Artificial Meat - An Amicable Solution? | ED | The Youth Blog Artificial Meat - An Amicable Solution?
  • Check out our new reading mode

    Artificial Meat – An Amicable Solution?

    By

    August 30, 2015

    It has been widely debated whether the wanton slaughter of animals is necessary in the present era. With the massive advancements in technology, humanity has been able to replace what might have been a necessary evil in earlier times, with something that might not cause to other sentient undue distress.

    The advent of Artificial Meat is one such instance.

    Imagine playing a computer game, say, the Grand Theft Auto series. You can kill and rob random strangers, drive into other people, and generally do whatever the hell you want. However, we all know that no one is actually getting harmed.

    Artificial Meat works on the same lines. In this case, you can have your meat, and eat it too.

    What is Artificial Meat?

    Artificial Meat is known by many names; In-vitro meat, victimless meat, cultured meat, tube-steak, cruelty-free meat, schmeat, and test-tube meat.
    Simply put, artificial meat is an animal flesh product which has never been part of a living animal. It is an outcome of human ingenuity and Science.

    The process of developing In-vitro meat is commercially viable and economical. While the apex of efficiency has not yet been achieved, it is expected that as technology grows, this particular Science will be perfected.

    The process of developing in vitro meat involves taking muscle cells and applying a protein that promotes tissue growth. It shares many similarities with stem cell research. Once this process has been started, it would be theoretically possible to continue producing meat indefinitely without introducing new cells from a living organism.

    Some studies have shown that, in ideal conditions, two months of In-vitro meat production could deliver up to 50,000 tons of meat from ten pork muscle cells.

    009_06A_TEST TUBE BURGER.1

    Why is Artificial Meat necessary?

    Mahatma Gandhi once remarked that a country is judged by how it treats its animals. Unfortunately, humanity has decided that no other species is allowed to have dignity and basic rights.

    Google Co-founder Sergey Brin said he had been moved to invest in the technology for animal welfare reasons. People had an erroneous image of modern meat production, he said, in terms of “pristine farms” with just a few animals in them. “When you see how these cows are treated, it’s certainly something I’m not comfortable with.”

    The standard method of meat harvesting is factory farming, a method which shows the cruelest and most inhumane side of man. Animals are treated like commodities, and their pitiful cries for help go in vain as they are culled by the millions.

    It is in answer to this debauchery that Science has presented us with the boon of Artificial meat, a product which has not caused harm to any being. Why shouldn’t we let go of age-old assumptions and embrace this new technology? Any rational human being would understand that humanity is defined by how we treat those weaker than us.

    1

    At the same time, it is understandable that some people do need to eat meat to survive. This puts us between a rock and a hard place. This technology is extremely costly, and it might be years before it is economized for mass production. Religious and Customary factors also come into play, often hindering the usage of this technology and its subsequent acceptance.

    Humanity does not have to give up eating meat, and animals are able to lead a dignified life, as part of the food chain, and are not objectified as a commodity, whose sole aim in life is to pleasure the human stomach. It is akin to hitting two birds with one stone.

    Indeed, this benefits every relevant party to the problem, be it the animals, the animal activists, or simply someone who wants to have a good Cheeseburger.

    Game for some artificial meat now?

    Views presented in the article are those of the author and not of ED.

    Liked reading this article? Subscribe to us.