The farmers' dilemma: Meat, means, and morality.

Evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that we need to drastically reduce our consumption of animal products for reasons related to the environment and public health, while moral concerns about the treatment of animals in agriculture are becoming ever more common. As governments increasingly recognize the need to change our food production and alternative protein products become more appealing to consumers, agriculture finds itself in a unique period of transition. How do farmers respond to the changing atmosphere? We present secondary analyses of qualitative and quantitative data to highlight some of the uncertainty and ambivalence about meat production felt throughout the farming community. Survey data from France and Germany reveals that in both countries, those who work in the meat industry have significantly higher rates of meat avoidance than those who do not work in the industry. While non-meat-industry workers are more likely to cite concerns for animals or the environment, meat industry workers more often cite concerns about the healthiness or safety of the products. Concurrently, interviews with people who raise animals for a living suggest that moral concerns among farmers are growing but largely remain hidden; talking about them openly was felt as a form of betrayal. We discuss these findings in the context of the ongoing agricultural transition, observe how tension has manifested as polarization among Dutch farmers, and offer some thoughts about the role of farmers in a new world of alternative proteins.

Cultured meat: every village its own factory?

Rising global demand for meat will result in increased environmental pollution, energy consumption, and animal suffering. Cultured meat, produced in an animal-cell cultivation process, is a technically feasible alternative lacking these disadvantages, provided that an animal-component-free growth medium can be developed. Small-scale production looks particularly promising, not only technologically but also for societal acceptance. Economic feasibility, however, emerges as the real obstacle.

Emerging Profiles for Cultured Meat; Ethics through and as Design.

The development of cultured meat has gained urgency through the increasing problems associated with meat, but what it might become is still open in many respects. In existing debates, two main moral profiles can be distinguished. Vegetarians and vegans who embrace cultured meat emphasize how it could contribute to the diminishment of animal suffering and exploitation, while in a more mainstream profile cultured meat helps to keep meat eating sustainable and affordable. In this paper we argue that these profiles do not exhaust the options and that (gut) feelings as well as imagination are needed to explore possible future options. On the basis of workshops, we present a third moral profile, "the pig in the backyard". Here cultured meat is imagined as an element of a hybrid community of humans and animals that would allow for both the consumption of animal protein and meaningful relations with domestic (farm) animals. Experience in the workshops and elsewhere also illustrates that thinking about cultured meat inspires new thoughts on "normal" meat. In short, the idea of cultured meat opens up new search space in various ways. We suggest that ethics can take an active part in these searches, by fostering a process that integrates (gut) feelings, imagination and rational thought and that expands the range of our moral identities.

Empathy's purity, sympathy's complexities; De Waal, Darwin and Adam Smith.

Frans de Waal's view that empathy is at the basis of morality directly seems to build on Darwin, who considered sympathy as the crucial instinct. Yet when we look closer, their understanding of the central social instinct differs considerably. De Waal sees our deeply ingrained tendency to sympathize (or rather: empathize) with others as the good side of our morally dualistic nature. For Darwin, sympathizing was not the whole story of the "workings of sympathy"; the (selfish) need to receive sympathy played just as central a role in the complex roads from sympathy to morality. Darwin's understanding of sympathy stems from Adam Smith, who argued that the presence of morally impure motives should not be a reason for cynicism about morality. I suggest that De Waal's approach could benefit from a more thorough alignment with the analysis of the workings of sympathy in the work of Darwin and Adam Smith.