True Blood, In-Vitro Meat, and Human Compassion

Recently I was watching HBO’s vampire series True Blood. This got me thinking: If a more powerful life form has developed a synthetic, cruelty-free way to feed themselves, then why can’t human beings? The parallel is not exact. Vampires must drink blood to survive. Human beings can live without consuming animal flesh. But for most, the craving for meat (and the social pressure to eat it) is too strong to resist.

I have been a vegetarian for 14 years with a short period about 3 years ago when I ate meat occasionally. During that time, I succumbed to social pressure and just didn’t think about what I was eating. I think most people would rather not think about it and because (in this culture) it is widely accepted as normal, most people just keep eating what they want.

A 2008 study showed that more meat was eaten worldwide last year that at any other time in history (not sure how long statistics have been kept on this). Meat is a luxury and as developing nations advance economically, more meat will be consumed (see India and China). This means, generally, more environmental problems from land degradation, animal waste and methane gas (cow farts).

When I first read about in-vitro meat production in the University of Chicago Alumni Magazine http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0906/features/future_fillet.shtml), I was repulsed. And although I would probably never eat it, if it reduces animal suffering and environmental degradation, then I am willing to lend my support.
Vampires (I assume) are not real and human beings are in the fortunate position to be the most powerful creatures on this planet. But what if we were not? Would we object to being breed and slaughtered for the consumption of another species? Would we not try to convince the “higher” species that they could synthesize human flesh?

For more information, see http://invitromeat.org/content/view/12/55/

A (maybe not so) Hypothetical Question

If you won 1 Million USD and you had to give it away to one or more organizations, which ones would you give to and why? Discuss.

The Life You Can Save - Creating a Culture of Giving

Peter Singer argues in his latest book (http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com)

1. Suffering and death from lack of food/shelter/medical care are bad.
2. If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
3. By donating to aid agencies (the good ones who do good work), you/we can prevent suffering and death without much personal sacrifice.
4. If we do not donate, we are going something wrong.

Its hard to find fault with his argument. I want to find fault. You mean, if I buy that new flat-screen and spend money on something I don't need, then I am doing something wrong?

Singer goes on to defend many of the most levied-criticisms and common objections to giving. More interesting (to me at least) is his description of research showing why people give and why they don't.

1. We are more likely to give if we think that others are already doing it.
2. We are more likely to give if the person/people we are giving to are identifiable.
3. We are less likely to give when we think the situation is futile.
4. We are less likely to give if the responsibility for helping does not rest entirely on us. The phenomena is known as "The Diffusion of Responsibility."

This book has got me thinking about what I give and why and how much I give. In tough economic times, people are giving less and less especially to those groups serving the poorest of the poor.

TheLifeYouCanSave's challenge is simple. You can view he pledge here. http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/pledge/pledge.php?curr_country=171&lang=EN

For me, its about 2% of my annual income. Not really that much. I did it (still researching who to give to). And if all American taxpayers did it, 471 billion would be raised.

Happy Giving,
Brent