case you are simply facilitating nature in doing what it would do anyways; in the other you are creating something that does not (and cannot) exist in nature.
Theoretically, yes. But as we've seen with that high-fructose corn syrup, the GMOs, the "artificial sweeteners", and all of the other food-stuffs coming out of laboratories, that is not the case. In a world without corporations, corrupt governments, and where people are actually responsible for their actions (like poisoning millions), laboratory-made "food" wouldn't necessarily be a problem. However, we currently don't live in that world.
There is nothing strange or unnatural about growing humans in a lab, feeding them their liquefied dead, and then raising them in pods hooked up to a virtual reality simulator to extract their life force to power an autonomous robotic army.
I thought your problem was with "strange" and "unnatural" foodstuffs. Now you say the problem is greedy corporations.
Artificial meat, if a replica of the animal tissue, does indeed already exist in nature, you would just be "simply facilitating nature in doing what it would do anyways," ie. grow muscle tissue. But now the semantic discussion of what is "natural" and "unnatural" is irrelevant as you admit that theoretically there's no reason to think that "natural" foodstuffs are better or worse. Your problem is with corporations and governments.
You make it seem as though it's impossible to have a problem with both... even though the one is created exclusively by the other...
Except that nature only works in systems, and would never be creating muscle tissue outside of an organism that requires it to function.
That's not what I said at all. You said that labs can produce healthy, safe food. I said that theoretically they can, though we have never seen it. Even if it had been what I said, that wouldn't make the argument of natural vs synthetic a non-issue.
Again, that is one problem. And since these laboratory-made food-replacements are only created by governments & corporations...
We also wouldn't have any need to look for ridiculous solutions like this if it wasn't for those corporations (governments are simply corporations with guns) creating the illusion that there isn't enough food readily available for everyone and forcing children to go to indoctrination camps that conveniently train them to think food must be "bought"
I still disagree with you but are right haha, I generalized what you said too much, sorry about that!
It's all good :-)
Every time I get into a heated discussion like this on Steemit, it reminds me how much better this platform is than the other social media options.
No name calling, nobody just walked away because someone disagreed, and we were able to refine our points back and forth to at least come to a better understanding of each others' points, if not agreement.