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

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#111

Post by sp332 »

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…

While I agree about Indian food in particular, vegetarians can be pretty boring too. http://fightland.vice.com/blog/ottavia-bourdain-goes-vegan

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#112

Post by damoncali »

haberman wrote: post #53

> 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…

Read The Innovators Solution (or Dilemma). There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#114

Post by snogglethorpe »

sp332 wrote: post #111
snogglethorpe wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While I agree about Indian food in particular, vegetarians can be pretty boring too. http://fightland.vice.com/blog/ottavia-bourdain-goes-vegan

Er, of course―boring is easy―but that link isn't a very good way to make the point... truly cringe-inducing. 😵

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#115

Post by zzzeek »

csense wrote: post #55
zzzeek wrote: post #32

I'd be super happy about this. Except if Monsanto took it over. Then we'd be paying license fees to go to McDonalds.

The company or companies that make this work commercially will probably have patents out the wazoo. And manufacturers that use their technology will have to pay them license fees, which would probably be included in the price of the product. 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 potentia…

Did you take my comment to mean that I'm opposed to this technology or that I would actually expect consumers to pay for patents directly? It was merely a very poorly received joke, downmod away as humor is really not appreciated on hacker news, but at least know that it was sarcasm.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#116

Post by enraged_camel »

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.

I think it would have been a reverse pressure. Being tasty is not exactly an advantage...

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#117

Post by sp332 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #116
raldi wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it would have been a reverse pressure. Being tasty is not exactly an advantage...

They would have to outpace predator's tastebuds, which were selected to think their prey is delicious :)

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#118

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

#119

Post by illuminate »

jmilkbal wrote: post #100
illuminate wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incom…

"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."

I agree with you to a minor extent, in that there'll be extremely high quality meat available and cheap gro-meat available for the backyard burgers and fast food. I do not see this as an issue. Production will be cheaper, use up less resources, and destroy the shitty mediocre meat, leaving the higher-quality just as cheap as it always was.

"You may find my lack of faith disturbing."

I find it unsurprising, but I really don't see things as being that bad. This would be entirely preferable (in the pocketbook) for low-to-middle-classed meat eaters.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#120

Post by illuminate »

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"

The fallacy has everything to do with your insistence that this is anything but fantasy. Artificial sweeteners are not worse off for you than sucrose/fructose.

Post reply on HN