51–60 of 129 posts
As someone who doesn't eat meat for ethical reasons, I couldn't be more excited by the potential of this.
I feel like the lesson of Tesla is that the way to sell new technology is to make it better than the status quo in some way. "It's reasonably good" will sell to a few environmentally-conscious people, but it's better if something is genuinely appealing in some way other than ethics.
It's easier to sell the carrot than the stick.
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…
But then again, there's really no shame in advocating the preservation of human links in our already heavily mechanised food chains, is there? I mean, what type of world do we want to live in?
I'd be super happy about this. Except if Monsanto took it over. Then we'd be paying license fees to go to McDonalds.
It has the potential to be economically much more efficient than growing livestock and massively increase the production of meat. The article doesn't talk much about the potential economic impact, focusing instead on environmental and ethical concerns, but considering the amount of land that is currently devoted to livestock grazing that would be able to be put to other uses when it becomes obsolete...it really is a game-changer that will make the human race much better off.
The people who make it work will deserve the billions they'll earn.
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…
Somewhere on this planet exists the tastiest cow. It has just the right combination of genes and environment to make it more mouth-watering to us than any other cow. Unfortunately, we won't know it's the tastiest cow until we kill it and eat it. Then only a few people will be able to enjoy it. Offspring with the same diet would likely taste great, but breeding and changing diet will always be an imprecise way to get tasty cows.
When fully-developed, in-vitro meat technology will give us better control over every aspect of the meat's taste. Nutrients can be delivered in just the right proportions at just the right times. Exercise (or lack of) can be simulated as much as we want. Even the genes in the tissue can be altered to improve the taste and texture. Once the technology gets to that point, there will be no good reason to raise and eat animals.
We can all eat /better/, live /better/ and be /better/ without all the trade-offs if we'll put a little more thought into our lives and a have a little more moderation of consumption. Oh, and waste less.
This is a nice sentiment, but I don't think any civilization has voluntarily reduced its resource usage or consumption. The people working on in-vitro meat want to solve the same problem as you, but they're being pragmatic about it.
I wouldn't have a problem eating manufactured meat if it looked the same and tasted the same, if not better (which what seems to be promised). I already eat Spam and salami, what's one more processed product in my food arsenal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For ethical reasons? Interesting. Have you considered eating free range chicken? Or perhaps Halal meat?
Those don't get around the act of killing.
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…
Eh, I can give up a bit of "unquantifiable property" if it means that living things don't have to die for it.
> Dr. Post, who has conducted some informal taste tests, said that even without any fat, the tissue “tastes reasonably good.” I feel like the lesson of Tesla is that the way to sell new technology is to make it better than the status quo in some way. "It's reasonably good" will sell to a few environmentally-conscious people, but it's better if something is genuinely appealing in some way other than ethics. It's easie…