Synthetic meat

[Excited Penguin]

Oh, you mean...post 17?

Ok, let us look at post 17.

Here is the full quote, which I will hide in the appropriate tags and then deconstruct accordingly.

---

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.

---

 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).

What do you mean by exploiting the relationships that exist in livestock production?

How is a new exploitable resource such as "the next oil" in any way relevant to the topic under discussion(meat)?

In vitro meats exacerbate that problem, while necessarily ignoring it - because their production relies upon it.  

How does vitro meat exarcerbate the problem of limited resources? Their production relies upon the problem, you say - what exactly do you mean by that? But regardless, I would think it's intended to solve it, somewhat. I am curious to think why you think the opposite.

 Because there is no intensive production of actual livestock, there is no intensive production of sustainable fertility.  

What is this sustainable fertility you are referring to and how does it relate to the wellbeing of the human race in general?

That is the only credible alternative to oil available to us at present.....

What is and why?

The resources consumed (not to mention research) would not only yield more product elsewhere, it is currently -needed- elsewhere.

What product is needed elsewhere and would be taken by resources and research dedicated to this project?

The only need this product serves is a need to relieve a consumer's burden of conscience in exchange for coin.

Growing livestock is bad for the environment. The conditions the animals are kept in make them sick, and they are pumped full of antibiotics which in turn becomes bad for our health upon consumption of said meat. Not to mention the other factors involved, other than antibiotics, that spoil the product. This is something in vitro meat production wouldn't have to deal with or answer for. Not to also mention the amounts of food we feed them for the comparatively small amounts of meat they provide, which is counter-productive.

---

---

I don't know. It seems to me that you don't.

Okay?

Okay.

Bad practices? Ok, let's assume for even a second that we could ethically prepare animals for slaughter, which is insane, but ok. 

We can.

Nope.

Would you agree to being slaughtered for your meat by a superior race from space that conquered earth, if said race could reasonably survive and preserve their comfort by eating something else other than you, merely because they treated you right before chopping you up for your meat? Can you see how insane this sounds, or not?

I doubt that the first cattle went willingly into the pens any more than I would.  We do know how to survive and preserve the comfort of livestock, it's incredibly lucrative business.  Happy animals have a tendency to be docile and plump....

It sounds like we'd have been dealt a shitty hand by the cosmos...not really insane since it;s in the business of handing out shitty hands..and we're headed the way of the dodo or the cow.  

Of course...it all sounds like fantasy..........so I'm not sure how informative it would be.  We're not aliens from space... just human beings, subject to limitations and necessity.  

In order of paragraphs:

1) We wouldn't have to slaughter them at all, let alone look for ways to keep them comfortable and "happy" while doing so, if we could successfully replace their meat with in vitro meat.

2) It sounds to me like you're a fatalist when it suits you. The fact is, this analogy was employed precisely to show you that we have a choice in how we treat the animals. Arguably they have already been dealt a shitty hand. Now, what are we going to do about it, given the opportunity to help them? Pretend we can't so that our businesses remain lucrative?

3) It's very informative. It's the same situation the animals we slaughter are in reality that we would be in my scenario. Except we are talking about a future where we won't be subject to limitations and necessity, in this respect. One where we'll have a viable alternative to getting our meat unethically, as we do at present.

They're an alternative to meat for a subset of consumer, that they're "better" is only a different way to say they aren't made out of cow.  I think that the significance of this is being blown entirely out of proportion.

 
They are better for economical, environmental and health-related reasons, not because they're not made of cow, which they would be, by the way. The ethical side of it is only the cherry on top.

Sure, but this manner doesn't actually do that.  What it does,  is provide a niche consumer with a label on a product they can feel good about.   I'm not sure why you expect it to be anything more?

It will do that, I think. But you don't know that it won't, and I don't know that it will -not definitely and not yet anyway. But if it did, you would agree that we shouldn't kill animals for meat anymore?

It's not about a niche consumer if we're talking about a meat identical to that which we get the old way. It's about the whole market. And it's not about how you feel about it. It's about what it is.