31–40 of 253 posts
Was everyone this skeptical / glib when the (insert technology) was useless when it was invented? Anyone seen the efficiency of a solar panel in 1970?
Factory farming is a real problem to solve.
I glanced through the paper and I could not find any mention indicating who funded that study.
I'm also very sceptical of single studies that support the status quo for very large industries -- even more so when there is no indication of who funded the study.
Or we could switch to eating plants now. We already get 82% calories and 63% proteins from plants. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets We could stay on our 1% of habitable earth, lower our agricultural footprint from 48% of land to 15%, use quarter of pesticides,…
Good luck enforcing a world-wide “plant-only” diet. I know people who would go to war just over that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haven't you heard the argument that livestock raising releases methane/CO2 etc?
The argument? It's not an argument - livestock does produce CO2. It is a fact. I don't eat meat partially for this reason. I still have no idea what it means with regards to your original statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does everything have to be all-or-nothing? Start by stop subsidizing meat.
Corn would like to have a talk with your meat subsidizes.
Or we could switch to eating plants now. We already get 82% calories and 63% proteins from plants. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets We could stay on our 1% of habitable earth, lower our agricultural footprint from 48% of land to 15%, use quarter of pesticides,…
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#dis...
Where I'm from most domestically consumed beef comes from diary cows. It's sort of chewy, but at least all this meat didn't go to waste.
No need for extreme measures.
Scaling up the a new product to suddenly feed everyone on Earth based on its current low-volume tech seems like a pointless analysis. The only interesting thing about the article is going to be how the headline will probably compel HNers to go into the same old hobby horse rant against lab-grown meat.
Why pointless? The authors ran a detailed analysis, identified a bottleneck (the endotoxin purification) and made a recommendation that effort be made to tackle that bottleneck by engineering cell lines that can withstand higher amounts of endotoxins. To me this sounds as useful as science can be.
I’m surprised at the skepticism here on HN. Was everyone this skeptical / glib when the (insert technology) was useless when it was invented? Anyone seen the efficiency of a solar panel in 1970? Factory farming is a real problem to solve.
Good thing someone took one for the team and invested in scaling this up.
Livestock is grown in parts of the world on stuff which cannot be sold or which grows on its own - example: grass etc. How in the world is lab grown meat going to compete with that in terms of efficiency, CO2 emissions etc?
You have to explain to me what this: > Livestock is grown in parts of the world on stuff which cannot be sold or which grows on its own - example: grass etc. Has to do with CO2 produced from raising livestock? I can't connect the two in my head, there's some missing information here I don't have.
If we stop growing beef on the second category of land that's not suitable for combines but is suitable for bovines, well, that could represent a net loss of food.