5 ms·

> until such time vat grown meat makes ranching meat a premium product. I suspect farmed meat will be able to reduce price significantly to demand. Reason is m

> until such time vat grown meat makes ranching meat a premium product. I suspect farmed meat will be able to reduce price significantly to demand. Reason is much of the price is based on the land values. Also feed, but that can be reduced with stocking rates as land value drops. And given much grazing land isn't useful for other formats of farming, I suspect in the future were going to see significant drops to cattle grazing land values allowing it to stay price competitive to lab meat as that scales up. On the other hand the moral argument is hard to win, and I say that as a meat eater. I suspect justifying eating farmed meat is going to seriously dwindle in a few generations once the 'that's how its always been' mentality has softened.

dtech 6y ago
> I suspect justifying eating farmed meat is going to seriously dwindle in a few generations once the 'that's how its always been' mentality has softened. It will start more seriously once lab/vat grown-meat becomes a viable competitor. Suddenly it won't be "necessary" anymore to eat animals and ethics will rapidly shift. I don't think it's a coincidence societies view on slavery shifted at the same time as the industrial revolution made pure mechanical human labor less valuable, and that opinions on the legality in the US states roughly was determined whether that state's economics was dependent on slave labor or not.
- markstos 6y ago
  No need to wait for for "clean meat" as an excuse, it's already not necessary to eat animals.
  - dtech 6y ago
    It is not necessary in the same way that it is not necessary to drink alcohol or watch Netflix. People still want to do it. This makes killing animals an economic necessity to supply a large amount of demand. That will only change with lab grown meat or indistinguishable-from-the-real-thing meat replacements.
    - spacephysics 6y ago
      I think that’s quite a straw man. In order to say we don’t require meat, we have to know what the correct diet for humans are, which we unfortunately don’t. Nutrition literature is littered with contradictions, debates, and mostly recommendations based off of correlation (epidemiology) studies. Not throwing everything that’s been studied in nutrition by any means, but research areas like the gut micro biome are in their infancy, and we’ve yet to really study the effects food has on this complex system. We’ve had instances of saturated fats being painted as causing heart disease, red meat causing cancer, or sugar not being that bad for you. Each either having a perverse financial incentive to get specific results, or they used poor methodologies. This also assumes a plant based diet is the most optimal diet for humans, which I’d disagree with, especially on the account that most plant-based diets lack nutrients that are only derived from meat based products. Yes you can supplement, but now the bioavailability is changed, and typically supplements target a single or few nutrients, and rarely has the full spectrum of what the particular food has for nutrient ratios. For instance, what’s the effect on the gut microbiome when we use a supplement vs the nutrient “from the source”? We know there exists a difference in how our bodies react, just not the full picture of effects. If your ethics supersedes what could (emphasis) be a more optimal life, or if plant based diet works better than meat based anecdotally, then have at it. But we shouldn’t be dictating policy or pushing for cultural changes on things we don’t have a full understanding on, especially when we don’t know the full implications of any one human diet. Comparing meat eating to, if I’m reading between the lines correctly, hedonic pleasures of Netflix and alcohol, is fallacious, perverse, and dogmatic. I would go so far as to say restricting meat consumption on a policy level is unethical.
      - simoom22 6y ago
        I'm not aware of any essential nutrients lacking from a plant-based diet, aside from maybe B12, which is supplemented in animal feed and besides would probably be provided by soil bacteria if agricultural soil was healthier and our produce wasn't washed so well. A few amino acids like taurine aren't in plants but are synthesized from others in the human body.
      - mike00632 6y ago
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    But I want to eat animals! They are delicious! In all seriousness I find your sentiment amusing. The way you guys explain right past the existence of carnivores or the cruelty that nature is capable of without human interference is downright inspiring.... for me to throw another couple patties on the BBQ
- specialist 6y ago
  That's an interesting take. I'd like to learn more. I remember being surprised to learn about the counterintuitive impact the cotton gin had on slaves. TLDR: It somehow made slavery even worse.
  - dtech 6y ago
    I remember it being touched upon by Freakonomics [1], including references to some sources that elaborate more. I read a book that argues this point, but can't for the life of me remember its author or title. I'm not surprised the cotton gin made slavery worse, the raw cotton still needed to be harvested by humans. [1] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/
    - specialist 6y ago
      That was a good episode, thanks. Aside: Recently got addicted to podcasts. I really like their transcriptions.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    The gin doesn't pick the bolls. It just created bigger fields and more work.
onion2k 6y ago
I suspect farmed meat will be able to reduce price significantly to demand. Vat grown meat is essentially a plant that needs a specialised greenhouse. It's not particularly different economically to growing a tropical fruit in a non-tropical country. Farmed meat won't be able to come close to competing.
- specialist 6y ago
  We might be thinking of different things. I'm referring to actual animal protein, without the animal. Not meat substitutes. Of course, I enthusiastically support every variety of protein source.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    I don't think we are. Vat grown meat is animal protein that's grown in controlled conditions in a lab by adding chemicals and mechanically "massaging" it. That's economically closer to growing a vegetable than raising cattle.
    - specialist 6y ago
      Economically? Ok, sure, probably. I was stuck on the mental model of plants using photosynthesis for energy. And non-biologist me assumed meats would use other sources of energy, like how yeasts and bacteria function. FWIW, I just learned that "cultured meat" seems to be the catch all phrase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat I should probably learn more about how it actually works.
specialist 6y ago
I really don't know. If and when factory farming goes kaput, I have no idea if land will get cheaper. Mostly because of straight up supply and demand. Even when Big Ag goes bankrupt, would the land ever go back on the market? Or would a different vulture capitalist just gobble it all up? Most people don't know that most land (stolen from the natives) was gifted from the government to farmers, ranchers, settlers, railroad companies. That was how the USA created one era of the "middle class".
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  I dont know if farming will ever go away, people are entirely diverse and will always be diverse. Some will prefer organically grown goods over GMO drone / AI managed goods. Heck organic foods already expensive it wont get any cheaper.
__john 6y ago
> Reason is much of the price is based on the land values. This is untrue. Beef prices are set by the four meat packers that control 75% of the market[1]. https://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-giant-meatpackers-and-economic-squeezes/the-big-four-meatpackers-1 https://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-g...
- missedthecue 6y ago
  There is nothing in your link that implies that prices are set by the four firms or that there is a cartel. 75% market share probably isn't even enough to effectively run a cartel.

dtech 6y ago

> I suspect justifying eating farmed meat is going to seriously dwindle in a few generations once the 'that's how its always been' mentality has softened. It will start more seriously once lab/vat grown-meat becomes a viable competitor. Suddenly it won't be "necessary" anymore to eat animals and ethics will rapidly shift. I don't think it's a coincidence societies view on slavery shifted at the same time as the industrial revolution made pure mechanical human labor less valuable, and that opinions on the legality in the US states roughly was determined whether that state's economics was dependent on slave labor or not.

markstos 6y ago
No need to wait for for "clean meat" as an excuse, it's already not necessary to eat animals.
- dtech 6y ago
  It is not necessary in the same way that it is not necessary to drink alcohol or watch Netflix. People still want to do it. This makes killing animals an economic necessity to supply a large amount of demand. That will only change with lab grown meat or indistinguishable-from-the-real-thing meat replacements.
  - spacephysics 6y ago
    I think that’s quite a straw man. In order to say we don’t require meat, we have to know what the correct diet for humans are, which we unfortunately don’t. Nutrition literature is littered with contradictions, debates, and mostly recommendations based off of correlation (epidemiology) studies. Not throwing everything that’s been studied in nutrition by any means, but research areas like the gut micro biome are in their infancy, and we’ve yet to really study the effects food has on this complex system. We’ve had instances of saturated fats being painted as causing heart disease, red meat causing cancer, or sugar not being that bad for you. Each either having a perverse financial incentive to get specific results, or they used poor methodologies. This also assumes a plant based diet is the most optimal diet for humans, which I’d disagree with, especially on the account that most plant-based diets lack nutrients that are only derived from meat based products. Yes you can supplement, but now the bioavailability is changed, and typically supplements target a single or few nutrients, and rarely has the full spectrum of what the particular food has for nutrient ratios. For instance, what’s the effect on the gut microbiome when we use a supplement vs the nutrient “from the source”? We know there exists a difference in how our bodies react, just not the full picture of effects. If your ethics supersedes what could (emphasis) be a more optimal life, or if plant based diet works better than meat based anecdotally, then have at it. But we shouldn’t be dictating policy or pushing for cultural changes on things we don’t have a full understanding on, especially when we don’t know the full implications of any one human diet. Comparing meat eating to, if I’m reading between the lines correctly, hedonic pleasures of Netflix and alcohol, is fallacious, perverse, and dogmatic. I would go so far as to say restricting meat consumption on a policy level is unethical.
    - simoom22 6y ago
      I'm not aware of any essential nutrients lacking from a plant-based diet, aside from maybe B12, which is supplemented in animal feed and besides would probably be provided by soil bacteria if agricultural soil was healthier and our produce wasn't washed so well. A few amino acids like taurine aren't in plants but are synthesized from others in the human body.
    - mike00632 6y ago
- tomc1985 6y ago
  But I want to eat animals! They are delicious! In all seriousness I find your sentiment amusing. The way you guys explain right past the existence of carnivores or the cruelty that nature is capable of without human interference is downright inspiring.... for me to throw another couple patties on the BBQ
specialist 6y ago
That's an interesting take. I'd like to learn more. I remember being surprised to learn about the counterintuitive impact the cotton gin had on slaves. TLDR: It somehow made slavery even worse.
- dtech 6y ago
  I remember it being touched upon by Freakonomics [1], including references to some sources that elaborate more. I read a book that argues this point, but can't for the life of me remember its author or title. I'm not surprised the cotton gin made slavery worse, the raw cotton still needed to be harvested by humans. [1] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/
  - specialist 6y ago
    That was a good episode, thanks. Aside: Recently got addicted to podcasts. I really like their transcriptions.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  The gin doesn't pick the bolls. It just created bigger fields and more work.

onion2k 6y ago

I suspect farmed meat will be able to reduce price significantly to demand. Vat grown meat is essentially a plant that needs a specialised greenhouse. It's not particularly different economically to growing a tropical fruit in a non-tropical country. Farmed meat won't be able to come close to competing.

specialist 6y ago
We might be thinking of different things. I'm referring to actual animal protein, without the animal. Not meat substitutes. Of course, I enthusiastically support every variety of protein source.
- onion2k 6y ago
  I don't think we are. Vat grown meat is animal protein that's grown in controlled conditions in a lab by adding chemicals and mechanically "massaging" it. That's economically closer to growing a vegetable than raising cattle.
  - specialist 6y ago
    Economically? Ok, sure, probably. I was stuck on the mental model of plants using photosynthesis for energy. And non-biologist me assumed meats would use other sources of energy, like how yeasts and bacteria function. FWIW, I just learned that "cultured meat" seems to be the catch all phrase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat I should probably learn more about how it actually works.

specialist 6y ago

I really don't know. If and when factory farming goes kaput, I have no idea if land will get cheaper. Mostly because of straight up supply and demand. Even when Big Ag goes bankrupt, would the land ever go back on the market? Or would a different vulture capitalist just gobble it all up? Most people don't know that most land (stolen from the natives) was gifted from the government to farmers, ranchers, settlers, railroad companies. That was how the USA created one era of the "middle class".

giancarlostoro 6y ago
I dont know if farming will ever go away, people are entirely diverse and will always be diverse. Some will prefer organically grown goods over GMO drone / AI managed goods. Heck organic foods already expensive it wont get any cheaper.

__john 6y ago

> Reason is much of the price is based on the land values. This is untrue. Beef prices are set by the four meat packers that control 75% of the market[1]. https://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-giant-meatpackers-and-economic-squeezes/the-big-four-meatpackers-1 https://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-g...

missedthecue 6y ago
There is nothing in your link that implies that prices are set by the four firms or that there is a cartel. 75% market share probably isn't even enough to effectively run a cartel.