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.

[vorlon13]

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

1.) Replacing their meat does not replace the other products, or byproducts such as fertility.
2.)A factual appraisal of the situation at hand is hardly fatalism.  I hope we come up with something better.  In vitro isn't that thing, awesome as it is..for what it is, a meat substitute.
3.)It's not the situation of the animals where it goes off the rails.  We are not alien conquerors come from space who merely choose to kill and eat animals.  We are codependent with our livestock and yes...even their deaths, it's not a simple issue of replacing their meat.  We haven;t felt that way in awhile, sure. We insulated ourselves from that realization with mountains and mountains of crude. In retrospect, this was a mistake.

In answer, I think, to all of the rest of the questions in your post;

Fertility is the stuff we grow food out of, sustainable fertility is the stuff that creates a closed (or semi closed) production system.  To source it, we choose between phosphorous mines and oil wells, or pastures and slaughterhouses.  That's where our food comes from - even the vegetables.  One or the other..mostly a mix. 

Reduced (or criminalized) livestock production means less available fertility, a burden that will have to be accepted and carried the only other source, oil.  I take it as a given, as a person interested in animal rights, economic issues, health,  and sustainability, you will not be satisfied with a meat substitute that simply moves the killing from the slaughterhouse and hides it out of view elsewhere.  

The systemic failures of our current food policies and production models are simply inherited by in vitro meat. What's needed, if we hope to feed ourselves for any length of time on this rock and do the least harm to our fellow animals (humans included).... is affordable food, healthier fields, environmental remediation, and better integration of production models which will..by necessity include livestock operations.  Not tube grown luxury items that make for a guilt free t-bone.

[Excited Penguin]

How do you make the connection between killing animals for food and collecting their shit? Do they shit more if you start killing them en masse, or something?

[I_am_not_mafia]

We've already switched to Quorn. We have a chilli every Friday and don't notice enough of a difference to care whether the mince is from a real animal or not.

Holy fuck that sounds nasty. Can't you afford real meat?

I was sceptical as well but it's actually fine. Cost isn't an issue either way. It was more of an ethical decision. Not that I am a vegetarian.

[KUSA]

Holy fuck that sounds nasty. Can't you afford real meat?

I was sceptical as well but it's actually fine. Cost isn't an issue either way. It was more of an ethical decision. Not that I am a vegetarian.

So what does it taste like by itself?

[Excited Penguin]

We are talking about meat here, Rhythm. Not about anything else. If vitro meat is the same as old meat, which it is, there's no possible rationale you can make for slaughtering animals, and that's that. If you can think of one though, feel free to let me know of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you make the connection between killing animals for food and collecting their shit? Do they shit more if you start killing them en masse, or something?

Their bones and blood are also used.  But, yeah, having enough around to support agriculture's fertility requirements means that you'll be in the business of killing them.  Fact of life and business, as distressing as it is to you.  

We are talking about meat here, Rhythm. Not about anything else. If vitro meat is the same as old meat, which it is, there's no possible rationale you can make for slaughtering animals, and that's that. If you can think of one though, feel free to let me know of it.

If it was the same as old meat there wouldn't be any hubbub, but it isn't.  My rationale is the same as it's been since I -first- joined the thread because in vitro meat not only does nothing to change it..it has nothing to do with it.  There is no credible future for us on this rock that doesn't involve substantial livestock production.

My bad, I thought we were talking food, health, ecology, economy, ethics..morality and rationale..laws being put into place. Are you telling me now..what I suggested to you then.....that the subject is meat and just meat? Well welcome aboard, asshole. Now tell their CEO that, and remind yourself.

[Excited Penguin]

How do you make the connection between killing animals for food and collecting their shit? Do they shit more if you start killing them en masse, or something?

Their bones and blood are also used.  But, yeah, having enough around to support agriculture's fertility requirements means that you'll be in the business of killing them.  Fact of life and business, as distressing as it is to you.  

We are talking about meat here, Rhythm. Not about anything else. If vitro meat is the same as old meat, which it is, there's no possible rationale you can make for slaughtering animals, and that's that. If you can think of one though, feel free to let me know of it.

If it was the same as old meat there wouldn't be any hubbub, but it isn't.  My rationale is the same as it's been since I -first- joined the thread because in vitro meat not only does nothing to change it..it has nothing to do with it.  There is no credible future for us on this rock that doesn't involve substantial livestock production.  The slaughter of those animals is an inextricable consequence of that...and of our very existence in the general.

If what you're saying is true than I would have to agree with you. I highly doubt it, though. But if it is, I would never argue that we should stop put livestock before humans, of course.

If it will be proven to be exactly the same as old meat, what then, genius?

[Excited Penguin]

And even if we had to slaughter them for whatever reason, vitro meat would still be healthier and we wouldn't kill animals for food anymore, at least. So there's that and it's what this thread is really about. That you went ahead and talked about something else is none of my business.