Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 272 posts

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#261

Post by pessimizer »

wahsd wrote: post #107

Mostly carnivorous guy here; I have started playing around with the use of tofu and mushrooms in stead of meat and have come to the realization that it is actually a lot easier to substitute them for meat. Another, even bigger realization I have come to is that it seems that my addiction, yes, addiction, to meat and meat having to be a minimum requirement for having any interest in a dish, is that it is really a psyc…

The claim that there's some healthy level of meat eating that Americans are exceeding is dubious. The claim that the level of our meat eating is devastating to our environment is indisputable.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#262

Post by philwelch »

wprl wrote: post #260
philwelch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is based on the current US farm labor situation and the general history of mankind that saw hunter-gatherers forcibly displace agricultural civilizations throughout the Middle Ages followed by massive migration to cities since th Industrial Revolution. Your opinion is based on what facts exactly?

The displacement caused by industrialization and imperialism, and the economies they foster, is not a situation in which enfranchised working class people are making informed decisions about their future, freely choose their lot, and draw from the public resources managed by their benevolent representative governments. It wasn't the case then, and it isn't the case now. The fact is that industrialized agriculture rep…

I think you're drawing a false dichotomy. It's certainly possible, and probably preferable, to have large scale agriculture that limits ecological impact, produces nutritious food, and avoids antibiotic use without requiring large numbers of people to work as farmers.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#263

Post by wprl »

zevyoura wrote: post #163
wprl wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I am doing, actually. As a beginner, I'm producing about 15% of my food now, eggs and vegetables, while also running a software business, and hanging about on HN. I live in a small city on about 1/4 acre. I expect to improve my yield quite a bit — three or four times in the next few seasons. I buy almost exclusively organic, local produce and meat. It's amazing how the savings begin to add up when you coo…

I applaud your effort, but I think you've made an incorrect assumption about scaling up your farming. >Someone with mechanized equipment and a few acres could produce much more organic produce than I do in the same amount of time, and meat, cheese, and eggs. Enough to supply dozens or more families with food. And because internet access is available, they are not disconnected from the world and could even run a softw…

My understanding is that 1 acre can be planted, cared for, and harvested in about 10 hours a week. This assumes the CSA would not be making deliveries. An acre is ~30 shares -- food for roughly 100-150 adults.

Most CSAs grow food for considerably more people, are substantially larger than an acre, and may make deliveries, or raise crops to sell on the open market as well as sell shares, and this of course may necessitate multiple full-time workers.

That's my understanding anyway, rough as it is.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#264

Post by wprl »

philwelch wrote: post #262
wprl wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The displacement caused by industrialization and imperialism, and the economies they foster, is not a situation in which enfranchised working class people are making informed decisions about their future, freely choose their lot, and draw from the public resources managed by their benevolent representative governments. It wasn't the case then, and it isn't the case now. The fact is that industrialized agriculture rep…

I think you're drawing a false dichotomy. It's certainly possible, and probably preferable, to have large scale agriculture that limits ecological impact, produces nutritious food, and avoids antibiotic use without requiring large numbers of people to work as farmers.

Well, you may be right. I'd be happy with any system that avoids the negatives of the current food infrastructure.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#265

Post by [deleted] »

mscarborough wrote: post #245
Retric wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be more difficult but we have synthetic meet it's just far to expencive to be practical. So the fact that the end product would presumably be with a lot more per lb could be a significant factor. PS: I suspect you could sell a few thousand 100k coats a year under the 'Animal Free' idea. Which pays for a fair amount of R&D.

You can already buy animal-free synthetic fur coats, and if you pay even $1,000 you're getting ripped off in a big way.

[deleted]

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#266

Post by crpatino »

MikeCapone wrote: post #215
crpatino wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am assuming those are cheaper/more efficient. After all, our grain production relies heavily on petrochemical inputs. Historically speaking, one of the reasons[1] domestication of large herbivores for meat production makes sense is because those can be fed with agriculture byproducts not suitable for human consumption. In industrial terms, it is a sort of "rejects reprocessing" that partially recovers an investment…

I'm not sure it would be more efficient. Starches from corn or potatoes is pretty cheap, and if this synthetic meat can use it more efficiently (I wouldn't be surprised at at least an order of magnitude or two) compared to an animal in the wild, that's relatively little feedstock per pound of meat compared to what we pay now. And using the same kind of biotech we use to break down cellulose to make cellulosic ethanol…

This is precisely this type of reasoning that I fear:

* Starches from corn or potatoes is pretty cheap (money, heavily affected by federal subsidies).

* Synthetic meat can use it more efficiently (the engineer in me wants to say "energy", but depending on the context it may mean higher utility margins, or lower labor costs, or what not).

* Same kind of biotech [as] cellulosic ethanol. I am not familiar with the state of the art on this field, but (corn) ethanol companies just engages in arbitrage tricks to make a bundle on yuppie's eco-guilt and government's largesse. Both the economy and the environment would be better of if people just shut up and directly burnt the diesel used in machinery used to rise and transport the corn used as raw inputs to make the ethanol.

Not that this particular argument is wrong, just that I do not have the facts and would like to see them discussed without all the hype!

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#267

Post by penguindev »

pearjuice wrote: post #212

He doesn't seem to understand that everything on this planet has its purpose and that of animals is, that it is to be consumed by us. I do not condone the current ways of killing animals en masse but certainly artificial meat isn't the answer either? We are dealing with a lot of unnatural food these days and no matter what the motivations are, it is hurting humanity.

You're right about the 'unnatural food'. It's sick, disgusting, and just plain mad science trying to play God with peoples lives.

How on earth do people think with all the variables relating to individuals and environment, finding 'causation' or 'safety' in something like 50 year cancer and heart attack risk studies is remotely plausible? What about reproductive issues? How many generations are needed to 'prove' something is 'safe'?

Nutritional science is a bunch of quackery topped only by the pretend science 'economics'. Sure, find some correlation dots, or simply say 'it hasn't been proven UNSAFE' when you're peddling your chemicals via the FDA.

We'd all be a lot better if we followed the oath of 'First, Do No Harm'.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#268

Post by penguindev »

philwelch wrote: post #217
penguindev wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend people respect our planet, animals, and each other, and live responsibly and sustainably with what we have been given and has proven to already work. I also recommend thinking critically, logically, and avoiding false dichotomies.

There are 7 billion people alive today. If we can't produce enough food for them all, people will starve. There's nothing false about that dichotomy, only your evasion.

So if the african, muslim countries, and india adopted a one child policy tomorrow like china did, how many people would starve? versus your proposal of continuing mad science and putting it in our bodies.

We have 1 billion undernourished today (note that there were only 1 billion in the whole world in 1804). And most of the rest of us are getting diabetes due to massive sugar and starch intake, promised by science as being 'good for us'. We also have mercury in our fish, hormones in our cows, insecticides in our veggies, fracking chemicals in our groundwater to get natural gas to make synthetic fertilizer, chemicals fed to pigs to make them grow faster (in the US anyway, china doesn't even allow that crap to be sold)...

So why exactly do some people still think malthus was wrong? How exactly can some people defend population growth?

How exactly are you going to prove this shit is 'SAFE'? When scientists for 50 years haven't even been able to prove if animal fat is healthy for us or not? And we have been eating that for a million years? Do you understand 'First, Do No Harm?'

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#269

Post by maxerickson »

VladRussian2 wrote: post #252
powertower wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once more nutritious than natural, the artificial meat will allow to overcome the current energy limitation on our brain. I think you could rather drink a mixture of a protein, vitamin, oil, enzymes, etc, shake today - and get the same effects, than wait for your enhanced meat product. The energy limitation was also a leap, when apes (or whatever) started eating meat, and later humans (or whatever) started using fi…

>And even then, you'd have to wait for evolution to take its course and produce (well, perpetuate) whatever DNA is required to produce a bigger brain over a millennium or even longer... the previous 2M were spent on this extensive option - increasing the size (that was enabled by meat eating), and i think we pretty much exhausted that venue. The next step is increasing the intensity of using that big brain. We use on…

Energy surplus is a huge public health problem. Also, the brain runs on glucose, fancy meat isn't going to help with that.

Re: Sergey Brin invests in synthetic beef

#270

Post by philwelch »

penguindev wrote: post #268
philwelch wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 7 billion people alive today. If we can't produce enough food for them all, people will starve. There's nothing false about that dichotomy, only your evasion.

So if the african, muslim countries, and india adopted a one child policy tomorrow like china did, how many people would starve? versus your proposal of continuing mad science and putting it in our bodies. We have 1 billion undernourished today (note that there were only 1 billion in the whole world in 1804). And most of the rest of us are getting diabetes due to massive sugar and starch intake, promised by science a…

There are seven million people alive today. If tomorrow there is not enough food in the world to feed seven million people, some of them will starve. How can you keep evading this?

Even if we're talking about staying at 7 billion vs. scaling to 10 billion, your first solution is to forcibly eliminate the reproductive rights of the browner-skinned half of the world population?

Post reply on HN