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

81–90 of 129 posts

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#81

Post by snogglethorpe »

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.

Yeah, but aspartame also tastes awful...

I suppose meh-tasting-guilt-free bacon is something, but, well... meh. TT

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#82

Post by nmcfarl »

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…

Having known some vegetarians who claim meat is uninteresting and have had a good farm raised and wild caught meat in their pre-vegetarian days, I don't think this is a case.

I think for some people meat, and pretty much of all food, is fairly uninteresting it is pretty much just a way to fuel their body. They take fairly little joy in their meals - which seems a bit incomprehensible - but it seems to be the way it is.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#84

Post by illuminate »

jared314 wrote: post #63
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.

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.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#85

Post by illuminate »

coherentpony wrote: post #76
Falling3 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Halal does nothing fair or respectful for the animal. And if you think free-range means anything significant (for 95% of the cases), think again.

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.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#86

Post by illuminate »

alex_doom wrote: post #52
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.

I would say the fast food industry is probably more excited. If the costs ever got below current beef prices.

Good. It'll be objectively better for the world.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#87

Post by gcheong »

ekurutepe wrote: post #3

Can a vegetarian eat meat if it's grown in lab a dish?

I believe that under a strict definition of vegetarianism - a person who abstains from eating meat - the answer would be no. If they did they would not be vegetarian. Maybe another classification would need to be created for those who will only eat cultured meat.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#88

Post by phil_s_stein »

duopixel wrote: post #65

I know this sounds repulsive, but I think a good shortcut to lab grown meat would be similar to KFC's urban myth of "headless organisms fed by tubes" [1]. If you give it a bit of thought, it might be more ethical raising brainless and senseless organisms for human consumption. It also solves many sanitary problems in farms (antibiotics, crowded living conditions) and it allows us to give pasture lands back to nature.…

I suspect this idea has occurred to the people working on this and it is not as easy as you assume - that there are problems in execution (so to speak) of this shortcut. Once the lab-in-a-test-tube thing is solved, it is a much cleaner and more elegant solution.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#89

Post by snogglethorpe »

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…

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 interesting food, with a much wider range of flavors.

Note the stereotypical Airplane-meal question (where the actual dishes are quite different): "Chicken or beef?" I know they're just trying to be efficient, but this question seems to capture society's attitude: that once you know the type of meat involved, eh, the rest is just pointless detail.

So while meat can be a wonderful and interesting part of a meal, I think it would be better if it lost some of its overwhelming dominance, and became just another ingredient.

Re: Engineering the $325,000 Burger

#90

Post by illuminate »

jmilkbal wrote: post #35
eridius wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems awfully close-minded to be dismissing the whole idea of eating lab-grown meat due to some ineffable "quality" before you've actually even tried it.

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
Post reply on HN