OK, my question is, will vegetarians be willing to eat this?

"I don't find it hard to believe that in vitro meat can be produced that tastes like hamburger or chicken nuggets," said Jason Matheny, one of the founders of Vive Research, a U.S. form working on growing meat for the global market. Most of the flavour in burgers and nuggets now sold in grocery stores or restaurants comes from seasoning or filler, he said.

Researchers have succeeded in growing bits of meat, the type that could be used in burgers or spaghetti sauce.

I mean vegetarians who are for ethical reasons, not because they don't like the taste of meat.

And speaking of ethics, here's a conundrum:

One group, which he would not name, did offer him money, but they wanted him to grow meat from human cells, so they could grow pieces of themselves to eat.

"I don't want to participate in high-tech human cannibalism," he said he told them.

Theoretically, he said, it would be possible. Researchers have harvested human myoblasts, cells that can grow into muscle fibre.

OK, so what would be wrong with that (ignoring the "yuck" factor)?

It kind of depends on why you think that cannibalism is wrong. In fact, it's akin to the dilemma of child p0rn that is produced without harming (or even utilizing) children. Is it wrong because someone else is hurt in the production of it, or is there something intrinsically wrong with it? In the case of the latter, the Supreme Court has ruled (at least it's my understanding) that the purpose of child-p0rn laws is to protect children from being molested in the production of the product, not (just) because the existence of child p0rn is perceived to be opposed to the best interests of society.

This seems similar to me. People will argue (as they do with synthetic p0rn) that having ready access to long pork may cause some people to want to experience the more gourmet version--the real thing, perhaps with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti, and should thus be made illegal, even though no persons are harmed in the manufacture of it.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's an interesting debate.

Bob the Angry Flower has often commented on this:

http://www.angryflower.com/meatsh.html
http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

I wonder if it would be kosher. (Or rather, who would consider it kosher, and who wouldn't.)

Surely the problem is market perception, not philosophy! I wouldn't want cannibalism associated with my product, either.

I'll be interested to see how the screamers react to vat-meat. On the one hand, it means no animal suffering. On the other hand, it's "artificial," so the same people will probably object on those grounds.

What they really want is for every human on Earth (that is, those that survive the Great Peoples' Purge) to live on a subsistence diet of brown rice and the occasional semi-edible tuber. That would be politically and environmentally acceptable.

mmmmm! I wonder if the various pooches would find vat-grown ex-MIL toothsome? ;o)

Leaving aside the other issues for now, this could really make a huge difference with the actual colonization (as opposed to exploration) of space.

How many people would refuse a job offworld because of things like primitive living conditions for years at a time? Inventions like this would help change that equation.

See "The Food of the Gods" by Arthur C. Clarke, vintage 1964.

Eric J, I don't think there'd be a halachic problem with vat grown meat products. As long as you don't "gender your animals with those of another kind" or use tissues that come from animals that have cloven hooves but who don't chew their cuds, and as long as you don't harvest behind the wrong rib, I think you'd probably be okay. My rabbi would probably not have much of a problem, but I'm reform so we get pretty flexible about things like this.

Jane is right. My grandfather was superintendent in what was then called a slaghter house. It's how the meat is raised and slaughtered that makes it pure.

If it isn't ever really raised or slaughtered, then it should pass kosher laws. I suspect it would be considered grown like vegetales.

the Supreme Court has ruled (at least it's my understanding) that the purpose of child-p0rn laws is to protect children from being molested in the production of the product, not (just) because the existence of child p0rn is perceived to be opposed to the best interests of society.

SCOTUS ruled that? That's news to me -- I thought even computer-generated child p-rn was illegal.