Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#51

Post by apalmer » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:15 PM UTC

jasondemeuse wrote: post #26

runarberg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if efficiency is the endgoal here, than bean cultivation seems way more logical answere to beef alternatives than fake meat. You basically take the the food you would otherwice feed your cows, stew it together with some saffran and beet juice (the same colorants as for the fake meat) and you have your economy-burger. No intermediate step which takes 10 times the space of a traditional meat-farm, no anti-biotics…

> Honestly I cant find a single logical reason why this artificial-meat buisness is a good idea You can't find a single reason why people would rather eat a replacement that eventually looks and tastes like a burger, rather than cow-food mixed with saffron and beet juice? If that sounds good to you, more power to you, but to think that people would pay for the mush the same way people currently pay for burgers is rid…

Ehhh, I mean I dont think this psuedo meat will ever taste EXACTLY like a burger either. Frankly, if one were to spend this kind of time, money and effort to produce a 'tasty' no meat burger probably you could get something of similar taste value.

I personally find this valuable for the same reason the space program is valuable, a lot will be learned, and technology will advance. As far as being a practical solution, seems unlikely. On the 'low end' the actual hungry people of the world for the most part arent particularly meat driven to the same degree that Americans are. On the 'high end', there is literally no way to reproduce the marbleing, vascular structure, bones etc, required to make a top quality steak without reproducing the whole cow, at which point the excersize is moot. I mean on the high end folks claim they can taste the difference in the type of grain the animal was fed, so that market is not going to go in for lab grown meat no matter what. So really at best, this technology will one day be able to replace ground beef, which isnt an ignoble goal.

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#52

Post by jeltz » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:17 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #23

myko wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean by perceived need for more meat - to me this seems like a project geared at creating more ethical, future proof meat products.

Humanity has never -- with the exception of extreme cases, historical or modern -- eaten as much meat as the western man does now [1]. The only reason we eat as much meat as we do, I think, is out of marketing. The perceived need for more meat is therefor to saturate the marked. The problem arising from growing meat consumption include, pollution, maldistribution of food, animal suffering, wasting of land and resourc…

> I suppose I need a reference for this claim, but think in terms of economy and you'll find that no other culture can afford this much land and resorces to go under meat-farming other than current western cultures

Yeah, you do need a source here. An obvious counterexample is the Inuits, but there have been several other societies with high meat consumption. Also note the high meat consumption of the upper class in Europe during some centuries (the popularity of meat varied over time).

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#53

Post by bane » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:21 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #23

myko wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean by perceived need for more meat - to me this seems like a project geared at creating more ethical, future proof meat products.

Humanity has never -- with the exception of extreme cases, historical or modern -- eaten as much meat as the western man does now [1]. The only reason we eat as much meat as we do, I think, is out of marketing. The perceived need for more meat is therefor to saturate the marked. The problem arising from growing meat consumption include, pollution, maldistribution of food, animal suffering, wasting of land and resourc…

> Humanity has never -- in no culture, historical or modern -- eaten as much meat as the western man does now

Absolutely incorrect. There are several well known groups of humans who survive off of a diet of principally animal products.

edit -- apologized for snark

I agree. In most places historically with good arable land, meat is not nearly as prevalent in a meal as today's Western diet. In many places, meat is pretty much just used as a flavoring in dishes like you might find in Chinese-American Szechuan String Beans (the little salted pork bits).

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#54

Post by venomsnake » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:23 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #23

myko wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean by perceived need for more meat - to me this seems like a project geared at creating more ethical, future proof meat products.

Humanity has never -- with the exception of extreme cases, historical or modern -- eaten as much meat as the western man does now [1]. The only reason we eat as much meat as we do, I think, is out of marketing. The perceived need for more meat is therefor to saturate the marked. The problem arising from growing meat consumption include, pollution, maldistribution of food, animal suffering, wasting of land and resourc…

There have been observation that when tribes move from hunting to agriculture (usually of desperation) the average height collapses and the decay of teeth is brutal in just a few generations.

Blaming marketing for meat consumption is somewhat unfair - people love meat - in the past it was reserved for the rich and wealthy - gout was called "The illness of kings". A lot of people just love meat.

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#55

Post by runarberg » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:31 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #45

runarberg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I can't find a single logical reason. Saturating peoples appetite for overmarkeded type of food doesn't seem logical to me. Just because people will pay money for it, doesn't make it a good idea.

Why do people always confuse logic to mean we ignore all sociological concerns? Just because they are harder to reason about doesn't mean they don't matter. It's not logical to pretend that they don't matter.

Im sorry for the misuse of the word 'logic'. By 'logic' I ment 'makes human sence'. But I was wrong there too. For investigating in means to satisfy our tastebuts, more economly, sound really human to me.

I guess, what I'm saying is simply that the time and effort going into artificial meat, and the promise it is going to generate will probably end up in continued overcomsuption. Totally overshadowing the social consernes.

I only wish an investigation into how to behaviorally modify our species from doing wastefull and damaging stuff on mass scale, would get as much funding and attention.

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#56

Post by runarberg » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:34 PM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #54

runarberg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humanity has never -- with the exception of extreme cases, historical or modern -- eaten as much meat as the western man does now [1]. The only reason we eat as much meat as we do, I think, is out of marketing. The perceived need for more meat is therefor to saturate the marked. The problem arising from growing meat consumption include, pollution, maldistribution of food, animal suffering, wasting of land and resourc…

There have been observation that when tribes move from hunting to agriculture (usually of desperation) the average height collapses and the decay of teeth is brutal in just a few generations. Blaming marketing for meat consumption is somewhat unfair - people love meat - in the past it was reserved for the rich and wealthy - gout was called "The illness of kings". A lot of people just love meat.

> Blaming marketing for meat consumption is somewhat unfair - people love meat - in the past it was reserved for the rich and wealthy

Don't be confused, it still is. The sepparation now just spans continents instead of classes.

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#57

Post by runarberg » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:38 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #53

runarberg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humanity has never -- with the exception of extreme cases, historical or modern -- eaten as much meat as the western man does now [1]. The only reason we eat as much meat as we do, I think, is out of marketing. The perceived need for more meat is therefor to saturate the marked. The problem arising from growing meat consumption include, pollution, maldistribution of food, animal suffering, wasting of land and resourc…

> Humanity has never -- in no culture, historical or modern -- eaten as much meat as the western man does now Absolutely incorrect. There are several well known groups of humans who survive off of a diet of principally animal products. edit -- apologized for snark I agree. In most places historically with good arable land, meat is not nearly as prevalent in a meal as today's Western diet. In many places, meat is pret…

You are right, and I edited me original comment accordingly

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#58

Post by Someone » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:54 PM UTC

jeltz wrote: post #38

lttlrck wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think they are having fun now? They are bred to be eaten, if we don't need them we'll stop breeding them.

Why wouldn't they have fun? They get a comfortable life up until the horrible end. Most cattle is not kept inside huge industrial buildings like chickens or pigs.

Comfortable life: if it weren't made illegal, cows bred for meat would be locked in cages where they can barely move. After all, all energy spent on movement can't be spent on gaining weight.

Also, cows bred for their meet are slaughtered at 7-8 months of age. If cared for, a cow could live for 20 years, but economics prevail.

Cows held for their milk have it a bit better, as they get to live for 5-6 years. Also, things have improved. For example, the milking robot not only improved yield, but also allowed each cow to select the time it wanted to be milked, and does not require farmers to chase their cows towards their milking place two or three times a day.

Not kept in buildings: That depends on the level of industrialization of the farms and on the quality of your grassland. For example, in the Netherlands, mowing grass mechanically and feeding it to your cattle which is kept inside year round is the way to go, if you look at this purely economically (cows destroy too much grass by trampling it and by dropping cow peas on it)

Consequently, there is now talk of paying farmers to let their cows go out on the meadows.

Not in huge buildings? Go to https://www.google.nl/search?q=cow+stable+design and click on 'Images'. Fewer cows per stable than we do with pigs or chicken, but not small stables, either.

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#59

Post by Someone » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

fredley wrote: post #2

What are the cells for the burger fed on? In tissue culture it's normal to feed cells Foetal Bovine Serum. Is this the case with these cells? If so we haven't fully removed the need for living, breathing animals from the equation.

The goal is not to completely get rid of the use of cows. Scroll down on http://culturedbeef.net/home/, and you will read

   "Better livestock conditions
    Cultured Beef can be produced without the slaughter
    of cattle, and far fewer cows are needed, so they
    can be reared without the need for intensive
    farming."

http://culturedbeef.net/faqs/ also states:

   "Cultured Beef is created by painlessly harvesting
    muscle cells from a living cow. Scientists then
    feed and nurture the cells so they multiply to
    create muscle tissue, which is the main component
    of the meat we eat. It is biologically exactly
    the same as the meat tissue that comes from a cow."

Re: Google's Sergey Brin explains why he paid $330,000 for lab burger

#60

Post by jasondemeuse » Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 5:14 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #55

kbenson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always confuse logic to mean we ignore all sociological concerns? Just because they are harder to reason about doesn't mean they don't matter. It's not logical to pretend that they don't matter.

Im sorry for the misuse of the word 'logic'. By 'logic' I ment 'makes human sence'. But I was wrong there too. For investigating in means to satisfy our tastebuts, more economly, sound really human to me. I guess, what I'm saying is simply that the time and effort going into artificial meat, and the promise it is going to generate will probably end up in continued overcomsuption. Totally overshadowing the social cons…

How does this research _not_ have the goal of keeping humans from doing "wasteful and damaging stuff"? The long term point is to have only a few cows that can create tons of beef without being slaughtered. Sounds much less wasteful, more efficient, and less damaging to me.

If your only other problem with this is that they're working on changing the product rather than the behavior of an entire population, without actually giving a hint on how you would go about changing that behavior, you're just complaining for the sake of complaining.