Technology You Could Manage Without?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    I don't eat meat (I do eat fish),
    Fish is meat.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by moanygit View Post
      The way I look at it is that it shows that one can enjoy the texture and quite often the taste of meat without the cruelty involved.
      I appreciate that if your motivation for being veggie is not animal welfare related, this will have no effect on your choice.
      I agree with your last comment, but I maintain that no-body has yet invented any substitute meat which tastes like real meat.


      Originally posted by moanygit View Post
      Expensive?
      it seems to me that it would be a far more efficient way of producing meat than having livestock lazily roaming thousands of acres of land which could otherwise be used to grow crops. A result of the "meat" being grown in a controlled environment, would be the near-irradication of health problems with animals such as foot and mouth etc. which would in turn bring about a reduction in chemical antibiotics, and other treatments finding their way into the food chain.
      I think this vision is extraordinarily naive.
      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
        I think this vision is extraordinarily naive.
        why?
        We are talking future technologies here.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by moanygit View Post
          Fish is meat.
          That depends on one's definition of 'meat'. In Middle English, the word (mete) denoted 'food' generally, whereas most English speakers now would not recognise it as meaning all foodstuffs. Its particular frame of reference has shrunk over time and now most people use it to refer to the flesh of slaughtered/dead mammals and amphibians (e.g. crocodile meat). For several centuries at least, strict Catholics, for example, have distinguished 'fish' from 'meat' when prescribing what can and cannot be eaten on Fridays. Similalry, 'meat' is often subdivided into 'red meat' 'white meat' 'poutry' 'game' etc.

          I agree that fish protein is more similar in its structure to meat than to vegetables or cereals (although, to be fair, I never claimed it was a vegetarian food!). Its physiology and nervous system is however less complex than that of mammals and birds, which is why the life and death of a fish/prawn/lobster, etc., does not, arguably, involve the same degree of cruelty as the factory-farming and slaughter of cattle or poultry.

          If you embrace vegetarianism because you do not believe in killing other living creatures, full stop, then I agree, it would be logical not to eat fish. Sometimes, though, life has to involve compromises.
          'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by moanygit View Post
            why?
            We are talking future technologies here.
            I expect the inventors of the atom bomb said that.

            Just because a technology is new or futuristic does not mean that the vision behind it is necessarily desirable or wise.
            'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
              I expect the inventors of the atom bomb said that.
              really?
              I'm sure the inventors of the atom "BOMB" were fairly certain they were inventing a bomb.

              what is naive about the points I made re: tank grown meats?
              seems to me to be a logical prgression.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
                I agree that fish protein is more similar in its structure to meat than to vegetables or cereals (although, to be fair, I never claimed it was a vegetarian food!). Its physiology and nervous system is however less complex than that of mammals and birds, which is why the life and death of a fish/prawn/lobster, etc., does not, arguably, involve the same degree of cruelty as the factory-farming and slaughter of cattle or poultry.
                But an awful lot of whales and dolphins etc are killed in the process of trawling for fish. Plus the sheer scale of fishing is wiping out sea populations.

                Ideally, we should be eating only farmed fish and fish which we KNOW is from a sustainable source. The information isn't always there, either on packaging or in restaurants.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by westminster View Post
                  But an awful lot of whales and dolphins etc are killed in the process of trawling for fish. Plus the sheer scale of fishing is wiping out sea populations.

                  Ideally, we should be eating only farmed fish and fish which we KNOW is from a sustainable source. The information isn't always there, either on packaging or in restaurants.
                  Yes, I agree. However, the intensive farming of fish can also involve practices which result in an unnaturally overcrowded environment for the fish and the prophylactic or routine use of antibiotics to prevent disease.

                  Fish reared healthily from sustainable environments is best - but people will have to be persuaded to pay more for their food than they do already.

                  There are no easy answers.
                  'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by moanygit View Post
                    really?
                    I'm sure the inventors of the atom "BOMB" were fairly certain they were inventing a bomb.

                    what is naive about the points I made re: tank grown meats?
                    seems to me to be a logical prgression.
                    I think the naiveté is in thinking that laboratory technicians can prevent something going horribly wrong when you try to produce a genetically mutated animal product on a huge scale for human consumption.

                    Apart from anything else, it is tempting to say 'Why bother'? Given the resistance to genetically engineered crops, it is naive to think enough people would be willing to eat the artifically-grown animal flesh, to make it economically viable. I wonder whether we could do a LLZ survey. I shall investigate.

                    Edit : Have posted the poll, but had to start a new thread to do so! See http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ad.php?t=27105
                    'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by moanygit View Post
                      really?
                      I'm sure the inventors of the atom "BOMB" were fairly certain they were inventing a bomb.

                      what is naive about the points I made re: tank grown meats?
                      seems to me to be a logical prgression.
                      Originally posted by westminster View Post
                      But an awful lot of whales and dolphins etc are killed in the process of trawling for fish. Plus the sheer scale of fishing is wiping out sea populations.

                      Ideally, we should be eating only farmed fish and fish which we KNOW is from a sustainable source. The information isn't always there, either on packaging or in restaurants.
                      Nuclear fishin'.
                      JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                      1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                      2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                      3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                      4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
                        I think the naiveté is in thinking that laboratory technicians can prevent something going horribly wrong when you try to produce a genetically mutated animal product on a huge scale for human consumption.
                        Well the farmers don't seem to be able to prevent things going horribly wrong as things stand.
                        Simpllify the process and you reduce the likelyhood of problems and/or mistakes. A controlled environment hold less risk of unforseen problems.

                        The only issue I see is perfecting the process, that will come with time/experience

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Well I would disagree that it was farmers who caused foot and mouth or swine flu etc but hey we have broad backs and get blamed for everything so go ahead, pin it on us, we are used to it!
                          Re fish - did anyone see the recent Guardian article about fish? One line which really stood out was something like "dont stand at the fish counter in the supermarket wondering which fish had a decent death - none of them did" - the amount of suffering is disgusting....
                          Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by moanygit View Post
                            Well the farmers don't seem to be able to prevent things going horribly wrong as things stand.
                            Simpllify the process and you reduce the likelyhood of problems and/or mistakes. A controlled environment hold less risk of unforseen problems.
                            This too is naive. What makes you think that laboratories are safe? There are far more things that can go wrong (and for more reasons) than on well-run farms.

                            The simplest, safest solution is for animals to be reared in herds in the open air (except in extreme weather conditions), fed unadulterated food of the same type they would choose to eat if not on a farm, and with enough space to mve avoid naturally and avoid stress from overcrowding; then slaughtered locally with minimum distress (although we probably agree that 'humane slaughter' is in practice a contradiction in terms and I am no advocate for the meat industry as it is).
                            'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
                              The simplest, safest solution is for animals to be reared in herds in the open air (except in extreme weather conditions), fed unadulterated food of the same type they would choose to eat if not on a farm, and with enough space to mve avoid naturally and avoid stress from overcrowding; then slaughtered locally with minimum distress (although we probably agree that 'humane slaughter' is in practice a contradiction in terms and I am no advocate for the meat industry as it is).
                              Now who's being Naive?
                              Intensive farming makes more money, therefore it will continue.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                                Well I would disagree that it was farmers who caused foot and mouth or swine flu etc
                                Er, who fed healthy (non-carnivorous) animals with the mashed-up bits of animals of their own species? Was it:
                                a. farmers; or
                                b. the tooth fairy?
                                JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                                1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                                2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                                3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                                4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X