existing online while caring abt animal welfare and knowing that a wild animal in a house is not having its needs met and a proper facility for taking care of big cats isnt gonna let people cuddle with them means that every now and then people online post the rough equivalent of a dog being kicked and you always have to choose between swallowing that upset and being the Unfun Asshole who goes "hey why is that raccoon wearing a pink collar"
insanely proud of how this coat turned out. i finished it in time for a taxidermy/oddities expo tomorrow.
vintage bobcat vest i just added some SAGA fox dyed sleeves + collar on to, added some pockets, and reshaped some of the skins. it's going to be so fun to wear :-)
leopard seal topic activated; i am so sorry to my long time followers who have seen me do this like ten times but i just can't help myself
OH MY GOD
That is a monster (respectful) If it was a lizard it would be a dragon.
They can be bigger than the biggest grizzly bears. They are about the size of a horse, just without the stilt legs. And their faces are hiding teeth like this (sorry it's kind of gross but it shows the teeth best)
Here's a leopard seal skull next to a horse skull
they can get as big as 12 feet and can weigh like 1,200 pounds. They can swim 35 miles an hour and eat only meat - regularly eating giant penguins that weigh more than 100 pounds each, and anything else they feel like they can kill. And they're pretty smart. Only an Orca is a more dangerous hunter in arctic waters, and even they usually leave a leopard seal alone.
A seal's closest land relative is a bear, and leopard seals will regularly hunt other seals, making this a bear that eats bears, but built for the ocean. You know, the terrifying ocean? A bear that lives there that eats the other bears that live there.
Have we found a solution to animal cruelty and environmental damage?
You can also read this article on my Substack.
Cultured meat, popularly known as lab-grown meat, is quickly rising to be a hot topic of conversation at the intersection of agriculture, technology, and environmentalism. There’s an obvious bias of mine to be addressed here - I raise meat animals (rabbits, namely). That being said, this is not a rejection of the potential for cultured meat to have a future, which you might assume from my background. I am not making an argument against the technology existing. Rather, I’ve found the conversation to stay narrowly fixed on only a select few elements, and I wish to explore the discussion more broadly on all sides. I’m making an argument for expanding the conversation and investigating the gray areas.
The two main points of discussion regarding cultured meat are (a) reducing environmental impacts of intensive farming, and (b) removing cruelty from the consumption of animal products. I think only addressing these things is a vast and dangerous oversimplification of the topic, but it’s a good place to start.
The general premise of sustainability comes from the notion that cultured meat requires less land, water, and produces fewer emissions such as methane. Understandably, then, Edward Spang’s research pre-print that cultured meat could cause 25x the emissions of traditional meat farming caused quite a ruckus. I think the notions of this research shouldn’t be wholly discarded, but a deeper dive demonstrates that Spang’s results are not to be taken as inevitable truth. Besides not being peer-reviewed yet, the paper also only took into account the highest energy demand materials and methods that can be used for cultured meat, whereas companies that hope to produce cultured meat for wider sale are finding lower-energy (and thus lower-cost) mediums and methodology. Jess Krieger, CEO of cultured meat company Ohayo Valley, states that the intensive purification, pharmaceutical-grade cell mediums, and costly reactors factoring into Spang’s research will not be used at a consumer scale. Other researchers have estimated that cultured meat could, rather, reduce greenhouse gas emissions of meat production by up to 95%. The keyword here, however, is estimated. Eric Schulze, VP of global scientific and regulatory affairs for cultured meat company Upside Foods, admits that “we will need to be producing at a larger scale to truly measure and start to see the impact that we want to have.” Spang’s controversial “25x more emissions” results comes from the ways that cultured meat is currently done at a small scale in a lab environment, not at a large, consumer scale. When the aforementioned CEO Jess Krieger addressed these results, she stated that “this is not how we’re going to be doing it in the future.” However, we aren’t at the point of how it will be done at a consumer scale yet, and thus we do not have a concrete understanding of what that will require and the environmental costs of starting up these systems. As Spang said, “The leap from lab-scale science to cost-effective climate impact—there’s a substantial amount of distance there, in my opinion.”
The main environmental issue is that cultured meat inevitably requires a high energy input directly from the power grid, demanding greater fossil fuel consumption. The intensive drilling to harvest these fossil fuels, interfering in oil-rich countries to guarantee a supply, then processing and distributing these fossil fuels that then turn into pollutants is a chain of events that is frequently ignored. Could we see cultured meat move instead to sustainable power, like solar and wind? Surely that could be an option, but the lobbying of gas and oil companies on US policy and companies against sustainable energy is a vast topic that is completely outside of the purview of this essay. Right now, we are seeing the appalling demands of power going to AI, putting a vast strain on power grids leading to higher bills for consumers everywhere, vast usage of water redirected from residential consumption and agriculture, and massive amounts of fossil fuel input then contributing vast pollution. These technologies could rely on sustainable energy, but the fastest and easiest method is simply to default to fossil fuel usage. Our society and the “big tech” sector latch onto and hype up these new technologies, letting them get established before demanding accountability and sustainability. I abhor the idea of allowing cultured meat to be the next big tech trend allowed to “move fast and break things” without regard for the harmful externalities. There’s ways to power cultured meat sustainably, but we need to demand that it be the standard first, not after it’s established and harder to change.
All that being said, I don’t necessarily doubt that cultured meat has the potential to be less environmentally costly than intensive factory-farming, if we do manage to pursue low-footprint methods and technologies - but in all this research and discussion, I find it curious that the conversation frames this as either-or of factory farming or cultured meat as the only options. Where’s the small scale farmers or responsibly wild-hunted meat? Western culture does an impressive job of repeatedly forgetting that indigenous cultures did just fine at harvesting meat without massive environmental damage for an awfully long time before global capitalism accelerated climate change. For one thing, responsible small scale farming is undeniably better for the environment when it integrates plant, human, and animal health than factory farming, and we have no data comparing that to the potential of cultured meat. Additionally, this talk all seems to revolve around large livestock. I’ve long thought that Westerners need to start to let go of their hangups on what is or isn’t an edible animal. Rabbits and guinea pigs are some of the most sustainable forms of meat out there, requiring a drastically smaller physical footprint, water input, and energy input than something like cattle, with vastly reduced emission output and useful byproducts (“cold-compostable” manure). I have yet to see cultured meat research address that we have more meat options than cows and pigs. I have my suspicions that a massive laboratory-factory hybrid of cultured meat may not be as environmentally sustainable as a thoughtfully-run operation of raising a small but energy efficient meat animal such as rabbits - but we simply don’t know.
Part of my concern regarding environmental impact relates to the fact that people forget that meat for eating is not the only thing that comes from raising meat animals, and many byproducts have a positive environmental impact. Bonemeal is used for soil amending, bone char for purification. Fat is rendered down for cooking, soaps, and more. Cattle skins are turned to leather. Offcuts and undesirable meats are used to produce pet foods. In small farm operations, undesirable parts such as digestive systems are composted directly back into the farm, and manure is used for fertilizer. We are good at forgetting it, but all life - animal, plant, human - is invariably cyclical, and we need animal inputs to sustain plant outputs. People will continue to need and want bone meal, blood meal, feather meal, and manure for their gardens and crops, and something will need to take the place of all these products if the supply suddenly shrinks.
But what about the other big question - can cultured meat remove cruelty from the food chain? Many find it desirable that animals will not need to be hurt or killed to produce animal products from cultured sources. As someone who was previously vegetarian and ate very little animal products in general - until it became clear that my nutrient needs were not being met - I understand that some people cannot be truly healthy without animal products, but struggle with the ethics of it. There’s no denying that factory farms are cruel. They’re abominations. No creature should have to live like that; no person should have to work in those conditions. In fact, I firmly believe that people need to be more comfortable with eating less meat; it doesn’t need to be part of your food every day, much less every single meal. We shouldn’t need factory farms; I want us to be able to rely on small farms and wild food, not factory farms. And while not all small farms are prioritizing animal welfare, it’s a vast difference from factory farms, and I do believe we can move towards a future where small-scale farms treat all animals with dignity (especially given that they don’t have the millions required to lobby against regulation and accountability).
Still, though, some people will never find it acceptable to kill an animal for sustenance. To be honest, I think that’s fine. I think ethical and moral consistency is more important than agreeing with me on everything. However, ethical and moral consistency in a “cruelty-free” diet or lifestyle means addressing all forms of cruelty.
The problem with factory farming is that it’s a byproduct of industrialism and capitalism. The scale, the demand to lower costs for the c-suite and investors, the need to exploit human and non-human life - it’s all a byproduct of our imperialistic, capitalist society. As I stated before, indigenous cultures did just fine with humane, sustainable meat consumption for generations before we moved to the appalling systems we use today. Cultured meat cannot exist outside that framework - a framework that demands exploitation - at least, not anytime soon. As research and companies themselves stated, scaling up the production of cultured meat is what will allow more efficient, sustainable options to be pursued. It’s simply not something that can be done by a small, local business or person - obviously. Building up cell cultures is not something you can do with two nickels and a dream, it’s something you do with massive investments. Bill Gates and Richard Branson invested millions into Upside foods. To be frank, if billionaires were going to save us from climate crises, they would have already. I am tired of seeing “capitalism, but different” proposed as the solution to the problems of capitalism. It’s a losing game to say that, well, the super-wealthy and mega-corporations have been contributing to all these crises with no sign of change, but maybe this huge company powered by the super-wealthy will fix things! Surely there’s no way this multi-million dollar endeavor with the end goal of making profit will result in exploitation of resources and/or people the same way every other one has, right? I fear the greenwashing we see all across our society these days may be cleverly applied in this circumstance as well.
If we put aside debate over the potential for cultured meat to be an environmentally friendly and cruelty-free product, though, there’s still an issue that I don’t see addressed in these conversations: supply chains.
The early days of COVID-19 demonstrated to all of us the fragility of our supply chains, including for the most essential of products - like food. Worryingly, this seemed to have been forgotten rather quickly, and I fear our culture at large learned nothing. The longer the supply chain, the more delicate and easily interrupted. The average product under global capitalism requires raw materials to be harvested from one location, sent to another for processing, then sent to yet another location for the processed materials to be turned into a product (sometimes sent for further refining or processing several more times), then sent to a distribution center, which is then sent to a store that you then go to and purchase (or have shipped to you). And yes, this does apply to food items. Beyond the environmental costs of emissions from the hundreds or thousands of miles travelled for each element of a finished product, if a single one of those checkpoints is interrupted in some way, the entirety of the end products that rely on them are in jeopardy. By purchasing directly from a farmer in your community, you are drastically shortening that supply chain. The meat or produce did not have to jump between three checkpoints before making it to you, and interruptions in a short supply chain are much easier to manage and find alternatives for than one that creates a complex domino effect of problems.
I’m honestly somewhat jarred by the lack of concern and thought given to robust, local food systems in our society. Living in a food desert can lead to some better awareness - many organizations to create urban farms and fresh food access in food deserts exist for this reason - but most people don’t give a single thought to the fact that their food is precariously balanced on a complex network of transport and refining. Cultured meat falls victim to this as well. “Cell scaffolds” are purchased by en masse by cultured meat companies and researchers, and advanced technology is required to grow these cells in mediums that are not derived directly from once-living animals (which would, naturally, negate the benefit of not using products from living animals), requiring manufacturers to rely on the availability of these technologies. Even with these products available, however, large companies are known to inflate prices whenever given an excuse (from grocery store surge pricing to egg companies using Avian Influenza as an excuse to radically inflate prices beyond the actual impacts). Relying on the integrity of a massive company that has no personal connection to you is a dangerous game, one that harms the most vulnerable peoples’ access first.
I personally cannot fathom prioritizing paying a huge company to continue the tradition of failed trickle-down economics to their employees and suppliers when you could give it directly to a person producing your food, but I understand that I live in a world where people will not think the same as me and agree with me on everything. So while you may think it sounds an awful lot like I’m unilaterally coming down against cultured meat here, I’m actually not. I condemn the narrow scope of the discussions around it, and I condemn our society’s willingness to let loose new technologies with minimal regulations. I condemn that greenwashing often circumvents accountability and that supporting local is often completely dismissed from conversations. That being said, I think the popular argument that cultured meat is “unnatural” or “gross” is silly - “yuck factor” is not a logical argument against something, and it’s absurd to make an argument of “unnatural” when I type this on a laptop and go about my day driving a car and using a phone. I realize that some people want animal products without feeling like they contributed to the death of an animal, and that will likely never change, and realistically, we aren’t escaping global capitalism and giant corporate food companies any time soon. So while that’s the truth I live, if we can mitigate environmental concerns, I don’t really have a problem with cultured meat existing. It may just be a “gourmet” or novel choice, it may get big or it may become trendy and then die off like so many things before it. That being said: it should not be the future of food, and I hesitate to believe it even could be. The future of food should be short supply chains, transparency in your food purchases, and supporting local individuals, not relying on vast, wealthy companies to keep you fed. The future of food should look back to when people kept themselves fed without destroying the environment and apply that wisdom rather than relentlessly coming up with complex new “solutions” full of their own problems, trying to fix a problem we’ve had the solutions to for generations.
The City of Atlanta Georgia has decided to demolish the research and conservation center of the Amphibian Foundation. This organization works tirelessly to conserve the Frogs, Toads, Salamanders, Newts, and other amphibians in the United States. In addition, they provide key education for herpetologists on the care, conservation, and preservation of reptiles and amphibians.
This emergency need is compounded by the government mass firing of conservation officials and the pulling of funds from many of the country's conservation organizations.
If you can help please donate here:
The building where AF is located will be demolished in June 2026.
Key points from the Amphibian Foundation.
Our building will be demolished in 2026, and we need to identify a new location (or locations) for 7 labs and over 1,000 animals, many of which are endangered and part of critical conservation programs.
We've identified a new location for most of AF, but not our research and conservation programs. We have an amazing lead, but it's not confirmed yet.
Our first fundraising project is the AF Emergency Fund as the minimum cost estimates to move this many labs and animals safely is $50,000. (It costs about 50 USD per animal to move them)
If you can't donate.. please share... here.. and everywhere else.
Finally finished up the last thylacine joeys and putting them up for sale because I'm in need of some cash.
These guys are handmade with some machine embroidered details, asking 110 CAD (80 USD) plus shipping between 15-25$ CAD depending on destination. accepting paypal, stripe, and e-transfer!
I don't have a storefront atm, inquiries can be sent to [email protected]
Amanda Arrington, the woman who founded the Coalition in 2007, initially focused on the problem of chained dogs as an animal welfare issue. She believed it could be ameliorated with the right resources—namely free fences. When she and Lori began spending more time in the neighborhoods where chained dogs were most common, however, they found systemic social problems that went much deeper. The real enemy was not neglect or cruelty; it was poverty.
Comedians in the '70s and cartoons in the '90s: weird how your kids can watch violence and murder on TV but the FCC wants us dead if we say the word nipple.
Internet users in 2025: you didn't warn me that there would be erotic themes in the game you just mentioned which is fucked up because I thought it was going to be a normal "morally struggle with killing people" game but now it's gone too far :-/
We need to call people posers again. We gotta. We just gotta. No you aren't a countercultural weirdo because you made a battle jacket, you get tangibly viscerally uncomfortable if someone is breast feeding in public and that is incredibly square of you.
2087
izzy806
prguitarman
andulkaphoto
dailybridgerton
