5 ms·

Some states are now trying to ban lab-grown meat

16 points by alexzeitler 3y ago

satvikpendem 3y ago
It's the meat growing industry lobby, even though lab grown meat is the best of both worlds when it comes to making people eventually reduce their carbon emissions from traditional meat consumption.
- jesterson 3y ago
  > lab grown meat is the best of both worlds that's very debatable statement. I personally never tried it (and can't think of any possible reason why would I) so where the "best of both worlds" come from? I am against banning it, just would vouch for huge labels to avoid makers mimicking it as natural meat.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    It's biologically the same as meat (unlike all the plant based alternatives) yet it has ~99% less emissions since you're not making a whole sentient animal when all you want to harvest is its flesh, a very inefficient process (commercially at least, not when we were pastoral and couldn't eat grass but animals could, essentially becoming a factory that inputs an inedible product and outputs an edible one; today's commercial farms are vastly different in that they feed animals essentially grains which humans can also eat). In this way, you get people to become vegan without actually having to make them change their behavior, because, let's be honest, most don't want to, regardless of any arguments one posits.
    - jesterson 3y ago
      > It's biologically the same as meat (unlike all the plant based alternatives) While I disagree about being same, I agree on it not being a plant based. > In this way, you get people to become vegan without actually having to make them change their behavior Why do we have to get people become vegan?
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        Why would you disagree that it's the same? For your second question, you don't have to, of course, but the vegan philosophy is to reduce animal suffering and to improve emissions. If that is something one believes in, it behooves them to make more people follow their tenets.
        jesterson 3y ago
        > Why would you disagree that it's the same? Because.. it is not the same? > vegan philosophy is to reduce animal suffering and to improve emissions Vegan philosophy is not consuming food of animal origin. If someone likes to put some virtue signalling to it like reducing emissions and sorts that's fine by me. On the first one, animal suffering has very little relation to do with veganism. You don't need to be vegan to do something about it and certainly being vegan doesn't make you reducing the suffering.
        jraph 3y ago
        > Vegan philosophy is not consuming food of animal origin Vegan diet is not consuming food of animal origin. In French we would qualify someone following a vegan diet "végétalien" / "végétalienne" (vegetalian doesn't seem to exist in English). But usually people have reasons to follow a vegan diet. Usually philosophical/political reasons. And those reasons are usually animal well-being and environmental concerns. that's when we start qualifying people "vegan" in French (though the words are are in practice somewhat used interchangeably of course). OP specifically said "vegan philosopy", they don't refer to the diet specifically, which is only one part of the package. And virtue signaling is not always (rarely?) the main motivator, or a motivator at all. You need stronger motivation than that and people do not always act selfishly to show they are better. They want to actually be better (as defined in their perspective).
        jesterson 3y ago
        It seems like we are drifting away from main topic. Vegans can have any reasons they like to follow the idea or philosophy like you have said - climate change pollution or anything they like to pull. It's totally fine as long as they not pushing everyone else to follow. If they like to eat lab grown meat - I cant be happier. More important question here is whether lab meat objectively (and objectively is a key word here) has any benefits over traditional meat.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >yet it has ~99% less emissions since you're not making a whole sentient animal when all you want to harvest is its flesh source? The only way I can see this being true is for cows, because the live animal produces methane during digestion, but for other meats (eg. pork/chicken), I'm not sure how you can get 99% reductions in "emissions" (whatever that means).
- Ekaros 3y ago
  My understanding is that it is actually quite far still from both ecological and economical standpoint. Complexity of growing cells at scale is very very hard. Where as meat at lowest productivity is essentially self-caring.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Yep it is still quite a ways off. Perhaps in 20 years it'll be identical, and perhaps in 50 years these lobbyists will die out and it'll be legal again in these red states.
bkarki 3y ago
I recently watched a documentary on lab-grown meat. Although I am sold on its benefits, I find it weird to eat lab-grown meat and won't be eating it for sure.
- jesterson 3y ago
  Are there actually any benefits? I mean health-wise, not the virtue signalling carbon zero sorts.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    I am not sure if this is a benefit per se, but you could get very high quality cuts of meat for essentially cheap, because it's artifically human constructed. It is the same argument for lab grown diamonds over mined ones, the former can be more perfect gems than ones from the earth ever could simply because humans engineer them to be so, something a non-sentient Earth cannot do.
    - jesterson 3y ago
      Well, how would you define "high quality"? High quality meant comes from well cared grass-fed livestock. It is delicious and have long proven health benefits. It's effects on human body have been known pretty much as we gain ability to learn. Lab grown stuff? Not so much.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        If the cellular structure is the same, the benefits would be identical. Just because something is traditionally made a certain way doesn't mean it couldn't be made better, as we understand the scientific processes that made them. Flight, for example, comes to mind, where birds traditionally fly but we, having understood aerodynamics at a deeper level, can make planes that fly faster, farther, and longer than birds ever could.
        jesterson 3y ago
reducesuffering 3y ago
All "Red" states. What happened to "Don't tread on me", "big government"? We're witnessing some interesting reversals in political trends this decade.

16 points by alexzeitler 3y ago

It's the meat growing industry lobby, even though lab grown meat is the best of both worlds when it comes to making people eventually reduce their carbon emissions from traditional meat consumption.

jesterson 3y ago
> lab grown meat is the best of both worlds that's very debatable statement. I personally never tried it (and can't think of any possible reason why would I) so where the "best of both worlds" come from? I am against banning it, just would vouch for huge labels to avoid makers mimicking it as natural meat.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  It's biologically the same as meat (unlike all the plant based alternatives) yet it has ~99% less emissions since you're not making a whole sentient animal when all you want to harvest is its flesh, a very inefficient process (commercially at least, not when we were pastoral and couldn't eat grass but animals could, essentially becoming a factory that inputs an inedible product and outputs an edible one; today's commercial farms are vastly different in that they feed animals essentially grains which humans can also eat). In this way, you get people to become vegan without actually having to make them change their behavior, because, let's be honest, most don't want to, regardless of any arguments one posits.
  - jesterson 3y ago
    > It's biologically the same as meat (unlike all the plant based alternatives) While I disagree about being same, I agree on it not being a plant based. > In this way, you get people to become vegan without actually having to make them change their behavior Why do we have to get people become vegan?
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      Why would you disagree that it's the same? For your second question, you don't have to, of course, but the vegan philosophy is to reduce animal suffering and to improve emissions. If that is something one believes in, it behooves them to make more people follow their tenets.
      - jesterson 3y ago
        > Why would you disagree that it's the same? Because.. it is not the same? > vegan philosophy is to reduce animal suffering and to improve emissions Vegan philosophy is not consuming food of animal origin. If someone likes to put some virtue signalling to it like reducing emissions and sorts that's fine by me. On the first one, animal suffering has very little relation to do with veganism. You don't need to be vegan to do something about it and certainly being vegan doesn't make you reducing the suffering.
        jraph 3y ago
        > Vegan philosophy is not consuming food of animal origin Vegan diet is not consuming food of animal origin. In French we would qualify someone following a vegan diet "végétalien" / "végétalienne" (vegetalian doesn't seem to exist in English). But usually people have reasons to follow a vegan diet. Usually philosophical/political reasons. And those reasons are usually animal well-being and environmental concerns. that's when we start qualifying people "vegan" in French (though the words are are in practice somewhat used interchangeably of course). OP specifically said "vegan philosopy", they don't refer to the diet specifically, which is only one part of the package. And virtue signaling is not always (rarely?) the main motivator, or a motivator at all. You need stronger motivation than that and people do not always act selfishly to show they are better. They want to actually be better (as defined in their perspective).
        jesterson 3y ago
        It seems like we are drifting away from main topic. Vegans can have any reasons they like to follow the idea or philosophy like you have said - climate change pollution or anything they like to pull. It's totally fine as long as they not pushing everyone else to follow. If they like to eat lab grown meat - I cant be happier. More important question here is whether lab meat objectively (and objectively is a key word here) has any benefits over traditional meat.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >yet it has ~99% less emissions since you're not making a whole sentient animal when all you want to harvest is its flesh source? The only way I can see this being true is for cows, because the live animal produces methane during digestion, but for other meats (eg. pork/chicken), I'm not sure how you can get 99% reductions in "emissions" (whatever that means).
Ekaros 3y ago
My understanding is that it is actually quite far still from both ecological and economical standpoint. Complexity of growing cells at scale is very very hard. Where as meat at lowest productivity is essentially self-caring.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Yep it is still quite a ways off. Perhaps in 20 years it'll be identical, and perhaps in 50 years these lobbyists will die out and it'll be legal again in these red states.

bkarki 3y ago

I recently watched a documentary on lab-grown meat. Although I am sold on its benefits, I find it weird to eat lab-grown meat and won't be eating it for sure.

jesterson 3y ago
Are there actually any benefits? I mean health-wise, not the virtue signalling carbon zero sorts.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  I am not sure if this is a benefit per se, but you could get very high quality cuts of meat for essentially cheap, because it's artifically human constructed. It is the same argument for lab grown diamonds over mined ones, the former can be more perfect gems than ones from the earth ever could simply because humans engineer them to be so, something a non-sentient Earth cannot do.
  - jesterson 3y ago
    Well, how would you define "high quality"? High quality meant comes from well cared grass-fed livestock. It is delicious and have long proven health benefits. It's effects on human body have been known pretty much as we gain ability to learn. Lab grown stuff? Not so much.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      If the cellular structure is the same, the benefits would be identical. Just because something is traditionally made a certain way doesn't mean it couldn't be made better, as we understand the scientific processes that made them. Flight, for example, comes to mind, where birds traditionally fly but we, having understood aerodynamics at a deeper level, can make planes that fly faster, farther, and longer than birds ever could.
      - jesterson 3y ago

reducesuffering 3y ago

All "Red" states. What happened to "Don't tread on me", "big government"? We're witnessing some interesting reversals in political trends this decade.