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

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#71

Post by Falling3 »

jared314 wrote: post #63
raldi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who eats meat all the time, I also couldn't be more excited. First this stuff will be an inferior meat substitute. Then it'll be an equivalent meat substitute. Then it'll improve upon nature itself, and we'll be eating things that taste ten times better than bacon, and fifty times better than steak, and it will all be without a twinge of guilt.

That sounds like the path of artificial sweeteners. If history is any guide, there will also be a backlash where its artificial nature will be equated with poison for your body.

Hopefully it doesn't go down that path. I've never had an artificial sweetener I found halfway decent.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#72

Post by Falling3 »

coherentpony wrote: post #58
jamesbritt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those don't get around the act of killing.

I understand that. My point was more with the fair treatment of animals and respect for animal life, rather than the killing of animals.

Halal does nothing fair or respectful for the animal. And if you think free-range means anything significant (for 95% of the cases), think again.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#73

Post by Falling3 »

VLM wrote: post #39
mostly_harmless wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

Well of course not. You're still ending a sentient life. You're just separate out the sentience ending from the life ending.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#74

Post by mattzito »

mjs wrote: post #31

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...

Running grass through a cow is a remarkably efficient way of converting sunlight-capturing grass into calories we can actually digest. At least in the US, much of the scrubland can't support crops without intensive irrigation and fertilizer, but they can support cattle.

If you take away the fundamental question of eating meat, it's the way cattle are raised today that's the problem.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#75

Post by Falling3 »

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.

Tofu is not intended to be a direct replacement for meat. And some well prepared tofu is a delicious thing.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#76

Post by coherentpony »

Falling3 wrote: post #72
coherentpony wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that. My point was more with the fair treatment of animals and respect for animal life, rather than the killing of animals.

Halal does nothing fair or respectful for the animal. And if you think free-range means anything significant (for 95% of the cases), think again.

I'm sorry, free range depends on the country in question and I should have been more specific. I was talking about UK regulations, but I can understand your point regarding US regulations, if that was indeed your point.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#79

Post by mattzito »

My concern with this is the health or nutritional profile of the engineered meat. Technology is great, but we've also found out years later that an "innovation" is really a step backwards health-wise.

So, for example, the move from grass-fed to corn-fed beef allowed for vastly greater production in a much more efficient fashion, and even (for most people's palates) resulted in a better tasting meat. 20+ years later, we're finding out that the environmental cost of factory farm meat is much higher than we thought, and the corn-fed beef is much worse for you than grass-fed beef.

20 years from the meat cubes hitting the shelves, are we going to find out that cells grown on a straight glucose+vitamin mix are missing some micronutrient that helps our brain function correctly, or protects the gut against cancer?

Our bodies have had a very long time to adapt to certain models of nutrition, and when we tamper with them, we often find unintended consequences.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#80

Post by lololomg »

Falling3 wrote: post #71
jared314 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like the path of artificial sweeteners. If history is any guide, there will also be a backlash where its artificial nature will be equated with poison for your body.

Hopefully it doesn't go down that path. I've never had an artificial sweetener I found halfway decent.

I thought so too but I got used to it and now I prefer it to sugar. Your brain just got to adjust.
Post reply on HN