Meat made out of human feces

[Revy]

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/20110615/tc_digitaltrends/japanesescientistscreatesmeatoutoffeces)

The film Soylent Green was partly right, except Soylent Green is not people, it's people's shit.

It's probably not long before this gets added to fast food restaurants.


Somehow this feels like a Vonnegut plotline: population boom equals food shortage. Solution? Synthesize food from human waste matter. Absurd yes, but Japanese scientists (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/digitaltrends/tc_digitaltrends/storytext/japanesescientistscreatesmeatoutoffeces/41879182/SIG=125473hrp/*http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech//kajimto-lab-develops-ekiss/) have actually discovered a way to create edible steaks from human feces.

Mitsuyuki Ikeda, a researcher from the Okayama Laboratory, has developed steaks based on proteins from human excrement. Tokyo Sewage approached the scientist because of an overabundance of sewage mud. They asked him to explore the possible uses of the sewage and Ikeda found that the mud contained a great deal of protein because of all the bacteria.
The researchers then extracted those proteins, combined them with a reaction enhancer and put it in an exploder which created the artificial steak. The “meat” is 63% proteins, 25% carbohydrates, 3% lipids and 9% minerals. The researchers color the poop meat red with food coloring and enhance the flavor with soy protein. Initial tests have people saying it even tastes like beef.


Inhabitat (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/digitaltrends/tc_digitaltrends/storytext/japanesescientistscreatesmeatoutoffeces/41879182/SIG=130uthj38/*http://inhabitat.com/poop-burger-japanese-researcher-creates-artificial-meat-from-human-feces/) notes that “the meatpacking industry causes 18 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions, mostly due to the release of methane from animals.” Livestock also consume huge amounts of resources and space in efforts to feed ourselves as well as the controversy over cruelty to animals. Ikeda’s recycled poop burger would reduce waste and emissions, not to mention obliterating Dante’s circle for gluttons.


The scientists hope to price it the same as actual meat, but at the moment the excrement steaks are ten to twenty times the price they should be thanks to the cost of research. Professor Ikeda understands the psychological barriers that need to be surmounted knowing that your food is made from human feces. They hope that once the research is complete, people will be able to overlook that ugly detail in favor of perks like environmental responsibility (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/digitaltrends/tc_digitaltrends/storytext/japanesescientistscreatesmeatoutoffeces/41879182/SIG=13gdm6jva/*http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/japan-considers-national-solar-power-to-replace-nuclear-dependency/), cost and the fact that the meat will have fewer calories.


Waste not; want not.

[The Vegan Marxist]

This'll only help me remain a vegan.

[Comrade Lou]

I'd consider becoming a vegan honestly.
Seriously though; how easy wouldn't it be to miss removing some of the stuff that might make us extremely sick or kill us?
They have a point; it would be better for the environment, not to mention reduce the animal cruelty in the world. But I, as well as I'm sure most other people, would probably not even for a second consider eating it.
But who knows, future generations might find it totally normal.

[Fulanito de Tal]

See?! I'm wasn't lying when I said that I was eating shit all day.

[Hebrew Hammer]

This definately makes me say, what the fuck. I'm a combination of disgusted and interested (not in eating it). I also wonder if they told their test subjects that they were eating sheat (shit meat). I think it should be marketed as 'sheat'. Also, images of just saying fuck it, cutting out the middle man and inserting a tube up your ass that leads to your mouth comes to mind. I also, despite reading this, think this surely can't be healthy.

[ZeroNowhere]

If it tastes good, and isn't too bad for one's health, I don't see why not. I mean, I come to Revleft regularly, I'm clearly not too squeamish about getting close to shit.

[cu247]

I would probably eat it if I didn't know what it was. But anyway, this is gross, but scientifically interesting too! And environmentally it's great...but I don't feel like eating feces sadly

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Thankfully I don't eat meat and don't have a desire to eat steaks or whatever else might pretend to be one. I can't imagine this taking off amongst potential shit eaters though, if you care that much about animal cruelty and the like, you can always just go vegetarian. How many people are going to think 'I don't like the thought of eating animals any more, but thankfully I can go to the shop and get some shit burgers instead'?

[Hebrew Hammer]

Thankfully I don't eat meat and don't have a desire to eat steaks or whatever else might pretend to be one. I can't imagine this taking off amongst potential shit eaters though, if you care that much about animal cruelty and the like, you can always just go vegetarian. How many people are going to think 'I don't like the thought of eating animals any more, but thankfully I can go to the shop and get some shit burgers instead'?

This meat-eater would gladly eat veggie burgers or become Vegetarian if sheat burgers becomes the only other option.

[Bright Banana Beard]

vegan human shit, now they wont taste good at most.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For all those people going "EEW, how gross!" Just what do you think is in the soil that your food grows in? How many bladders has the water you've just taken a sip of passed through?

[The Vegan Marxist]

For all those people going "EEW, how gross!" Just what do you think is in the soil that your food grows in? How many bladders has the water you've just taken a sip of passed through?

There's a big difference between food fertilized in shit, which eventually get cleaned down before being sold, and food that's made out of shit! lol

[Tim Finnegan]

This'll only help me remain a vegan.
Strictly speaking, wouldn't synthetic meat be vegan anyway?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Strictly speaking, wouldn't synthetic meat be vegan anyway?

I'm a strict vegan. Meaning that I don't eat or use anything made out of anything relating to animals. And, scientifically speaking, humans are animals. So I'd still be technically going against my strict veganism. But I see your point.

[Sasha]

its an hoax....
http://www.the9billion.com/2011/06/23/poop-burger-hoax-catchy-meat-alternative-or-just-plain-nauseating/

[The Vegan Marxist]

its an hoax....
http://www.the9billion.com/2011/06/23/poop-burger-hoax-catchy-meat-alternative-or-just-plain-nauseating/

The article states they're not sure it's a hoax, but they're pretty sure. Though, I also recently heard Ray Kurzweil state that Japanese scientists have developed such as well.

[scarletghoul]

oh cool they can make meat out of faeces, that will really make the world a better place

now wheres that cure for cancer

[Revy]

Apparently it's an old story.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/23/japan_feces_meat_viral/Picture_52.png

But Mitsuyuki Ikeda seems to be a real person from Okayama, who writes about the environment. At least that part is true. It looks like a hoax, though, I guess. I just took it seriously because well, nothing like this really surprises me anymore.

http://ita.arpalombardia.it/ita/ed_amb/Santiago.pdf#page=680

[Blackburn]

Logical extension of "Cart and Sparrow" economics.

[∞]

Quite a shitty steak, if you ask me...

[The Vegan Marxist]

Hey, at least now we can crack the "Hold the flies, please" joke at Burger King or McDonalds every time we make an order for the Shit Burger! :lol:

[caramelpence]

Meaning that I don't eat or use anything made out of anything relating to animals. And, scientifically speaking, humans are animals.

So you would never accept a blood transfusion?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I guess eating this crap would make you a 'fegan' then.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Hey, at least now we can crack the "Hold the flies, please" joke at Burger King or McDonalds every time we make an order for the Shit Burger! :lol:

I heard somewhere that McDonald's burgers contain a certain amount of feces anyway. Animal feces, yes, but feces nonetheless. I remember the testimonial being something like 'its natural that a bit of shit ends up in the meat' - this was coming from someone high up in the McDonald's corporation.

Its something to do with the way meat is processed, apparently most of it ends up with a bit of shit in it.

[Sasha]

So you would never accept a blood transfusion?

i would assume that the issue for leftist vegetarians/vegans would be consent/abuse, i there for would see no reason human products, if "harvested" without abuse/with consent should be a no go area.

[CommieTroll]

I'd actually consider eating this if its healthier and cheaper (not likely) than regular meat:thumbup1:

[MattShizzle]

This was a hoax btw.

[caramelpence]

i would assume that the issue for leftist vegetarians/vegans would be consent/abuse, i there for would see no reason human products, if "harvested" without abuse/with consent should be a no go area.

Agreed, which was why I found it puzzling when TVM suggested that they would not use any human products solely because they consider humans to be animals and object to the use of animal products. Assuming that they would accept blood transfusions, and accepting their belief that humans and organisms like cows should be seen as part of the same basic category, there must be something other than their membership of that category (i.e. the category of being animals) that makes it wrong, from the viewpoint of TVM, to use animal products or to use human products in certain ways. The presence or absence of consent would be sensible in that context. I'm not trying to question TVM's dietary choices, that's their own business, I just thought I would point out that their initial characterization of the philosophical basis for those choices seems problematic.

For me, personally, I find it necessary to question whether the concepts of consent and abuse are even applicable to animals before assuming or investigating whether animals consent or do not consent to being eaten.

[Sir Comradical]

"Eat recycled food, it's good for the environment and okay for you" - Judge Dred

[Queercommie Girl]

For me, personally, I find it necessary to question whether the concepts of consent and abuse are even applicable to animals before assuming or investigating whether animals consent or do not consent to being eaten.

From a materialist perspective, animal abuse is applicable, at least for those species with a sufficiently developed nervous system, in particular a vertebrate central nervous system, because it is highly likely that these animals can feel pain and suffer in some ways, including in ways which are not fundamentally different to how humans experience them, and therefore it makes ethical sense to minimise pain and suffering for these animals as much as possible.

The matter of "consent" though is much more problematic. Only a handful of higher animal species (mostly a few mammals of the Primates and Cetacea orders) can pass the "mirror test", which shows they have some level of self-awareness similar to humans. It is difficult to elaborate on exactly what "consent" means for animals without even a rudimentary level of self-awareness.

I'm subscribing to the "hard materialist" view on the philosophy of mind, which is to say, fundamentally the "mind" is nothing but the physical brain, and mental-psychological states directly correspond to brain structures in the physical sense and to concrete behaviour in the empirical sense. All metaphysical or metaphysical-like questions are completely avoided and treated as totally meaningless.

The basic logic is like this:

1) Humans can feel pain and suffering due to the existence of certain brain structures, nothing more;
2) Some animals also have very similar brain structures;
3) Therefore these animals must be able to also feel pain and suffering, since pain and suffering is nothing more than the psychological manifestations of the underlying neural structure;
4) Therefore these animals should have some basic rights to prevent animal abuse, and to minimise pain and suffering as much as possible.

[caramelpence]

From a materialist perspective, animal abuse is applicable

No, it's a great deal more complex than this. Whether the concept of abuse can be applied to animals is not really about whether animals can feel pain or not (they can, that much I accept) because the idea of abuse, as it is applied in political and philosophical language, refers to experiences or actions that transgress an accepted set of standards concerning how a particular type of being should be treated. In other words, when we say that a human being has been subject to abuse or that certain kinds of behaviour are abusive, what we are saying, properly understood, is that there are certain standards of behavior concerning how people should be treated and that those standards have been transgressed, with negative moral consequences. What those standards are arises from processes of society-wide debate and input by important but not necessarily majoritarian groupings, and the way that abuse is applied in the discourse of human beings suggests that we see abuse not merely as a matter of the amount of pain that beings experience but also the source of pain and the presence or absence of consent on the part of the pain-experiencing agent - that is the difference between torture and a woman going through labour, in that we see the former as abusive whereas we do not apply the same language to the latter. If you see abuse as a cultural and linguistic concept, which I think we should, then it is problematic and even downright absurd to say that there is such a thing as animal abuse or that animals are being abused because animals are not capable of having the kind of moral discourses that can generate standards of acceptable behavior and views on what counts as the transgression of moral standards. I would go so far as to say that the concept of "animal abuse" is nonsensical in terms of ordinary language unless it is accepted that the standards of what is legitimate and illegitimate when it comes to how animals can be treated can be human in origin rather than articulated by animals themselves.

Similarly, I question your unsupported assertion that the simple ability to experience pain means that animals should enter into a moral calculus. If accepted, that position would also yield the conclusion that the wellbeing fetuses deserves to be included in our moral decision-making. I think morality itself has to be viewed as specific to humans based on our particular psychological faculties and socio-cultural contexts.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Well, vegetarianism, or possibly veganism, it is then.

[Olentzero]

If it's good enough for the hyenas (http://youtu.be/obeC5dMvZww)...

[Queercommie Girl]

No, it's a great deal more complex than this. Whether the concept of abuse can be applied to animals is not really about whether animals can feel pain or not (they can, that much I accept) because the idea of abuse, as it is applied in political and philosophical language, refers to experiences or actions that transgress an accepted set of standards concerning how a particular type of being should be treated. In other words, when we say that a human being has been subject to abuse or that certain kinds of behaviour are abusive, what we are saying, properly understood, is that there are certain standards of behavior concerning how people should be treated and that those standards have been transgressed, with negative moral consequences. What those standards are arises from processes of society-wide debate and input by important but not necessarily majoritarian groupings, and the way that abuse is applied in the discourse of human beings suggests that we see abuse not merely as a matter of the amount of pain that beings experience but also the source of pain and the presence or absence of consent on the part of the pain-experiencing agent - that is the difference between torture and a woman going through labour, in that we see the former as abusive whereas we do not apply the same language to the latter. If you see abuse as a cultural and linguistic concept, which I think we should, then it is problematic and even downright absurd to say that there is such a thing as animal abuse or that animals are being abused because animals are not capable of having the kind of moral discourses that can generate standards of acceptable behavior and views on what counts as the transgression of moral standards. I would go so far as to say that the concept of "animal abuse" is nonsensical in terms of ordinary language unless it is accepted that the standards of what is legitimate and illegitimate when it comes to how animals can be treated can be human in origin rather than articulated by animals themselves.

Similarly, I question your unsupported assertion that the simple ability to experience pain means that animals should enter into a moral calculus. If accepted, that position would also yield the conclusion that the wellbeing fetuses deserves to be included in our moral decision-making. I think morality itself has to be viewed as specific to humans based on our particular psychological faculties and socio-cultural contexts.


Sorry, but I don't like abstract philosophy so much. For me common sense usually works better. You sound like a lawyer who is deliberately trying to defend a criminal who you know has actually committed the crime because you've been paid to do so.

Animals can feel pain, and they generally want to avoid pain. Therefore it seems to me that it is pointless to cause pain to animals unless it is absolutely necessary, since pain is a negative thing. This is especially the case when animals are abused and killed for useless things, such as research into cosmetics, leather handbags and furcoats which frankly humanity does not really need anyway.

If you say only those who have the capability of "moral discourse" have the right to be spared from abuse, then what about mentally retarded humans whose effective IQ aren't much more than those of many animals. Do people who are completely mentally retarded not deserve any basic human rights? :rolleyes:

Rights are not dependent upon intelligence as such, but are dependent upon the ability to respond to negative stimuli.

I also question the idea that abuse is intrinsically linked to consent. I would say for instance that humans should not have the free right to voluntarily subject themselves to torture, just like people do not have the free right to sell themselves into slavery even if they really want to and all parties involved consent to it.

You are right in that moral standards are (to a significant extent at least) democratically decided. But this implies that if many people agree that animals should have some basic rights, then by the principle of democracy this must be seriously considered. It is pointless to debate about ethics in a purely abstract sense. In fact, I think it is pointless to debate about anything in a purely abstract sense. Smash all metaphysics!



I would go so far as to say that the concept of "animal abuse" is nonsensical in terms of ordinary language unless it is accepted that the standards of what is legitimate and illegitimate when it comes to how animals can be treated can be human in origin rather than articulated by animals themselves.
Yes, I don't see anything wrong at all with humans decide for animals what is best for them. In the future if AI rules over humanity they might decide what is best for us too. (See the "humans become pets in the rise of machines" thread in this sub-forum) The idea that only the individual himself/herself/itself can decide what is best for himself/herself/itself is liberal individualist nonsense. It's no different from how parents can decide what is best for their children, and how those with normal IQs can decide what is best for mentally retarded people, or indeed how human masters decide what is best for their animal pets.

It seems you come from a Western Judeo-Christian philosophical tradition in which it is more important to respect "free will" than to respect the right of not to suffer. I, on the other hand, come from an Asian Buddhist philosophical tradition in which it is more important to prevent the suffering of others than it is to respect the "free will" of others. To be frank I'd rather be a literal slave without freedom but genuinely well cared-for than a totally free individual but one who is living in a darwinian "survival of the fittest" jungle. I see happiness as intrinsically more important than freedom.

You think it's absurd to talk about preventing animal abuse, I think it's absurd to even ponder about whether or not animals can give consent given that they are not self-aware in the same way that humans are. In other words, it is absurd to talk about "animal freedom", either positively or negatively.

[caramelpence]

Sorry, but I don't like abstract philosophy so much. For me common sense usually works better. You sound like a lawyer who is deliberately trying to defend a criminal who you know has actually committed the crime because you've been paid to do so.

I don't like abstract philosophy either, but I am interested in the deployment of political and moral languages, and decoding those languages, and my basic point is that the concept of abuse is conventional and discursive rather than inherent in the experiences of biological entities. When human beings speak in terms of abuse, and particularly the abuse of human beings, we are implicitly referring to a set of conventional standards on how human beings deserve to be treated - those standards can differ across time and space and they are made up of multiple components, such as the intensity and source of pain. As for humans who are mentally disabled, the issue isn't whether individual humans are capable of moral discourse, the issue is that our ability to speak in terms of concepts like abuse relies on human beings having a certain set of capabilities that animals do not have. The same is true of other concepts like consent and rights - these concepts are not part of the psychological universe of animals, as they do not have the requisite faculties to understand what they mean, whereas humans do, which is why we regularly deploy them in our political and moral languages.

Considered as an artefact of language it seems pretty clear to me that, as it is deployed, what counts as abuse is related to consent. As I pointed out in my last post, there are experiences that probably involve the same gross amount and intensity of pain as experiences that we would definitely see as abusive - for example, the experience of childbirth might well involve the same level and amount of pain as prolonged torture. But people generally do not see childbirth as abusive, whereas torture is seen as a paradigmatic example of abuse, and so there must be something other than the simple experience of pain that influences when and how we apply the concept of torture in our languages and discourses. There are, I believe, other components behind abuse as well - one of these is surely consent, because a crucial characteristic of the torture situation is the absence of consent and a desire by a separate agent, the torturer, to inflict pain. What I am interested in, to repeat, is not arriving at some abstract or deductive understanding of abuse, or any other kind of abstract moral philosophy, instead I am interested in looking at how human beings and political agents deploy abuse and other forms of language in determinate contexts. I think it's important to look at rights in the same way, rather than assuming their existence as basic moral entities, whereas you seem more willing to assume that beings do and should have rights rather than considering what it means to speak in terms of rights and what role rights play in our discourses.

[Queercommie Girl]

my basic point is that the concept of abuse is conventional and discursive rather than inherent in the experiences of biological entities. When human beings speak in terms of abuse, and particularly the abuse of human beings, we are implicitly referring to a set of conventional standards on how human beings deserve to be treated - those standards can differ across time and space and they are made up of multiple components, such as the intensity and source of pain.


But the natural experience of pain and suffering came long before the abstract discourse of abuse. The natural capacity to feel pain and suffering is the material basis for any moral conception of abuse. Where do you think humans came from? Where in the history of human evolution would you draw a line and say: "beyond this point we have humans who are capable of moral discourse and therefore the principle of not to be abused would apply, but before this point in time we cannot talk in this manner"?

Would you consider the cavemen who lived 50,000 years ago as being capable of moral discourse? What about homo erectus 1 million years ago? Or do you think the morality of abuse only emerged with the beginning of literate civilisations a few thousand years ago?



for example, the experience of childbirth might well involve the same level and amount of pain as prolonged torture. But people generally do not see childbirth as abusive, whereas torture is seen as a paradigmatic example of abuse, and so there must be something other than the simple experience of pain that influences when and how we apply the concept of torture in our languages and discourses.
Objectively this is false, child-birth is nothing like torture. However, at any rate this is a very special case which you have deliberately picked up solely for the sake of this argument.

I would say in the vast majority of cases, humans should not have the free right to give consent to torture.



I think it's important to look at rights in the same way, rather than assuming their existence as basic moral entities, whereas you seem more willing to assume that beings do and should have rights rather than considering what it means to speak in terms of rights and what role rights play in our discourses.
I don't consider "rights" to be metaphysical. In fact, I consider human rights and animals rights to be completely different in the fundamental sense. Human rights are based on, as you say, our own moral discourses. Animals rights are based on what humans think is best for animals, since animals have no capability to think about this themselves. You might see this as somewhat problematic, but I don't. I don't see anything wrong intrinsically with a moral system that does not involve "free will" at all. (For instance, an ethics for slaves imposed on them by their slavelord masters without their consent at all)

But animal rights have an objective social reality in the sense that many humans, such as animal rights activists, do believe in them and act according to them. It's certainly not something that can just be rejected simplistically in a purely abstract sense.

Animal rights are also partly linked to environmental conservation issues. In this case it is actually in humanity's self-interest to consider it seriously before our contemporary capitalist system damages the Earth's environment further.