Quote:I also strongly suspect that the real goal of laboratory-cultured "meat" has been, from the beginning, about achieving several goals: (1) driving traditional livestock farmers and ranchers out of business, (2) gaining thereby a concentrated food supply in relatively few corporate hands that manufacture "meat-like products", and (3) using the latter like GMO crops as a means of remaking or engineering the human biosphere and body itself.  It is thus, on my view, decidedly not about "freedom" or "the environment." To that end I suspect that somewhere along the line we should expect subsidization of meat-growing laboratories to make their products "cheaper" than the standard livestock meat products in order to drive the latter out of business.  Interestingly, as the article itself admits, the University of California-Davis questions the whole environment-friendliness of laboratory-cultured meat.

(05-26-2024, 06:13 PM)argentus Wrote: I suppose I might seem quite old-fashioned.   To me, laboratories are primarily for quantitative analysis, statistical analyses and testing of parameters and standards, perhaps some R&D and related things.   

I don't associate food production with a laboratory.   If food is being produced in a sterile, qualatively-controlled environment, it is probably experimental, and not what I would consider wholesome.   I feel the same about most (but not all) GMO foods.   When some of us were wee sprouts, corn and wheat had a much different nutritional index;  wheat and corn have been radically modified to produce MORE, but at  cost of nutritional value and measurement.   Thus, people are finding themselves semi- or completely allergic or intolerant to various grains which were previously in human history a constant  in the survival matrix of our species.   I'm just suprised somebody hasn't chosen to screw with the basic potato.   'Let's make them bigger!!!  Let's make them big as a Volkswagon Beetle!  We can ship them all over the world, and people will enjoy their empty calories!!  weeeeee!"

People.   Science is amazing and wonderful, and scientists -- while, in my world, not being opposed to religious folk -- often ask 'what can we do', rather than 'should we do this', or even 'is this an embracement of evil?'  ..........  ...... which is where de debil comes in, because evil -- if it exists as a cloud or manifestation or entity, surely loves confusing and tempting people who are curious, people who are seekers.   Otherwise, we would not have antibiotics, or vaccines, or modern medicine, or theoretical physics, but we would also not have GOF viruses, or chemical weapons, or nuclear arms sufficient to vanquish ourselves. 

Don't worry  though.  I'm pretty certain the roaches will always survive whatever we dish out.  

Food shouldn't be created.   We don't live on Soylent food.  We aren't mature enough as a species to create food and understand all the ramifications and consequences of our works.    We can debate whether animal or plant life is more ethical to eat;  perhaps someday we'll survive on various plankton wafers, who knows?   Should humanity survive and evolve, we might learn the answers to  these questions.   I continue to believe that almost every time -- if not every time -- humanity chooses to manipulate nature, they create, or invite disaster.

---

---

Yes, after no less than seven edits, that is my final answer. 

(05-26-2024, 11:05 PM)727Sky Wrote:  

(05-27-2024, 07:39 AM)BeTheGoddess Wrote: Hasnt McDonalds been selling that shit for decades?.

But the argument that "its cruelty free" is BS fake environmentalist "vegan" fk wits. Cruelty free is allowing us to shoot feral species that there entire existence is far worse for the environment. Killing and eating feral species is soooo frowned apon but its a far better solution than lab meat and shitburgers.

End the 1080 baits and give us our guns back!

Quote:There are pros and cons to consider regarding a potential switch to synthetic or cultured meat products in America:
Pros of Synthetic Meat:

• Reduced environmental impact compared to conventional animal agriculture (less land, water, and feed required)
  
• Potential for decreased greenhouse gas emissions
  
• Avoids issues of animal welfare in industrial farming
  
• Could provide a secure food supply that is less impacted by disease outbreaks, draught etc.
  
• Cultured meat could be healthier by allowing production with optimized nutritional profiles
  

Cons of Synthetic Meat:

• Unproven at large scale - technological and production challenges remain
  
• Consumer acceptance is still uncertain for a novel food product
  
• Current costs are very high compared to conventional meat
  
• Potential long-term health impacts are not yet understood
  
• Loss of economic activity and jobs in the conventional meat industry
  

Overall, while synthetic meat offers some promising environmental and ethical benefits, there are still significant hurdles around scalability, cost, consumer attitudes, and understanding of long-term impacts that would need to be addressed for it to become a widespread replacement for conventional meat products. A gradual increase in synthetic meat adoption as the technology matures could be a middle path.

(05-26-2024, 04:46 PM)727Sky Wrote: Looks like Alabama and Florida are banning lab grown meat. https://gizadeathstar.com/2024/05/alabama-joins-florida-on-lab-grown-meat-ban/