5 ms·

Not disagreeing with you, but ultimately you have to ask the question: does this make sense? And look at the "why". What are you trying to optimize?

by x86x87 3y ago

coryfklein 3y ago
Of course it makes sense. People like to eat meat. Meat is expensive to produce, particularly including externalities like CO2, animal suffering, etc. Making meat less expensive to produce across some or all of those dimensions seems like a no brainer.
- kevincox 3y ago
  Exactly. And yes, starting with new technologies, but if we try to optimize our existing process for obtaining meat we will likely not get far before hitting a local maximum. So it makes sense to try to make dramatic leaps to other areas of the solution space to see if we can fine a new maximum. It will take a lot of resources until the new technologies are better (by various metrics) than the old ones, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. With the scale of meat consumption the potential payoff for better methods is huge.
  - alfiedotwtf 3y ago
    In terms of optimising, I can see it going two ways: 1. Optimising for the consumer means that we will be able to engineer meat to our preferred and individual tastes. Gamey or fatty, dry or falling off the bone etc. 2. Optimising for the producer means that we will get the slurry what was served as a meal in the movie Brazil. The free-market optimist in me would like to see 1, but the realist in me knows that once corporations monopolise the fake-meat industry and eventually water it down to slurry, we'll get Brazil... and we'll be convinced this is how meat should taste.
    - x86x87 3y ago
      Yeeah. Given enough time it's always 2.
refulgentis 3y ago
Cost
- x86x87 3y ago
  Cost makes sense. Is the synthetic meat cheaper?
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    I’m being glib intentionally, spirit of like, hacker koans. obviously not, as in a everyday definition of cost, sticker price today. but the externalities, as in a formal definition of cost, are so much, and important enough to enough commercial stakeholders that yes, 100% makes sense to try to do this and hit under the actual cost, which has diverged from the short-term cost
callalex 3y ago
You may not care about the widespread cruelty to animals in meat production, but many people do.
- eimrine 3y ago
  But you may not care about possible future when I can not grow some chicken legally for my own consuming, but I appreciate eating animals as one of the most natural and beautiful things in my life.
  - probablypower 3y ago
    How is the legality of residential chicken breeding relevant to this discussion on the environmental impact of lab-grown meat?
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      It's not, but the bots are out in force
      - kelipso 3y ago
        When you lose an argument, call the winner of the argument a bot. Works every time.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - eimrine 3y ago
      I responded to bs about so-called animal suffering. The logics is simple: if we have lab-grown meat than there is a probability that the owner of the lab starts lobbying refusal of eating animals somehow. We live in a world of feelings (SJW, metoo, *gate) so every time I meet such discussion in a lab-grown meat topics I feel an urge to remind about possible suffering of butchers.
      - 3y ago
slowmovintarget 3y ago
Opinion: They are trying to optimize profit and control. Don't mess with food. We know what works, we've almost always made it worse: less nutritious (rolled oats instead of steel cut), less tasty (tomatoes, chicken), more vulnerable to die-out (bananas), or worse. Now you get Bill Gates and Monsanto advocating GMO / lab-grown foods for the masses. The market plan for the long-term on this is terrifying though. Just... grow real food, eat real food. The earth currently can produce enough food for everyone. The reason people go hungry in 2023 is because food rots on docks from government mismanagement, or goes into Dear Leader's kitchen and not those of his people, or a million other reasons that all boil down to selfishness, arrogance, or advanced forms of these same vices. Apologies for the rant.
- jfengel 3y ago
  We've already optimized meat production in ways which are worse. It is very bad for the environment and extremely cruel to the animals. Part of the optimization is removing the processes far from consumers so that they're unaware of the downsides. The solution is to eat more real food, which includes a higher proportion of vegetables and a much lower proportion of meat. But a lot of people are resistant to that, for a variety of reasons. If lab-grown meat can at least reduce the animal cruelty, it's an optimization I'd prefer.
- x86x87 3y ago
  For better or worse, if you look at what is needed to feed all people GMOs are going to happen. It's not an if, it's a when. Everyone consuming real, organic food has not been on the table for years now.

Not disagreeing with you, but ultimately you have to ask the question: does this make sense? And look at the "why". What are you trying to optimize?

by x86x87 3y ago

Not disagreeing with you, but ultimately you have to ask the question: does this make sense? And look at the "why". What are you trying to optimize?

coryfklein 3y ago

Of course it makes sense. People like to eat meat. Meat is expensive to produce, particularly including externalities like CO2, animal suffering, etc. Making meat less expensive to produce across some or all of those dimensions seems like a no brainer.

kevincox 3y ago
Exactly. And yes, starting with new technologies, but if we try to optimize our existing process for obtaining meat we will likely not get far before hitting a local maximum. So it makes sense to try to make dramatic leaps to other areas of the solution space to see if we can fine a new maximum. It will take a lot of resources until the new technologies are better (by various metrics) than the old ones, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. With the scale of meat consumption the potential payoff for better methods is huge.
- alfiedotwtf 3y ago
  In terms of optimising, I can see it going two ways: 1. Optimising for the consumer means that we will be able to engineer meat to our preferred and individual tastes. Gamey or fatty, dry or falling off the bone etc. 2. Optimising for the producer means that we will get the slurry what was served as a meal in the movie Brazil. The free-market optimist in me would like to see 1, but the realist in me knows that once corporations monopolise the fake-meat industry and eventually water it down to slurry, we'll get Brazil... and we'll be convinced this is how meat should taste.
  - x86x87 3y ago
    Yeeah. Given enough time it's always 2.

refulgentis 3y ago

Cost

x86x87 3y ago
Cost makes sense. Is the synthetic meat cheaper?
- refulgentis 3y ago
  I’m being glib intentionally, spirit of like, hacker koans. obviously not, as in a everyday definition of cost, sticker price today. but the externalities, as in a formal definition of cost, are so much, and important enough to enough commercial stakeholders that yes, 100% makes sense to try to do this and hit under the actual cost, which has diverged from the short-term cost

callalex 3y ago

You may not care about the widespread cruelty to animals in meat production, but many people do.

eimrine 3y ago
But you may not care about possible future when I can not grow some chicken legally for my own consuming, but I appreciate eating animals as one of the most natural and beautiful things in my life.
- probablypower 3y ago
  How is the legality of residential chicken breeding relevant to this discussion on the environmental impact of lab-grown meat?
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    It's not, but the bots are out in force
    - kelipso 3y ago
      When you lose an argument, call the winner of the argument a bot. Works every time.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - eimrine 3y ago
    I responded to bs about so-called animal suffering. The logics is simple: if we have lab-grown meat than there is a probability that the owner of the lab starts lobbying refusal of eating animals somehow. We live in a world of feelings (SJW, metoo, *gate) so every time I meet such discussion in a lab-grown meat topics I feel an urge to remind about possible suffering of butchers.
    - 3y ago

slowmovintarget 3y ago

Opinion: They are trying to optimize profit and control. Don't mess with food. We know what works, we've almost always made it worse: less nutritious (rolled oats instead of steel cut), less tasty (tomatoes, chicken), more vulnerable to die-out (bananas), or worse. Now you get Bill Gates and Monsanto advocating GMO / lab-grown foods for the masses. The market plan for the long-term on this is terrifying though. Just... grow real food, eat real food. The earth currently can produce enough food for everyone. The reason people go hungry in 2023 is because food rots on docks from government mismanagement, or goes into Dear Leader's kitchen and not those of his people, or a million other reasons that all boil down to selfishness, arrogance, or advanced forms of these same vices. Apologies for the rant.

jfengel 3y ago
We've already optimized meat production in ways which are worse. It is very bad for the environment and extremely cruel to the animals. Part of the optimization is removing the processes far from consumers so that they're unaware of the downsides. The solution is to eat more real food, which includes a higher proportion of vegetables and a much lower proportion of meat. But a lot of people are resistant to that, for a variety of reasons. If lab-grown meat can at least reduce the animal cruelty, it's an optimization I'd prefer.
x86x87 3y ago
For better or worse, if you look at what is needed to feed all people GMOs are going to happen. It's not an if, it's a when. Everyone consuming real, organic food has not been on the table for years now.