5 ms·

I wonder how this kind of burger compares to lab-grown burgers. I would imagine this process is significantly cheaper than lab-grown – in which case, why don't

I wonder how this kind of burger compares to lab-grown burgers. I would imagine this process is significantly cheaper than lab-grown – in which case, why don't we just replace all burgers with this?

ars 10y ago
> in which case, why don't we just replace all burgers with this? That's the beauty of capitalism. "We" don't have to do anything, if it's cheaper people will buy it and the replacement will happen automatically.
- ChristianBundy 10y ago
  Not to nitpick, because I agree with your point, but that's the beauty of _economics_, not capitalism. Non-capitalistic economies (e.g. socialism) also optimize for high-yield products that require minimal labor, the difference being who owns the means of production (i.e. factories): the workers, the consumers, private shareholders, the state, etc.
  - corporateslave 10y ago
    This is false. A capitalist society provides the rewards and drives for people to create innovative products. Socialism restricts those. I'm sorry you think it's the opposite
  - acchow 10y ago
    If you're looking at it purely in terms of nutrition. But taste? Socialism doesn't measure the actual utility given by goods. Capitalism does by virtue of us spending our money according to what we like.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Socialism measures utility to social decision-makers, and, so, in the case of democratic socialism, weights utility equally across the citizenry, rather by wealth as in capitalism; wealth-weighting not only favors the near-term utility of the wealthy but also entrenches power, since future expectation of power has utility. Of course, non-democratic (either in theory or practice) socialism (or non-socialist central planning) have unequal weighting that has the same kind of issues as wealth-weighting.
entee 10y ago
The major problem with lab-grown burgers is that cell culture is quite difficult and expensive to do at even small scale. There are obviously efforts to radically decrease those costs, but some things are going to be quite hard to do cheaply and at large scale. For example, on their own, cells have zero defense against invading bacteria/fungus. And yet they're being grown in high-nutrient media where any bacteria would thrive and possibly outcompete the growing meat cells. So you probably need a very sterile environment, which isn't so easy to do at very large scale. In contrast, these burgers are made using materials we know how to handle safely and can produce at large scale. These should be quite a bit easier to get to market. As for taste, I think both have challenges, but can't speak as much to that because I haven't had either. Full disclosure: Pat Brown was on my PhD committee in grad school
- WalterSear 10y ago
  http://www.sciencealert.com/lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drops-from-325-000-to-12 http://www.sciencealert.com/lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drop...
  - entee 10y ago
    Yup, the relevant part of that article: "Post and his team are now working on replacing the serum [fetal calf serum] with something that doesn’t rely on animal products, and told the ABC that while they’re making great process, it’ll be at least a couple of decades before they can scale the technique up and make it commercially viable." If you're using fetal calf serum (FCS), you're definitely not particularly vegetarian, nor are you reducing the need for physical cows. Let's assume you can eventually get rid of that requirement though. Cost estimates for something that is quote "decades" away isn't quite meaningful. The hard part is scale, and it sounds like they're quite aware of that problem. Finally, $11 per burger is still insanely expensive. I can get a burger, with bun, cooked and handed to me on a platter for $1 at McDonald's. It's an enormous challenge to get lab grown meat down to an industrially relevant cost. I'd still bet on Impossible Foods's approach.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago

ars 10y ago

> in which case, why don't we just replace all burgers with this? That's the beauty of capitalism. "We" don't have to do anything, if it's cheaper people will buy it and the replacement will happen automatically.

ChristianBundy 10y ago
Not to nitpick, because I agree with your point, but that's the beauty of _economics_, not capitalism. Non-capitalistic economies (e.g. socialism) also optimize for high-yield products that require minimal labor, the difference being who owns the means of production (i.e. factories): the workers, the consumers, private shareholders, the state, etc.
- corporateslave 10y ago
  This is false. A capitalist society provides the rewards and drives for people to create innovative products. Socialism restricts those. I'm sorry you think it's the opposite
- acchow 10y ago
  If you're looking at it purely in terms of nutrition. But taste? Socialism doesn't measure the actual utility given by goods. Capitalism does by virtue of us spending our money according to what we like.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Socialism measures utility to social decision-makers, and, so, in the case of democratic socialism, weights utility equally across the citizenry, rather by wealth as in capitalism; wealth-weighting not only favors the near-term utility of the wealthy but also entrenches power, since future expectation of power has utility. Of course, non-democratic (either in theory or practice) socialism (or non-socialist central planning) have unequal weighting that has the same kind of issues as wealth-weighting.

entee 10y ago

The major problem with lab-grown burgers is that cell culture is quite difficult and expensive to do at even small scale. There are obviously efforts to radically decrease those costs, but some things are going to be quite hard to do cheaply and at large scale. For example, on their own, cells have zero defense against invading bacteria/fungus. And yet they're being grown in high-nutrient media where any bacteria would thrive and possibly outcompete the growing meat cells. So you probably need a very sterile environment, which isn't so easy to do at very large scale. In contrast, these burgers are made using materials we know how to handle safely and can produce at large scale. These should be quite a bit easier to get to market. As for taste, I think both have challenges, but can't speak as much to that because I haven't had either. Full disclosure: Pat Brown was on my PhD committee in grad school

WalterSear 10y ago
http://www.sciencealert.com/lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drops-from-325-000-to-12 http://www.sciencealert.com/lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drop...
- entee 10y ago
  Yup, the relevant part of that article: "Post and his team are now working on replacing the serum [fetal calf serum] with something that doesn’t rely on animal products, and told the ABC that while they’re making great process, it’ll be at least a couple of decades before they can scale the technique up and make it commercially viable." If you're using fetal calf serum (FCS), you're definitely not particularly vegetarian, nor are you reducing the need for physical cows. Let's assume you can eventually get rid of that requirement though. Cost estimates for something that is quote "decades" away isn't quite meaningful. The hard part is scale, and it sounds like they're quite aware of that problem. Finally, $11 per burger is still insanely expensive. I can get a burger, with bun, cooked and handed to me on a platter for $1 at McDonald's. It's an enormous challenge to get lab grown meat down to an industrially relevant cost. I'd still bet on Impossible Foods's approach.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago