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

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#91

Post by illuminate »

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…

"This line of thinking drifts into uncomfortable territory relating to cannibalism of euthanized elders"

Obviously, being such a common practice.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#92

Post by illuminate »

smsm42 wrote: post #21
batbomb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

There's not a vast difference between what's sold as ground beef and what Taco Bell serves.

http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/badmeat.asp

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#93

Post by illuminate »

mjs wrote: post #34
smsm42 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

"given the high stakes (environmental, financial, moral, and so on), why aren't governments more involved in this research"

In the US? The beef industry has a strong enough lobby.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#94

Post by ehsanu1 »

illuminate wrote: post #84
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.

Progress is always demonized by people who worship the naturalistic fallacy.

Not sure what naturalistic fallacies have to do with artificial sweeteners generally being pretty bad for your long-term health (not that sucrose/fructose is that much better in sufficient quantities).

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#95

Post by msrpotus »

jckt wrote: post #45
TillE wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you mind explaining why you don't find meat particularly exciting? I personally have nothing much against vegetarians -- in all honesty my current diet (cheaper) is probably closer to that of a vegetarian's -- but whenever they dismiss meat as "uninteresting" they all seem to actually be quite ignorant of meat, and that they all seem to have ever bought theirs out of a styrofoam, shrinkwrapped package from a super…

I had good meat before I became a vegetarian but it's just not a food I really enjoy. I enjoyed high-quality meat but it just wasn't a taste I was ever especially attached to.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#96

Post by coherentpony »

illuminate wrote: post #85
coherentpony wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you understand how little regulations have to do with veg*nism.

Alright, I give up; I have clearly misunderstood something.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#97

Post by mortenjorck »

cheapsteak wrote: post #66
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.

Eagerly anticipating the Aspartame of meat. 2 pounds of bacon, 0 calories.

Not really an analogous comparison.

Aspartame is a more complex molecule synthesized to mimic certain properties of monosaccharides. Many would say it is inferior in taste to what it purports to replace.

Cultured beef, however, should be more or less the same cocktail of organic compounds that make up a dead cow. How these compounds are mixed, the proportions to which they appear, and what shapes they take are the interesting variables here, and could, with enough control, make something "better than real."

I'd draw instead the comparison to synthetic diamonds. Same stuff, potentially unnaturally flawless results.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#98

Post by danbruc »

ehsanu1 wrote: post #94
illuminate wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progress is always demonized by people who worship the naturalistic fallacy.

Not sure what naturalistic fallacies have to do with artificial sweeteners generally being pretty bad for your long-term health (not that sucrose/fructose is that much better in sufficient quantities).

[...] artificial sweeteners generally being pretty bad for your long-term health [...]

A quick search did not bring up any evidence that sugar substitute have known negative longterm effects.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#99

Post by jckt »

snogglethorpe wrote: post #89
jckt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind explaining why you don't find meat particularly exciting? I personally have nothing much against vegetarians -- in all honesty my current diet (cheaper) is probably closer to that of a vegetarian's -- but whenever they dismiss meat as "uninteresting" they all seem to actually be quite ignorant of meat, and that they all seem to have ever bought theirs out of a styrofoam, shrinkwrapped package from a super…

Certainly meat can be exciting, but in many cases, and especially in modern western culture, it seems to be used as a crutch, in a sort of "just throw in some meat and you're done" way. For instance, I've found vegetarian Indian restaurants vastly more interesting than Indian restaurants that rely on meat. It's not that I hate meat (I don't, and I'm not a a vegetarian), but the former sort simply seem to offer more i…

Nice note about the meat-orientated culture. To add to that, though, historically (and I find this, as you pointed out, a mostly Western thing, since coming from a southern Chinese culture I know that meats aren't elevated above other foods, ever) I'm pretty sure the role of meat in the dish's name is simply because every time anyone around the Renaissance era--foundation of Western cooking--would have made a huge deal about slaughtering a cow, and such names of dishes simply stuck with us since then.

I wonder how meat came to be so dominant though. Funnily enough, when the Old World found the New World they found a land so plentiful in meat, instead of jumping up in joy certain parts of society actually started to find meat disgusting. So maybe it's not really just a Western thing, but meat's dominance is mostly a New World thing: According to http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visual..., USA, Canada, Australia and NZ are far ahead of everyone else in per-capita meat consumption. And it doesn't seem to be correlated with per-capita GDP either. This might also means that meat's dominance is also very recent, and not universal even in modern Western culture. Maybe it's simply a matter of who has an older history of eating traditions, traditions that are responsible for toning down the meat-mania?

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#100

Post by jmilkbal »

illuminate wrote: post #90
jmilkbal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said mixed feelings because that exactly how I feel. It's more hesitant, but I suppose you could say I'm cautiously optimistic.

You're placing artifical constraints way too soon, though. It came off unnecessarily dismissive, not cautiously optimistic :p

I don't have much faith in the patent or global food system to create something with "ineffable 'quality'". Once the local food conglomerates are able to produce this, it's all about a price point and most frequently that price point is so low that anything you'd describe as high quality is not available. Think Salisbury steak. What will end up happening is a stratification of meat. Those with higher disposable incomes will eat dead things and the impoverished will get the poor economies of scale.

You may find my lack of faith disturbing.

Edited for Vader.

Post reply on HN