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

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#101

Post by dsego »

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…

So? Cannibalism of euthanized elders doesn't seem immoral. It is not an accepted practice in most human cultures, because of emotional ties. Cannibalism itself was a prevalent phenomenon throughout human history. Although, my view of ethics mostly aligns with Peter Singer.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#102

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#103

Post by sp332 »

raldi wrote: post #47
sethbannon wrote: post #27

As someone who doesn't eat meat for ethical reasons, I couldn't be more excited by the potential of this.

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.

Hydroponic gardens produce some of the most amazing-tasting vegetables. I can't imagine how good a chemically-perfect chuck roast would taste. Edit: and getting veal, good goose liver, etc without any animal cruelty is good too :)

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#104

Post by sp332 »

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 think the best is a combination of acesulfame potassium (Ace-K) and sucralose (Splenda). It doesn't taste like sugar, but it's nice and sweet and they cover each others' aftertaste pretty well. Jone's Soda uses it for their diet drinks.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#105

Post by raldi »

sp332 wrote: post #103
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.

Hydroponic gardens produce some of the most amazing-tasting vegetables. I can't imagine how good a chemically-perfect chuck roast would taste. Edit: and getting veal, good goose liver, etc without any animal cruelty is good too :)

It's not like there was any evolutionary pressure for animals to optimize for tastiness.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#106

Post by ams6110 »

return0 wrote: post #12

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

Some would say that the entrenched agricultural lobby would not be happy to see funding go to this work, since it ultimately eliminates farming livestock and farming for livestock feed (which is a huge fraction of all farming).

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#107

Post by dsego »

StavrosK wrote: post #37
eatitraw wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

If you are so inclined, you could try being a weekday vegetarian - http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_weekday_vegetarian.html. For me, the two hardest things, when finally quitting eating meat a year ago, were convincing everybody around me that was serious about it, and finding alternative foods. I still occasionally eat fish. I try to justify it to myself as fish being of lesser intelligence and sentience.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#108

Post by StavrosK »

dsego wrote: post #107
StavrosK wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

If you are so inclined, you could try being a weekday vegetarian - http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_weekday_vegetarian.html . For me, the two hardest things, when finally quitting eating meat a year ago, were convincing everybody around me that was serious about it, and finding alternative foods. I still occasionally eat fish. I try to justify it to myself as fish being of lesser intelligence and sentience.

That would have been much easier if I liked fish, plants, etc :/ I'm a pretty fussy eater, sadly.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#109

Post by ams6110 »

mattzito wrote: post #74
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.

Additionally, the meat of grass-fed beef is much better for you than corn-fed (actually I believe the real difference is in the fat).

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#110

Post by AaronFriel »

raldi wrote: post #105
sp332 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroponic gardens produce some of the most amazing-tasting vegetables. I can't imagine how good a chemically-perfect chuck roast would taste. Edit: and getting veal, good goose liver, etc without any animal cruelty is good too :)

It's not like there was any evolutionary pressure for animals to optimize for tastiness.

Sure there was, thanks to human domestication and husbandry of animals, we've been selecting for tastiness in some species for thousands of years.
Post reply on HN