Cultured Meat

If the ‘Dumb Down’ approach of animal disenhancement is the wrong way to go about addressing animal suffering, then perhaps the ‘Build Up’ approach is the right way. (?)

We already have the technology to serve real, beef hamburgers made from meat which has been entirely grown in a laboratory. The first lab-grown hamburger was publicly served and eaten in 2013 in London (see here). That burger took two years and $325,000 to create. But, the costs are decreasing rapidly, and cultured meat produces are likely to become economically competitive within the next few years.

For some great videos on this topic, start here (and see also here, here, or here).

1. In Favor of Cultured Meat: The reasons in favor of cultured meat are obvious. Animal meat is bad for a number of reasons:

 It results in animal death, and (in most cases) animal suffering.  It is very bad for the environment; it produces more raw waste, more methane (a greenhouse gas), consumes more water, more fossil fuel, and more land than alternative food sources.  It is unhealthy; it is a major contributor to obesity, cancer, and heart disease.

Cultured meat would have none of these drawbacks. In fact, in theory, cultured meat could be engineered to be a very healthy superfood—tastier and healthier than animal- grown meat (packed with more protein, vitamins, etc. than regular meat). Even famous philosopher Peter Singer has endorsed cultured meat. So why resist it?

2. Objections to Cultured Meat: Some worries, roughly in order of worst to best.

(a) ‘Real’ Meat’: There may be a temptation to think of this meat as not real. As such, it will in some way be inferior or fake, much in the same way that faux fur or synthetic diamonds are thought of as inferior and less valuable/desirable.

Reply: Hopkins & Dacey insist that what makes something meat is its molecular composition and structure—so this WILL be REAL meat. [Do you agree? If I was able to re-create the Mona Lisa in a laboratory in such a way that it was totally indistinguishable from the original down to the cellular level, would it BE the Mona Lisa? Clearly not. In what ways does cultured meat differ from this example?]

(b) Danger: We might also worry that cultured meat could produce unexpected negative side-effects, such as unknown health risks.

Reply: The authors quickly brush this aside. Clearly, if it turns out to be unsafe, then we should not favor cultured meat. But, that is an empirical question, not a philosophical one. What is more interesting to ask is: IF it turns out to be viable and safe, are there any moral reasons to oppose cultured meat?

Reply: ‘Natural’ is notoriously hard to define. Furthermore, if we ought to oppose anything unnatural, then should we oppose modern medicine? All technology in general?

(d) Yuck: People also often appeal to the “yuck factor” in order to morally oppose something. And cultured meat is “yucky”.

Reply: While a “yuck” reaction MAY be an indication that there is some foundational moral principle which renders an action morally wrong, it does not guarantee it. Indeed, a “yuck” reaction varies from culture to culture (e.g., eating horse, dog, cow, pig is viewed very differently in different places), and has even been used historically to morally oppose things like mixed-race marriages. So, we mustn’t rely on our gut-reaction as a final verdict. Rather, we must supply REASONS in support of whatever moral conclusions we draw.

(e) Animal Integrity: Creating a sort of Frankenstein organism compromises or violates the integrity or dignity of the animal, or the species. For instance, it would be morally wrong to create blind hens for this reason.

Reply: While this objection may apply to animal disenhancement, it is not clear that it applies here at all. Cultured meat would not involve creating a living animal. It would just be tissue grown in a petri dish, not sentient at all.

(f) Morally Mis-Guided: The morally right thing to do is to just give up meat. This quest for some way to continue consuming animal flesh is a selfish one, motivated by the wrong kinds of reasons.

Reply: Why can’t it be motivated by the RIGHT kinds of moral reasons? Namely, the motivation to reduce animal suffering, in light of the realistic fact that people simply aren’t going to become vegetarian?

(g) Animal Death: Obtaining tissue samples would still require the deaths of a few animals. Thus, cultured meat would be morally tainted due to its origin. (Ask: Is it permissible to use Nazi medical research, or keep an inherited blood diamond?)

Reply: First, it is not clear that this technology WOULD require animal death. Very likely, we’ll be able to obtain tissue samples without killing the donor animals.

Second, even if killing an animal IS required, it is not clear that purchasing and consuming the later products of that immoral research would continue to be wrong. For instance, if the Nazis had discovered a cure for cancer by conducting inhumane research, would it be morally wrong to later use that cure to save lives?

(h) The Non-Identity Problem: A society that eats cultured meat would be one in which billions of animals never come into existence. Simply put, it is better to live for a while and then be eaten, than never exist at all.

Reply: First, arguably, most presently existing farm animals do not have lives worth living. Rather, they live lives full of pain and suffering. So, it WOULD be better if they never existed at all.

But, even if we were comparing a world full of happy, humanely treated farm animals and a world without them, an animal is NOT harmed by NOT being brought into existence. (You can’t harm something that doesn’t exist.)

To argue that we SHOULD bring them into existence is to embrace some sort of view that we are morally obligated to CREATE individuals with valuable lives. But, then, is there a duty to have as many children as possible? That is absurd.

(i) Respect for Animals: Consuming meat of ANY kind—even cultured meat— betrays a general disrespect or moral disregard for animals.

Reply: First, even if this is correct, the present factory-farming already does this— and when it does so, it is MUCH WORSE, because it is disrespectful in this way AND it results in huge amounts of animal suffering and death.

Second, more importantly, there is no disregard for animals here. At best, it might be claimed that there is a disregard for animal TISSUE. But, animal tissue is not sentient, and therefore doesn’t seem to be the sort of thing that is deserving of respect or moral regard.

Rebuttal: But, to continue the practice of eating ANY meat is just to continue to reinforce the idea that animals are the sorts of things to be eaten—mere things to be used for our own purposes. It commodifies animal flesh, as if it is just a commodity to be bought and sold, while totally disregarding the fact that animals are vessels of moral value. This is speciesism, and it is dangerous because it encourages a general mindset that the interests of animals are unimportant.

Reply: But, isn’t it possible to use animal-derived product without encouraging a general lack of respect for the donor? For instance, humans donate blood, bone marrow, kidneys, and so on, but this has not encouraged us to think of humans as mere things to be harvested, or used for our own purposes. Isn’t it at least possible to view an individual of moral worth as a potential source of some useful product or material while ALSO continuing to morally respect that individual?

Note also that the push for cultured meat IS motivated by a general respect for animals. Namely, we want to put an end to animal suffering.

Hopkins & Dacey even speculate that cultured meat will one day be divorced from the association with animals altogether. Furthermore, they take great pains to demonstrate that we have ALREADY psychologically divorced meat from association with animals—that’s how so many people can be adamantly opposed to animal suffering and yet happily buy a bunch of steaks at the grocery store.

[Speculation: Isn’t there at least SOMETHING to this objection, though? Imagine a technologically advanced alien society that has enslaved humanity. They want to abolish slavery (which they know to be morally wrong) by replacing human slaves with “lab-grown” slaves. These individuals would be qualitatively indistinguishable from real human beings, but would be mere, non-sentient robots. Is there something morally suspect with this proposal? Why try to create lab-grown slaves that are indistinguishable from human beings in the first place? Doesn’t this just perpetuate the idea that humans are the sorts of things to be enslaved?

Alternatively, should a cannibalistic society move to eating cultured, lab-grown human flesh? Or rather, shouldn’t it give up human flesh altogether? See the next objection for more.]

(j) Cannibalism: If there is nothing wrong with eating cultured ANIMAL meat because no animals are harmed in the process, then it follows that there would be nothing wrong with eating cultured HUMAN meat. But, cannibalism is clearly morally wrong. Therefore, the argument in favor of cultured meat is mistaken.

[Note that is ties in to the previous objection as well—for, if consuming lab-grown HUMAN flesh is morally wrong, while consuming lab-grown ANIMAL flesh is not, then this IS to admit that even cultured meat still perpetuates speciesism; i.e., some hierarchy of value!]

Reply: Hopkins & Dacey mention this worry, only to dismiss it. But Milburn responds by arguing for a controversial solution: Embrace cannibalism!

If we endorse cultured animal meat, but not cultured human meat, we embrace a speciesist hierarchy—an us, and a them—where WE are morally superior. Now, this might be seen as an objection to cultured animal meat, as follows:

Argument against cultured animal meat 1. If producing and consuming cultured animal meat is permissible, then producing and consuming cultured human meat is permissible. 2. But, producing and consuming cultured human meat is not permissible. 3. Therefore, producing and consuming cultured animal meat is not permissible.

The above argument is valid. But, here is a competing argument, also valid:

Argument in favor of cultured human meat 1. If producing and consuming cultured animal meat is permissible, then producing and consuming cultured human meat is permissible. 2. Producing and consuming cultured animal meat is permissible. 3. Therefore, producing and consuming cultured human meat is permissible.

Now, we COULD just endorse speciesism. In that case, belief that cultured animal meat is permissible while cultured human meat is not would not be an inconsistent belief. But, for anyone who rejects speciesism, Milburn argues, there are only two options: Oppose both, or accept both. In the arguments above, only premise 2 differs. We must accept one of them.

Cultured animal meat is permissible: It reduces animal suffering, is environmentally friendlier, and healthier, and no sentient creatures are harmed.

Cultured human meat is impermissible: It is repugnant.

But, repugnance, Milburn says, is not a good reason to reject something as morally wrong. So, since we have very good reasons in support of the belief that cultured animal meat is permissible, but poor reasons in support of the belief that cultured human meat is impermissible, we should accept both.

Engaging in cannibalism is victimless, and it might even help to symbolically break down speciesist barriers, Milburn says. We should embrace it.

[What do you think? Do you agree?]