Poll: Artificial Meat?


New member
Feb 9, 2010
FirstNameLastName said:
Provided it tastes just as good, costs about the same, is just as nutritious and doesn't have some even worse drawback, then sure, why wouldn't I? It's not like many people live anything close to an all natural diet anyway. How many of you right now are eating some kind of processed junkfood or drinking something equally artificial?

Honestly, despite me unashamedly eating meat and having no regrets, nor any intentions of becoming vegetarian/vegan, whenever the topic of vegetarianism/veganism comes up I find myself embarrassed by the stupid arguments put forth by people who I'm ostensibly on the same side as.
"But what will become of all those animals that are yet to be slaughtered?"
"But if it weren't for meat we wouldn't be here today, therefore it is perfectly moral, just like all the other past actions of our society ..."
"But what about all the poor carrots? They're living things too, so isn't vegetarianism just as bad?"

Christ, get some new arguments, because these ones are cringe-worthy and seem to be brought out every time.

On a coincidental side note, I'm off to buy a meat-lovers' pizza.
I think the most important arguments against vegetarianism and veganism are the ones that counter their actual reason for becoming such in the first place. Namely, that vegetarianism (more correctly, veganism, in this case) is not, in fact, more healthy than an omnivorous diet and, in light of the fact that modern pesticides have a tendency to reduce the source of important vitamins like B12 (you can get that from bugs), it can actually lead to malnutrition. Also, the entire argument against killing/eating animals is absurd, considering the disastrous effects that agriculture itself has had on animals and ecosystems. Which would you guess has caused more animal extinctions? Hunters or farmers?

Also, having a child that interacts with other children, I see the effects of vegetarian or vegan children regularly. They are significantly behind in development. At 2 1/2 years old my daughter was more than a 1 1/2 years more developed than a 2 year old vegan acquaintance. That child was no more developed physically or mentally than a 1 year old. Where she appeared to be between the ages of 10-14 months and could barely form intelligible words (and was fat). My daughter, on the other hand, was thin, visibly well muscled, stood 9 inches taller and was coherently fluent in English. I see similar developmental retardation (meaning slow, don't get offended by proper use of words) in vegetarian Indian children at her school.

I have no problem with people who chose to be vegetarian or vegan. There are some perfectly acceptable reasons for choosing that, however, it is a choice that should be made with a full understanding of the risks/rewards and should never be forced onto someone that can't make that decision for themselves, like a child.


New member
Aug 13, 2009
It would depend on a myriad of factors including taste, texture, cost, resources required to produce it, nutritional value etc. If you could produce me a cut of steak where I couldn't tell the difference between real and artificial and it was comparable or better in terms of cost, nutrition etc. then sure why not.


Elite Member
Apr 12, 2020
United States
As long as it's nutritionally similar and culinarily similar to "real" meat, and has a price point nearly equal to or lower, I'd be all for it.

I don't oppose eating meat in anyway, but that's just efficient.

Most importantly, it's efficient in such a way that I get to eat stuff that's still meat-like. That's important to me.


Forum Title
May 6, 2012
If artificially developed meat became both economically viable and palatable, then I have to assume everyone would be eating it, know it or not. The exception would be the gourmets of the world, whose food is gradually - along with everyone else's food given the lack of viable artificial meat at the moment - getting more and more expensive with each passing year.

If you consider the deforestation required for the western meat diet of cattle, and the expense in otherwise good farm land taken up by growing food for said cattle, many countries import meat. A decline in the production of, lets call it 'cattle' for convenience sake, would necessarily drive up the price of a commodity. You'd have whole populations eating nothing but 'developed meat,' and as indebted to those creating it as they presently are to people creating cattle. Most nations can not sustain the basics required for the large scale consumption of cattle. So obviously the price of grown vegetables would likely begin to decline given that we're growing less and less to feed those cattle in cattle producing countries and able to grow more and more of other necessary vegetables put towards human consumption directly.

For those who think that western/wealthy nations and their populations would look down on 'cattle' eating nations... you're nuts. You've forgotten who owned the deer in England, sure wasn't the peasants. The same people who own the businesses that produce artificial meat will consume Cattle until those individuals or cattle are extinct. Artificial meat is for the common person. And as unpleasant as the concept may be at first, artificial meat could help in efforts to combat global warming and ensure food security in the years to come.


New member
Apr 3, 2010
rcs619 said:
I'm just saying
I'm just saying you've got to be really thick to think plants and animals are comparable here.

The idea behind fruit is that the plants NEED animals to eat them to spread the seeds ffs. There's no brain in plants, and no sense behind your ridiculous argument.

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
No, hell no. I don't think I'd trust lab grown "meat" at all. I prefer my meat fresh off the hoof. Call it meet because it sure as hell ain't meat.


New member
Sep 25, 2011
Depends on three answers to three questions:

Does it still taste at least as good as non-artificial meat?

Is it far more expensive than non-artificial meat?

Does it carry any dangerous risks (health, environment, etc.) from it being artificial?

If the answers are yes, no, and no, then I would switch to artificial meat in a heartbeat.


New member
Oct 11, 2009
The thing is, is that meat has different flavours, textures, fat distributions cooking times/preparations and what not between species. And that's not including the different methods of making meat based products like bacon and other cured meats.

If I want lamb. Then I'm going to buy lamb. If I want bacon? I'll buy bacon. I'm not going to buy prefab meat because there is no way you could replicate everything required to make it taste and feel like lamb when I'm masticating it without adding only God knows how many flavour enhancers to it.

That being said. We are fast reaching a point where the world is becoming unable to sustain us through normal means. If such a product could be made cheaply on mass with as little impact on the environment and the people eating it. Then hell yes! get that shit into the stores right away!


New member
Oct 5, 2011
Can't say I love the idea. Give me real (but sustainably/ethically produced) real meat any day.

On a practical note, I can't imagine vat-grown meat ever being economically superior to putting Mr Bull and Mrs Cow in a barn, letting nature take its course, and letting the Bullock family eat grass to fatten up. It might be a useful technology for eventual use by colonists on the moon or Mars (or any other place with a distinct lack of arable land).


New member
Jan 5, 2009
I know I would.

Heck creat clone meat. Less land used for cows. Nothing is tortured to death. Still wonder how peta will stay relvent if this happend.


Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
Pyrian said:
Yopaz said:
I mentioned that in my post. It was by grounding the central nervous system, either brain or bone marrow. Please don't quote me out of context.
I think my chosen quote was properly representative of your post (which is to say confusing and contradictory, specifically because you're using "cause" alternately as proximate and ultimate without specifying which), which is a lot more than I can say for you quoting my entire post to respond to one section in the middle.
I was quite clear that cannibalism had nothing to do in actually causing it. I mentioned that it didn't matter what species you fed to the animal as long as it contained prions. However, you insist on nitpicking so let me point out that what you said about eating brains is actually incorrect. It is caused by improperly folded proteins called prions that have greater stability than normal proteins which gives them a catalytic capability that makes them able to convert other healthy proteins to the same misfolded form. It is most commonly found within the CNS (which is more than just the brain), but it does not actually require that you eat the brain or the bone marrow to cause harm. There is also evidence that you might not have to eat it at all and that improper use of gloves or protection gear when handling infected meat can lead to the disease. So if you plan to correct me in the future, please don't quote me out of context and don't cite false information.

So. All known cases of spongiform encephalopathic prion disease involved eating central nervous systems - either as proximate or ultimate cause. Vat grown meat does not involve eating central nervous systems. Therefore, there is no reason to think it represents a heightened risk over normal meat, and may even reduce risk.
The first part is wrong and uses poor logic and shows lack of understanding of molecular biology and the second part is confusing. I have never made any such claim, why do you try to convince me about that? I haven't mentioned that as a risk even once, I just got into this discussion because of the misconception that cannibalism causes spongioform encephalopathy and tried to explain what causes it. Maybe if you didn't quote me out of context you would know tha, but you won't even admit that the part you quoted isn't representative of my entire post which explains the workings of prions and a brief explanation of how the whole thing started so I guess I won't expect you to admit that anything you say could ever be wrong.


New member
Oct 11, 2009
Dynast Brass said:
Have you read the ingredients in your bacon lately?
Yes. Yes I have. I'm also aware of the curing and smoking methods used to make the product as well.


Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
IOwnTheSpire said:
I've heard about scientists being able to create artificial meat, or in vitro meat, and it got me wondering what would happen if this became a mainsteam practice. Do you think we would have an ethical obligation to stop eating real meat (as in stop killing animals)? Would vegetarians/vegans be willing to eat artificial meat? What do you guys think?
What's it ACTUALLY made from? That's the crux of the matter.

Trippy Turtle

Elite Member
May 10, 2010
I'd still eat normal meat.
Cows and chickens would basically just die off anyway if we didn't breed them for food. I wouldn't say no to the fake meat but I wouldn't refuse to eat regular meat for some ethical reason.
I dislike killing things, but god damn. Killing for food is how the world works.
I mean, if they invented synthetic food would we all stop eating plants? Where does the ethics behind killing living things stop?