I voted "yes", just because it would be interesting to try. But if I don't like it, that's all she wrote. I have no moral stance on this issue. It's just cool technology in my book.

(February 23, 2016 at 10:35 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 10:27 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: From what I've learned so far about it that will definitely not be a problem. It will have all as many flavors as there are animals to take and grow cells from. So how do you figure?

And what do they feed the cells? A lot of what the animal tastes like comes from what they eat. Ever had an acorn fed pig? Grass fed vs corn fed beef? What about the non muscle parts I like? They going to have synth cracklin? Fried synth ears? Synth oysters (shell or rocky mtn)?

I think they are only looking at muscle parts, right now, but I don't know too much about it.

As for what they feed the cells, from what I understood about it, you have no reason to be skeptical from that point of view. They feed the cells the same stuff they feed the animals, essentially, only they can do it even better and virtually risk-free.


EDIT: I don't know about textures, but I think it was mentioned in the podcast. Maybe you should listen to it. From what I can remember the in vitro meat they have in mind both looks and tastes better, if I'm not mistaken, not to mention it's far healthier.

(February 23, 2016 at 10:35 am)c172 Wrote: I voted "yes", just because it would be interesting to try. But if I don't like it, that's all she wrote. I have no moral stance on this issue. It's just cool technology in my book.

And if you liked it and in fact couldn't tell the difference(in any bad way)?

Oh . . . .


I thought this was another dildo thread.

I voted that I'm sceptical about it, but because I'm naturally wary of new technology.  I have read a small Wikipedia piece about it since reading this thread and it looks like this meat could be nice and healthy but I'd just wait a few months, maybe a year before I try it.  Let the pioneers try it first then I'll give it a go.

(February 23, 2016 at 10:46 am)paulpablo Wrote: I voted that I'm sceptical about it, but because I'm naturally wary of new technology.  I have read a small Wikipedia piece about it since reading this thread and it looks like this meat could be nice and healthy but I'd just wait a few months, maybe a year before I try it.  Let the pioneers try it first then I'll give it a go.

It's not just about the animals we kill, you know. It's about all the illnesses and the spoiled meat we get precisely because of the classical process, not to mention the environmental and economical issues to boot.

So when you talk about safety, cultured meat would be clearly superior to the former kind.

As for taste, look and affordability, those are important areas as well, which from what I understood won't pose too much of a problem. So the biggest problem would actually be combating general perception.

(February 23, 2016 at 10:25 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Sam conducted a poll on twitter where ~80% said they would switch to it. Of the 20% that said they wouldn't reasons such as these were cited: it's just creepy, it might not be safe, it will be expensive, I'm a vegetarian/vegan.

I'm sure that it's nice to have that sort of market research in place?  

In elaboration.  Yeah, sure.  We have two choices before us.  It would be nice to have more choices, but we don't.  Either we exploit the relationships which exist in livestock production better than we have in the past...and to a greater extent, or we find a new exploitable resource (the next oil).  Even if we find a new and exploitable resource, unless it's more sustainable -than life itself-...we'll still be staring down the barrel of the same gun we are presently; 

Namely, that our access to food and energy....already unevenly distributed, is on a ticking clock at a global scale.  

In vitro meats exacerbate that problem, while necessarily ignoring it - because their production relies upon it.  Because there is no intensive production of actual livestock, there is no intensive production of sustainable fertility.  That is the only credible alternative to oil available to us at present.....and it's in a sorry state itself.  The resources consumed (not to mention research) would not only yield more product elsewhere, it is currently -needed- elsewhere.  The only need this product serves is a need to relieve a consumer's burden of conscience in exchange for coin. I'm not knocking the model, mind you...I'm deeply invested in that business myself.

(February 23, 2016 at 10:41 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Oh . . . .


I thought this was another dildo thread.

They can culture and grow some dick meat for you.

(February 23, 2016 at 10:20 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 10:18 am)KUSA Wrote: I want synthetic vegetables. I'm a meatatarian.

What do you mean, or is this merely a joke?

I don't eat vegetables only meat. I think it is awful to kill the plants. We need synthetic plant material.

(February 23, 2016 at 10:52 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 10:25 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Sam conducted a poll on twitter where ~80% said they would switch to it. Of the 20% that said they wouldn't reasons such as these were cited: it's just creepy, it might not be safe, it will be expensive, I'm a vegetarian/vegan.

I'm sure that it's nice to have that sort of market research in place?  

In elaboration.  Yeah, sure.  We have two choices before us.  It would be nice to have more choices, but we don't.  Either we exploit the relationships which exist in livestock production better than we have in the past...and to a greater extent, or we find a new exploitable resource (the next oil).  Even if we find a new and exploitable resource, unless it's more sustainable -than life itself-...we'll still be staring down the barrel of the same gun we are presently; 

Namely, that our access to food and energy....already unevenly distributed, is on a ticking clock at a global scale.  

In vitro meats exacerbate that problem, while necessarily ignoring it - because their production relies upon it.  Because there is no intensive production of actual livestock, there is no intensive production of sustainable fertility.  That is the only credible alternative to oil available to us at present.....and it's in a sorry state itself.  The resources consumed (not to mention research) would not only yield more product elsewhere, it is currently -needed- elsewhere.  The only need this product serves is a need to relieve a burden of conscience.

That's incredibly ignorant, given what I've presented so far - namely, that this only relates to conscience. As for your word salad, either make better sense or give it up.


Oh, and the poll asked some 15 thousand people, just so you know.