Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Engineering the $325,000 Burger

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 129 posts

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#21

Post by smsm42 »

batbomb wrote: post #9
jmilkbal wrote: post #4

I have a lot of mixed feelings about developments like this. On one hand, I'll tell people that food for me is about quality and flavor. I'm not opposed to pink slime for what it is, but because it just makes for a poor result. I'm in favor of this on a sustainability level, but very opposed on a quality level—not consistency and reliable textures and taste, but that sort of unquantifiable property that things exude…

Pound for Pound, I could still see an engineered meat cube having better texture than tofu. Even if this was just used for ground beef substitute, it would probably be fine.

Given what some outlets (Taco Bell[1], looking at you) pass as meat, it won't be much of a change anyway.

[1] http://www.justmeans.com/editorials?action=readeditorial&#38...

I, for one, wouldn't mind trying it out, but I have serious doubts it would approach the quality of real meat grilled burger anytime soon. And I understand that there are places where people are starving and such technologies can save lives, but realistically being the part of the lucky billion that is not under the threat of starvation I would always prefer the real thing if it's available.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#22

Post by smsm42 »

StavrosK wrote: post #13
smsm42 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean "living things that look cute on pictures"? Cell cultures are alive too, and have to die for you to consume them.

I mean "things with nervous systems that can feel pain".

Pain is not a necessary component of the animal being eaten (unless it's being hunted down in the wild, of course, but most animals that are consumed by humans aren't), so if that is the problem it can be (and, as far as I know, is being) dealt with without reinventing the whole lifecycle in the lab.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#23

Post by return0 »

jmilkbal wrote: post #4

I have a lot of mixed feelings about developments like this. On one hand, I'll tell people that food for me is about quality and flavor. I'm not opposed to pink slime for what it is, but because it just makes for a poor result. I'm in favor of this on a sustainability level, but very opposed on a quality level—not consistency and reliable textures and taste, but that sort of unquantifiable property that things exude…

As someone who grew up in a rural place eating organically, humanely and affectionately grown (in the local terroir) animals, i am thrilled that the possibilities for in vitro meat are opening up. It's amazing that we have the technology to replicate the properties of real food sources in a way that will (ultimately) be cheap and eco-friendly. Raising animals organically is messy and impossible to do on a large scale. Replacing that with a machine is a much better solution than growing animals in factory farms stuffed on antibiotics.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#24

Post by smsm42 »

return0 wrote: post #12

I wonder why he had to be funded privately. This seems to me as high priority research.

If he'd being funded - which seems to be the case - what't the problem with it being private? I can understand calls for public funding where the need is there but the private funds to serve it for one reason or another are not - but here the funds are supplied already, I see no problem.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#25

Post by smsm42 »

fchollet wrote: post #14
smsm42 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean "living things that look cute on pictures"? Cell cultures are alive too, and have to die for you to consume them.

Are you seriously trying to compare individual cells and fully grown mammals? Or are you just trying to be contrarian.

It said "living things". If it said "sentient things", that'd be different.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#26

Post by StavrosK »

smsm42 wrote: post #22
StavrosK wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean "things with nervous systems that can feel pain".

Pain is not a necessary component of the animal being eaten (unless it's being hunted down in the wild, of course, but most animals that are consumed by humans aren't), so if that is the problem it can be (and, as far as I know, is being) dealt with without reinventing the whole lifecycle in the lab.

Apart from pain, I would not like to die, and thus I would not kill anything that also does not want to die.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#28

Post by lurker14 »

smsm42 wrote: post #22
StavrosK wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean "things with nervous systems that can feel pain".

Pain is not a necessary component of the animal being eaten (unless it's being hunted down in the wild, of course, but most animals that are consumed by humans aren't), so if that is the problem it can be (and, as far as I know, is being) dealt with without reinventing the whole lifecycle in the lab.

There is no credible non-trivial slaughter-based solution to factory farming in development, not for current and forecasted consumption levels. The economics are fundamentally impossible.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#30

Post by [deleted] »

StavrosK wrote: post #26
smsm42 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pain is not a necessary component of the animal being eaten (unless it's being hunted down in the wild, of course, but most animals that are consumed by humans aren't), so if that is the problem it can be (and, as far as I know, is being) dealt with without reinventing the whole lifecycle in the lab.

Apart from pain, I would not like to die, and thus I would not kill anything that also does not want to die.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN