Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins recently pushed the idea that lab-grown human meat could eliminate society’s long-standing aversion to cannibalism.
“I’ve long been looking forward to this,” the outspoken scientist tweeted. “What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?”
Dawkins went on to argue lab-grown meat could provide an interesting ethical argument — on one side, human meat produced for consumption means nothing has to die but, for most, the idea is too repulsive to consider, making it nearly impossible to attempt.
Lab meat, also referred to as “in-vitro” or “clean” meat, is grown from a few stem cells taken from a living creature. It was first consumed at a news conference in London in 2013 and was reportedly “a bit dry” by the two taste testers.
Lab-grown meat is seen by most as a hard pass. An American study published in 2017 in the journal PLOS ONE found that although about 66% of the country is willing to try clean meat, only about a third could see themselves adding it to their diets.
“On average, people see clean meat as more ethical and environmental than farmed meat, but less natural, tasty and appealing,” the study’s co-author Matti Wilks said.
The study also found vegetarians were among the least likely to consider eating meat grown in a lab — an opinion widely shared by most people who said they would never consider cannibalism, even if the meat was never part of a living person.
But perhaps in the future opinions will shift.
“I can’t imagine that people who don’t want to eat human meat now would suddenly feel motivated to eat human meat when produced via cellular agriculture,” Wilks said. “Right now, I believe it is seen somewhat as a future technology, but once it’s tangible, I think that will change.”
