Synthetic meat

[KUSA]

Hmmmm. I wonder if they can make human meat for consumption.

[Excited Penguin]

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.

You would still be eating meat by eating the synthetic kind.

[Excited Penguin]

Hmmmm. I wonder if they can make human meat for consumption.

I wondered that as well. I think it's far too soon to even talk about that, though, even jokingly. I am curious how we taste though, if no one gets killed over it.

[KUSA]

Hmmmm. I wonder if they can make human meat for consumption.

I wondered that as well. I think it's far too soon to even talk about that, though, even jokingly. I am curious how we taste though, if no one gets killed over it.

You could culture your own flesh and eat yourself. Think about it. You would be self sustainable. You might find that you are tasty too.

[Excited Penguin]

I wondered that as well. I think it's far too soon to even talk about that, though, even jokingly. I am curious how we taste though, if no one gets killed over it.

You could culture your own flesh and eat yourself. Think about it. You would be self sustainable. You might find that you are tasty too.

Hannibal comes to mind. The series, not the movies.

[paulpablo]

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.

Ok, sounds good to me.  I still remain slightly sceptical about manipulating nature like this and there being no consequences.  If there truly is no consequences then I'd say it's very true that people's perception would need to change.  I imagine ranchers would be angry since they would be the ones competing against artificial meat.

[Excited Penguin]

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.

Ok, sounds good to me.  I still remain slightly sceptical about manipulating nature like this and there being no consequences.  If there truly is no consequences then I'd say it's very true that people's perception would need to change.  I imagine ranchers would be angry since they would be the ones competing against artificial meat.

You talk about consequences in a very misterious manner, though, as if by merely doing something like that we'll have caused nature to mystically rise against us to set the record straight or something.

[paulpablo]

Ok, sounds good to me.  I still remain slightly sceptical about manipulating nature like this and there being no consequences.  If there truly is no consequences then I'd say it's very true that people's perception would need to change.  I imagine ranchers would be angry since they would be the ones competing against artificial meat.

You talk about consequences in a very misterious manner, though, as if by merely doing something like that we'll have caused nature to mystically rise against us to set the record straight or something.

First part, correct.  I'm talking about it in a very mysterious manner because I don't know if there will be any consequences or what they would be.
Second part, no I'm not saying anything like that.

[Excited Penguin]

You talk about consequences in a very misterious manner, though, as if by merely doing something like that we'll have caused nature to mystically rise against us to set the record straight or something.

First part, correct.  I'm talking about it in a very mysterious manner because I don't know if there will be any consequences or what they would be.
Second part, no I'm not saying anything like that.

We're talking hypothetically about meat identical to that of animals in every relevant way as in taste, constituency, look, feel and so on. The only difference being that one is grown in a living animal and the other is grown in the laboratory - which if you take in account all the other factors involved is a meaningless difference, aside from the fact that one is unsustainable, unethical and unhealthy and the other isn't, at least in theory. Beyond that, we're merely talking about the likelihood of achieving that hypothetical scenario in reality, which clearly people are working to do right now and they already have much to show for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most ranchers don't own the cattle, their pastures are temporary accommodations (mostly overwintering) for much, much larger operations that cut production costs by letting cows eat grass and mill around for once in their miserable lives.  They really don't give a fuck when push comes to shove.  They'll cover their pastures with -anything- that's meets the final row in their financial projections..or nothing at all. 

I think that many ranchers, today, would breathe a sigh of relief if there was some reason that livestock for consumption became less of a temptation.  The risk is phenomenal, the reward is honestly and artificially minimal...but when you're scrutinizing the numbers it's hard to say no to meat..here for example.  Alternative land use is a subject of keen interest right now, and in most cases if you aren't wholly invested into the meat production monolith (and,importantly, to their standards of scale)...then your acreage is probably going to be more productive (fiscally and physically) doing anything else.  Just letting the grass grow for feed is more viable between 5 and 50 acres anywhere in the US, at any time.  

What's happening now is that ranchers are taking an absolute bath in support of a meat production system that many (including the ranchers themselves) have severe objections to from almost every possible angle, that all feel could be improved greatly.  The pitch is too enticing though, year after year people jump in, and year after year they find themselves selling pieces of their land..hilariously, pieces that often become competitors, further diluting the pool of success.   Any negative influence on the temptation that leads those guys to ruin would almost certainly result in them making better choices for themselves and as regards land use...because cattle ranching is, right now, on a razors edge with regards to profit to the ranchers -themselves-..but the industry cannot exist without them. A penny here and there can and routinely -does- crush the ranchers. That's the brilliance of the model....all of the risk is assumed by another, and whatever remaining potential profit there is is consolidated into one place..... and more importantly one bank account, to be distributed from there.

Meat processors would be up in arms.  Ranchers, only insomuch as their fortunes seem to them, in the present, to hinge upon the existence of the former. The animals aren't the only thing being exploited on the range.