Yeah, all of this, its a lot cheaper if you cook the majority of your meals from scratch, but the vast majority of people aren’t cooking the majority of their meals from scratch.

Probably less important when dealing with animals, where it’s usually more cut and dry, but I’ve got some hangups about our ability to make objective decisions about what is “in something/one’s best interests.”

I see the point. I won’t say I necessarily agree with it. I think the ethical considerations are much stronger in the “in favor of” column for this development than in the “against.” Which TBH, I don’t know if that’s a statement Jim East was disagreeing with. I do think that in the future we could probably improve the ethics of this kind of process by applying more rigorous standards, but in the near term its probably better to focus on stopping killing animals for food in general.

Either way, it doesn’t really matter for my actions, as I don’t have access to lab-grown meat anyway.

I mean that essentially all human interactions with animals seem like they’d be unethical under that standard. Like obviously no pets, but I assume that’s way further up the chain of thoughts (and while I don’t agree, I think that’s a reasonable stance to have). But also it seems like we wouldn’t be able to do things like tagging certain species for tracking purposes, something we do primarily for conservation. Or like moving animals out of spaces made for humans (I.E. buildings.) My problem is that an animal cannot consent to anything, so informed consent as a standard means that all human-animal interactions seem to be exploitative. IDK, maybe I’m thinking about this wrong, or maybe I’ve interpreted it as more extreme than it is.

I should state that I’m trying (and possibly failing) to examine it as an idea on its own terms, not argue that you shouldn’t believe it.

Are you serious about this? If so that standard seems pretty insane to me.

Like, we essentially can’t do anything with animals with that…