This week in class,
we discussed Chet Raymo's "A Measure of Restraint," an essay
discussing the possible negative effects of the kind of blindly advancing
scientific industry that exists today. He argues that what seem like
advancements are often detrimental to society. After exploring this phenomenon
in the context of radium and other radioactive material, he poses some chilling
questions about today's food industry, alluding to the practices of transgenics
and injecting hormones in order to mass-produce food items. In his musings about the
relationship between science and ethics, he attempts to demonstrate that
scientists and the general public should practice a "measure of
restraint" in their endeavors and take into account how their discoveries
and choices may affect society before they go forth with implementing their
desires.
While
perusing the internet, I came upon this video explaining and promoting "in
vitro meat" - something that Chet Raymo would highly disapprove of:
So the question is,
how will things change when (and I'm 99.2% sure it will) test tube meat becomes readily and widely
available? Of
course, there will be many health-related qualms before it becomes socially
accepted. Although (I assume) it will be identical to meat on a molecular level,
people will be skeptical of its nutritional value and whether it is safe to
consume. As a result, I'm sure that at least some form of the current meat
industry will remain long after in vitro meat becomes popular.
Nevertheless,
assuming that it is nutritionally identical to "real" meat and that
it becomes widely accepted, the next issue is whether it is ethical. Yes, it
would allow many to eat meat without the guilt of knowing that they have taken a
life. Yes, it would probably eliminate the necessity for hormones, food, and
antibiotics in sustaining the mass raising of animals. And yes, it could
potentially solve the mistreatment of animals - the disturbing treatment of
lives as factory products - that we saw in the video in class. Yet,
there is something so "Frankenstinian" about the idea of in vitro
meat that makes me cringe. Instinct dictates that there must be something wrong
with anything this artificial. Imagine the ability for scientists to simulate
beef, chicken, pork - even human meat. The next step for scientists naturally
seems to be the creation of life, and then creation of intelligent life, and so
on down this nightmarish path.
In
theory, in vitro meat seems like a great fix for the rampant unethical
practices of the food industry today. While I am in favor of its development
and will wholly support/consume test tube meat when it becomes available to the
consumer, the discoveries that its research may present as it progresses
terrify me.
Wow very interesting! I have never even heard of test tube meat, so it was really cool to learn about it and to see you relate it to Raymo's piece!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, your connections to how it could lead to the creation of human life are quite true. Just like in the Yale egg thingy, you're playing with fire, ethics wise. Creating meat is creating something alive, and that something has been created by man, so is it something that can be patented and sold? After all, the process is something that took time and resources to develop, but patenting the creation of life is no better than the Bokanovsky's Process in a Brave New World. (Deplorable lack of commas, btw.)
ReplyDelete*Meat isn't alive :)
Delete