(February 23, 2016 at 10:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: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.(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.
Oh, and the poll asked some 15 thousand people, just so you know.