Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: Saniflush on April 28, 2008, 01:55:38 PM
-
and says this isn't cruel or sketchy.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/22/peta_wants_test_tube_meat/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/22/peta_wants_test_tube_meat/)
PETA, the US Animal rights organization, is challenging scientists to create test-tube meat for a cash reward, in a similar vein as X Prize Foundation.
PETA announced today it will offer $1m to an organization that can successfully create and market "in vitro meat," i.e. muscle tissue grown without the pesky animal attached.
Click here to find out more!
To collect PETA's $1m carrot, scientists must develop a commercially marketable in vitro meat in just four years. At least they're first setting the bar down to creating a chicken flesh substitute, which reportedly tastes like every non-traditional animal in the known universe.
From PETA's website:
May we suggest...?
"PETA is offering a $1 million prize to the contest participant able to make the first in vitro chicken meat and sell it to the public by June 30, 2012. The contestant must do both of the following:
* Produce an in vitro chicken-meat product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh to non-meat-eaters and meat-eaters alike
* Manufacture the approved product in large enough quantities to be sold commercially, and successfully sell it at a competitive price in at least 10 states."
The prize, of course, is a publicity stunt made to direct attention to the all-too commonly deplorable conditions stock animals live in. Oh, and PETA also says that eating living creatures is bad, even despite the inconvenient truth that animals are made of nearly 50 per cent delicious, lip-smacking meat.
In vitro meat technology may also offer an environmentally friendly alternative to the immense amount of resources and land needed to raise animals on their journey from childhood to a delicate topping on a cracker at a fancy dinner party.
According to the New York Times, the in vitro meat challenge has sparked a "near civil war" amongst PETA workers who deplore the very idea of eating animal tissue. Even if its grown in a petri dish and doesn't go, "cluck cluck".
PETA says it will assemble a 10-judge panel to sample any in vitro meat submissions by taste and texture. The faux-chicken will be prepared using a vegetarian "chicken" recipe, and must score an 80 out of a possible 100 with the judges. ®
Bootnote
Shhh — nobody tell PETA that developing in vitro meat will probably require the killing of many, many living animals to get right. We'll keep it our savory little secret.
Disclosure: This article was written on an empty stomach.
-
I thought KFC was already doing this?
-
The idea of in vitro produced muscle tissue for consumption has to be one of the most repugnant ideas for a meat substitute that I've heard of!
:puke:
-
The idea of in vitro produced muscle tissue for consumption has to be one of the most repugnant ideas for a meat substitute that I've heard of!
:puke:
Just kills me that apparently if it has legs we can't eat it but fuck it if it is just some living tissue. Who gave these jackoffs the right to play God? Why are lesser celled organisms not as important as the cute fluffy ones? Just more double standard!
-
Just kills me that apparently if it has legs we can't eat it but fuck it if it is just some living tissue. Who gave these jackoffs the right to play God? Why are lesser celled organisms not as important as the cute fluffy ones? Just more double standard!
You're damn right on that!
I'm venturing into the realm of politics here but these same damn people probably don't have a problem funding the Planned Parenthood abortuariums either! I heard just yesterday that on average every 20 seconds a child is aborted in America...many times at federal government expense...talk about a damn shame! More than 52 million abortions have been done in the US since 1973; if only half of these children had lived we wouldn't need to import 20 million Hispanics to "do the work that Americans won't do."
I wonder how many people are going to burn in the hottest parts of hell over this issue?
-
Mmmmmm... Calamari steaks...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134482>1=10856
-
You know what I never understood about PETA? Why are more of them not dead. You see videos of them throwing paint on random women that have fur coats on. Could you imagine being the husband with them, that paid for that shit? I would want to remove some brain cages from necks. That being said, I hate PETA and I'm about to eat a shit ton of turkey that I hope was still alive as it was being cooked.
-
Just kills me that apparently if it has legs we can't eat it but fuck it if it is just some living tissue. Who gave these jackoffs the right to play God? Why are lesser celled organisms not as important as the cute fluffy ones? Just more double standard!
Plants Deserve Respect... :rofl:
Apr 14, 2008
GENEVA (AFP) — Plants deserve respect, a group of Swiss experts said Monday, arguing that killing them arbitrarily was morally wrong -- except when it comes to saving humans or maybe picking petals off a daisy.
In a report on "the dignity of the creature in the plant world," the federal Ethics Committee on non-human Gene Technology condemned the decapitation of flowers without reason, among other sins.
Still, commission member Bernard Baertsche suggested at a press conference the body weighed such cruel acts on a case-by-case basis, noting "the simple pleasure of picking the petals off a daisy might suffice as a reason."
Similarly "all action that involves plants in the aim to conserve the human species is morally justified," the commission, tasked to offer an ethical take on all areas of biotechnology and genetic engineering, said in its report.
Nor did the commission object to genetic engineering, since this did not threaten plants' "autonomy -- that is their capacity to reproduce or their capacity of adaptation."
And only a minority of the group's members objected to patenting plants, with the majority ruling the action did not infringe on "their moral value."
Do these people ever listen to themselves?