Glad this is getting closer! Aside from the moral issues, running sunlight, water and feed through a cow is such an inefficient and inelegant way of producing meat...
Engineering the $325,000 Burger
31–40 of 129 posts
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#32I'd be super happy about this.
Except if Monsanto took it over. Then we'd be paying license fees to go to McDonalds.
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#33Earlier 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.
Two questions:
1) No species on earth "wants" to die. Every living organism has defence systems that it will try to prevent/repair any damage made to it.
Even more, (some) plants communicate and use signaling system to warn their neighbours about threats. Clearly, any species try to avoid death
How do you define "does not want to die"? 2) What about carnivorus species? Do they "allowed" to eat meat? If they are allowed, why humans can't? And more specifically, why you can't?
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#34I 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.
I'm guessing the OP means: given the high stakes (environmental, financial, moral, and so on), why aren't governments more involved in this research? (They're already regulating and subsidising farming in pretty much every country of the world.)
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#35I 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…
It seems awfully close-minded to be dismissing the whole idea of eating lab-grown meat due to some ineffable "quality" before you've actually even tried it.
I said mixed feelings because that exactly how I feel. It's more hesitant, but I suppose you could say I'm cautiously optimistic.
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#36I wonder why he had to be funded privately. This seems to me as high priority research.
Probably because making a full burger at this stage isn't really about research, but about getting publicity and support. Although who knows, maybe some good scaling techniques will come out of it.
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apart from pain, I would not like to die, and thus I would not kill anything that also does not want to die.
Two questions: 1) No species on earth "wants" to die. Every living organism has defence systems that it will try to prevent/repair any damage made to it. Even more, (some) plants communicate and use signaling system to warn their neighbours about threats. Clearly, any species try to avoid death How do you define "does not want to die"? 2) What about carnivorus species? Do they "allowed" to eat meat? If they are allow…
1) I'd say "being sentient" is a good definition for that. What exactly is sentient is left open to interpretation a bit, but I know big animals are, and I know plants aren't.
2) Eating meat is immoral, animals can't reason about morality, therefore they do whatever they do. Morality is the domain of beings intelligent enough to think about it. I consider killing animals immoral. That said, I do eat meat, because it's so tasty, in full conscience that I am immoral.
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the reason you're vegetarian. If it's for ethical reasons, then they probably would. If it's for health reasons, then probably not. If it's for environmental reasons, then it would depend on the environmental impact of in vitro meat.
Don't forget taste -- some vegetarians simply don't like the taste of meat.
And some find it gross to eat animal flesh.
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#39Earlier 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 think sentient is probably closer to his definition. Yes, vegetables are 'alive', but (as current knowledge) they do not feel. Which reduces the apprehension of eating it.
This line of thinking drifts into uncomfortable territory relating to cannibalism of euthanized elders, after all if they're not sentient around the time of death and those at the bedside vigil are hungry ... Just saying that as a moral/ethical argument its a minefield, not simple.
As a worse example of the same path, castration of bulls has always been seen as "OK" for convenience in raising beef, none the less I'm thinking a somewhat higher "brain-ectomy" of livestock isn't going to fix everything up for vegetarians.
Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger
#40As someone who doesn't eat meat for ethical reasons, I couldn't be more excited by the potential of this.
I've gone back and forth a couple times between omnivore and strict vegetarian, and personally I've concluded that meat isn't particularly exciting. It's just convenient and fairly cheap.
If this winds up being cheap, great. Regardless, I still prefer an interesting spicy black bean burger to anything made with ground beef.