4 ms·
As someone who eats meat all the time, I also couldn't be more excited. First this stuff will be an inferior meat substitute. Then it'll be an equivalent meat
by raldi 14y ago
As someone who eats meat all the time, I also couldn't be more excited.
First this stuff will be an inferior meat substitute.
Then it'll be an equivalent meat substitute.
Then it'll improve upon nature itself, and we'll be eating things that taste ten times better than bacon, and fifty times better than steak, and it will all be without a twinge of guilt.
- jared314 14y agoThat sounds like the path of artificial sweeteners. If history is any guide, there will also be a backlash where its artificial nature will be equated with poison for your body.
- zevyoura 14y agoAs long as they only suppress demand enough to lower the price and not prevent development, I say let them complain.
- Falling3 14y agoHopefully it doesn't go down that path. I've never had an artificial sweetener I found halfway decent.
- lololomg 14y agoI thought so too but I got used to it and now I prefer it to sugar. Your brain just got to adjust.
- sp332 14y agoI think the best is a combination of acesulfame potassium (Ace-K) and sucralose (Splenda). It doesn't taste like sugar, but it's nice and sweet and they cover each others' aftertaste pretty well. Jone's Soda uses it for their diet drinks.
- illuminate 14y agoProgress is always demonized by people who worship the naturalistic fallacy.
- ehsanu1 14y agoNot sure what naturalistic fallacies have to do with artificial sweeteners generally being pretty bad for your long-term health (not that sucrose/fructose is that much better in sufficient quantities).
- danbruc 14y ago[...] artificial sweeteners generally being pretty bad for your long-term health [...] A quick search did not bring up any evidence that sugar substitute have known negative longterm effects.
- illuminate 14y ago"artificial sweeteners generally being pretty bad for your long-term health" The fallacy has everything to do with your insistence that this is anything but fantasy. Artificial sweeteners are not worse off for you than sucrose/fructose.
- cheapsteak 14y agoEagerly anticipating the Aspartame of meat. 2 pounds of bacon, 0 calories.
- snogglethorpe 14y agoYeah, but aspartame also tastes awful... I suppose meh-tasting-guilt-free bacon is something, but, well... meh. TT
- mortenjorck 14y agoNot really an analogous comparison. Aspartame is a more complex molecule synthesized to mimic certain properties of monosaccharides. Many would say it is inferior in taste to what it purports to replace. Cultured beef, however, should be more or less the same cocktail of organic compounds that make up a dead cow. How these compounds are mixed, the proportions to which they appear, and what shapes they take are the interesting variables here, and could, with enough control, make something "better than real." I'd draw instead the comparison to synthetic diamonds. Same stuff, potentially unnaturally flawless results.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoBacon is so chock full of good-for-you things I'll take it exactly as it is. But I'm definitely OK if Wilbur doesn't have to have an early demise after an inhumane existence to produce it.
- sp332 14y agoHydroponic gardens produce some of the most amazing-tasting vegetables. I can't imagine how good a chemically-perfect chuck roast would taste. Edit: and getting veal, good goose liver, etc without any animal cruelty is good too :)
- raldi 14y agoIt's not like there was any evolutionary pressure for animals to optimize for tastiness.
- AaronFriel 14y agoSure there was, thanks to human domestication and husbandry of animals, we've been selecting for tastiness in some species for thousands of years.
- enraged_camel 14y agoI think it would have been a reverse pressure. Being tasty is not exactly an advantage...
- sp332 14y agoThey would have to outpace predator's tastebuds, which were selected to think their prey is delicious :)