I hope this works and provides cheap, clean ways to have chicken nuggets. But that's a long way off because we don't even have a way of doing it cheaply or cleanly right now, let alone have a product that people actually want to eat that is also cheap and clean.
In the mean time, I think this is the wrong way to try to solve the issue. Raising a few chickens is not a big deal. I live in rural Michigan, many of my neighbors have chickens with no real environmental impact and not much cost at all.
All of the problems come from industrialized livestock practices. If we simply outlawed those practices, and/or put huge taxes and tariffs on the products the issue would solve itself (in that the monetary cost of meat would reflect its real costs, and consumption would drop accordingly.)
The problem is that people like eating lots of chicken and will not be happy about suddenly paying more, whether it is through taxes or increased cost from regulations. In the US alone we killed 9 billion chickens a year, or about 28 chickens per person. Some of that meat is exported, but at the end of the day I think this is a problem that can only be addressed by working with the demand.
They won't like it but tough beans. People don't like a lot of things we have to change for the better of society. Not doing things because people won't like them is why so many things are screwed up right now.
But we exist in a democracy. Outside of the Supreme Court we don't really have a good way of making unpopular things happen. Congress is not going to pass a meat tax anytime soon, neither party is close to supporting it.
Well I know this is gonna sound absolutely bonkers but; our leaders could actually lead for a change... I know it's an insane thought but it has been done in the past to great effect.
It's cool how people think CGP Grey is a scholar on so many topics just because he sounds calm and confident when he talks. It's like a stick figure hypno toad.
> people think CGP Grey is a scholar on so many topics just because he sounds calm and confident
His "Rules for Rulers" video is an excellent summary of The Dictator's Handbook [1], itself a summary of well-regarded selectorate theory [2]. I have yet to watch a CPG Grey video which does not honestly separate fact from opinion, and ensure the former is well sourced.
His delivery is excellent. But that, alone, is not substitute for well-written and -researched material.
Some of his videos are better than others. But his videos are as slanted towards his view as anything else. What facts you present and how you present them is both a conscious and unconscious result of your own worldview (some things you will see as relevant or irrelevant, and some things you won't even be aware of because of who you are and what you've read, etc.)
But regardless, replying to someone with "Hey watch this 40 minute CGP Grey video which explains why you're wrong." is both hilarious and insulting on multiple levels.
> is both hilarious and insulting on multiple levels
CPG Grey's summaries are just that, summaries. They miss nuance by design. In many cases nuance isn't necessary. If someone is arguing over what is on what continent, CPG Grey's "What Are Continents?" video [1] is an acceptable response. It's just a summary. But even the summary adequately shows the baselessness of the question.
TL; DR CPG Grey's videos are, on average, of better quality than many newspapers, blogs and other secondary sources. It's perfectly fine to reference them.
It's a marketing problem. Take pearls. A natural pearl seems like something you would prefer. But a cultured pearl is more uniform in size/shape/color and more desirable.
What would need to happen is to push the idea that cultured chicken meat is more uniform in quality (well, assuming that it will be.)
I'm not advocating forcing people to eat anything.
I'm advocating making the price of things (including meat) reflect their actual cost instead of allowing producers to offset those costs on the rest of us and future generations (e.g. by dumping the waste from thousands of chickens in public water systems.)
There's no shortage of demand from vegetarians and vegans considering all the meat-shaped tofu you can buy today at elevated prices. Manufactured meat is preferable to supplements and it's going to sell.
I agree on the elevated prices but assumed that it was avoiding the social stigma of turning up to a BBQ empty-handed. Lentil/chickpea burgers are often delicious but those faux sausages tend to be bloody awful! :)
But rather than eat lab meat, maybe people would migrate to plant-based substitutes such as jackfruit, reported yesterday, 'I think there's meat in my burger and I'm vegan':
As a vegetarian, I'm really excited for lab grown meat. The choice is primarily ethical for me and if we can give people high protein foods they enjoy with confining or killing animals on a massive scale, I see it as a huge win.
Will you elaborate on the obvious reasons? Pretend they aren't obvious to me.
I'm interested in reading more about athletic advantages gained from consuming meat. Is there a reason that other sources of protein aren't giving the same benefit?
That's a poor summary of the article you link, given that it says vegan diets are almost twice as efficient as the standard American diet. (It just also says that low-meat diets are even more efficient in terms of land use.)
seeing as how veganism is not the default choice in most of the industrialized world, this is a misleading frame. it's also incorrect that it's more efficient to "eat animals" to produce muscle if we're being pedantic (as a
vegetarian, however, this is not a meaningless distinction to me)— amino acids in dairy & eggs have a measurably higher bioavailability than those in meat, whether ranked by the PDCAAS or DIAAS https://web.archive.org/web/20151010170125/http://www.idf-is....
I think it's important to point out though that cattle can digest and "convert" a significantly wider variety of plant sources into meat. Our bodies simply can't digest a lot of what they can.
Sure... but it's also important to point out that while cattle "should" eat grass and can eat silage... 78% of beef in America comes from feedlot cattle[1]. On feedlots, the cattle are fed grains, not grass/silage... grains that we humans can easily eat like soy, corn, and barley [2].
I'm curious if the lab-grown meat will truly be ethical, which I suppose depends on your definition of ethics with regard to preserving life.
What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in...
If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis?
Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource?
I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats (at least we do in the NW of USA) and I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat. Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves?
I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species[0]... is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet?
So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's really my main question here.
I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly larvae, etc) which provide comparable protein/nutrient profiles to farm meats while requiring a fraction of the inputs (notably water and land) and a massive decrease in the sentient suffering of the protein source (most are just put into hibernation and don't wake up). I haven't made one yet, but I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and still provide comparable nutrition.
In the words of Aristotle, "it is necessary to stop." You start with empathy and common sense, and remain open to new information, but realize at some point you gotta sign off and just make whatever you consider the most ethical choice; this includes balancing how much you feel it worthwhile to worry about an essentially "negative" decision vs. other positive possibilities.
With respect to environmental harm, these are usually accidents of bad practices more than necessities of, say, eating tofu.
Thus far, killing animals has been pretty closely tied to eating their flesh.
It seems to me that there are a few ethical dimensions to analyze this on:
1. Suffering caused to conscious beings directly to produce a meal;
2. Suffering caused to conscious beings indirectly (e.g. crop monocultures impacting biodiversity; animal products used in the production of a "vegetarian" meal).
3. Total biomass required per calorie.
"Clean meat" seems likely a better performer in all three categories, unless animal-derived amino acids are required — but that feels like a non-starter. Why bother to liquefy and reconstitute a cow muscle?
Unrelatedly, this strikes me as one of those things where economies of scale will develop surprisingly quickly. Meat is a huge industry, and it costs a lot of money to actually raise animals. There's a lot of incentive to make cheaper meat. The fact that it can get bootstrapped by guilt-inclined non-vegetarians is just bonus runway.
> I'm curious if the lab-grown meat will truly be ethical, which I suppose depends on your definition of ethics with regard to preserving life.
Yups. But for most definitions it is going to be a heck of a lot more ethical!
> What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in...
Ethically, growing it in a sentient being, thereby commodified, often made part of an industrial production process, is EXTREMELY unethical. The animals that we produce for food know concepts like "family", "pain" and "danger". While they may have the children taken from them, or may be "raped" in order to force reproduction.
> If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis?
We're going to find out. I find this more to be part of the economic viability question then the ethical question. I know economics can provide many ethical dilemmas, but in my view they rarely stack up to justify enclosing/hurting/raping/child-robbing/killing sentient beings.
> Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource?
To my understanding all you give up when going plant-based is some taste bud pleasure and the convenience of not having to change your habits.
And the taste bud pleasure "gap" is being closed by initiatives like the one described in the linked article.
> I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats
Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
Also, while non-factory-farmed is better for the animals, it is still not nice to transport and kill them. Heck, they still need to be fenced!
> I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat.
$2 burgers is not something sustainable. We should aim for $2 salads or $2 falafels or $2 <be creative with plants>.
> Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves?
Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
And why only rich people? The has the potential to be lots cheaper on the long run.
> I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species...
About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
I appreciate your long and thorough reply, though I think you got off the rails in a few parts.
I wasn't looking to get into a debate regarding the ethics of eating animals vs not eating them. I'm very clear in my ethics regarding that. I, personally, find myself much more concerned with the living system as a whole, rather than individuals.
> About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their conscious is clean. They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.
It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.
> Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure.
I seriously doubt that. What technology can you think of that has made any discussion more "pure"?
> If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their paycheck on lab-grown protein sources, though I suppose they'd be more of a "poor fuck". Many people don't bother making a distinction between the two.
> Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
One assumption that's constantly made regarding meat consumption, both as it relates to ecology and nutrition, is that we're either talking about 0 meat consumption or the typical average American diet of meat consumption, totally excluding the middle. I do not think that the average American diet of animal meat is sustainable or healthy and this is why I advocate for substitutes that don't cost billions in R&D and have a better chance of reaching the price point for an average American. Lets not forget that wages for average Americans are stagnant, so given inflation and other increasing costs the goal posts for what would be a reasonable protein price point is moving. So even if it gets cheaper over time, it's a race.
My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.
Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response, though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab grown meat vs nature grown meat.
Here is something published 7 years ago which I had to find on my own (found in search of response to your comment, thanks for that) which did a pretty good job of answering my core question and softening me to the lab meat:
However, I also found a more recent article on lab meat which I found aligned with the core point I've been trying to make on many other issues as well:...
> I wasn't looking to get into a debate regarding the ethics of eating animals vs not eating them. I'm very clear in my ethics regarding that. I, personally, find myself much more concerned with the living system as a whole, rather than individuals.
So go vegan. Have a look at Cowspiracy for example. Our meat consumption is killing our habitat on this planet.
> > About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
> This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their conscious is clean.
How do you know? I say it's BS as the vegans I know are making a daily effort to improve the shituation, while omnis keep coming with lame excuses.
> They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.
laughs Sorry man, not even replying to this. Any research to back this statement up? I guess nah.
> It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.
Yes. And it is the vegans that are the exception here. I picked fruit! I pulled a cabbage from soil. I would never like to kill an animal, not even when it give me taste pleasure.
> > Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure.
> > If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
> Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their paycheck on lab-grown protein sources
I forgot to say that the price-at-shop is same of cheaper for the faux meat. So that what I mean by a pure discussion: we have the same-price-same-experience right here, why buy cruelty?
> > Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
> One assumption [...] it's a race.
Are you concerned with resource consumption or not? If yes: do your research and go (mostly) vegan. Why wait for it to be to expensive for you to pay for?
> My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not h
Without substantial foundation that's called F.U.D.
> Having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.
So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.
> Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response
Thanks for noticing. :)
> though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab grown meat vs nature grown meat.
Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.
> We're not using technology to become more moral or ethical, we're using it to become lazier and more complacent.
The ethical impact of this tech is a side-effect. The ones investing are simply looking to make money. That we cannot grow fu...
> > Having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.
> So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.
You gotta take some deep breaths before you reply because you and every other vegan I end up engaged with lay it on so thick with the defensive self-righteousness that you are more apt to have people dig their heels in. This doesn't end up making any difference except to how you feel about yourself and the social cred you get amongst your bubble-buddies when you share how much you "destroyed" some rando on the internet.
My point was that you can't see me and I can't see you, so you don't truly see me as another person, just some adversary or potential convert to get a notch in the belt. I took the time to calm myself, do some more research and then reply respectfully (imo) to most of your points.
> Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.
See, you obviously didn't even click the last two links I sent in your rush to shove more of your own information down my throat, because the first link is for an article about a study that specifically asks the main question in my original post... and their findings support your position, I mean wow...
> Says who? At the same price/experience it has the potential to make a huge difference! I know loads of peeps who'd switch (or pretty much have switch since the alternative are good enough for them). They do not need to re-learn cooking, just pick the other "meat" and do as you always do.
> "Srsly. Where do you get this from?"
From the second link you didn't look at, I was literally paraphrasing the article for you, but it makes the points much better than me, cause, ya know, professional writer at scientific publication.
So yeah, if you want to make a difference in online debate then you should probably leave your ego in whatever room your computer isn't and actually try listening to whoever you're engaged with. Good night and good luck in your crusade.
"I've been a fan cannibalism for all my life but was never able to participate fully in it, for legal reasons. Maybe they'll start growing human meat and I can finally be myself without having to murder people!" That hypothetical could happen if they start perfecting musculature scaffolding as a very odd side effect. Sorry, just sayin.
I'm pretty sure I've actually seen fake human meat in some documentary at some point. I'd google it but at work I'd probably be put on a very special list.
I wonder whether it would carry an increased risk of disease transmission. Could a factory worker with influenza infect "human meat" and transmit it to consumers in a way that wouldn't be possible with non-human animal tissue? This is probably a big part of the reason we have such a strong gut aversion to cannibalism.
I think humanity should be spending about 5 to 6 orders of magnitude more money on investment in this space. It's seriously one of the most important, if not the most important, challenge that we currently face as a species.
Does anybody have any more information about the company's specific technology here? I've done some research into this space, and the big blocker at the moment is the use of Fetal Bovine Serum which is used to "grow" the meat. FBS is exactly what it sounds like, so it's not a huge victory to make lab grown meat if it requires liquid-cow-baby to actually grow.
A plant-based FBS replacement would be the holy grail for this industry. Some companies have claimed to have done it but nobody has actually publicly demonstrated it yet. If there are any investors out there looking to make an impactful investment in this space, please invest heavily into solving the FBS problem.
EDIT: From SuperMeat's FAQ:
> Does clean meat contain animal products?
> One of SuperMeat's purposes is to produce meat products without having to resort to ongoing animal use. SuperMeat has developed a unique technology that will make that happen, without having to use animal serum or other animal ingredients.
So, they are claiming to have solved the serum problem, which is good. Others have also made this claim, but so far nobody has had a public demonstration, let alone actually create a commercial product, so this is still vapourware. Still, I wish them luck.
We need to just start growing and harvesting bugs for basic protein. These lab meats do not contain all of the same nutrients and to repeat another commenter, what measures must be taken to extract everything that's in meat to begin with?
I don't know why companies didn't start with chicken in the first place. A lab-grown steak? Yeah, good luck competing against the real thing (and as a vegetarian, I hope they do). But chicken? I grew up on chicken before factory farming, and then as an adult wondered why I didn't like chicken much anymore. It occurred to me that factory farming has bred all the taste out of it, in exchange for other features. (And I'm open to the idea that my tastes just changed, and chicken is just as delicious as it always was.)
In summary, in the case of chicken it might not be as hard to beat the "real thing". (Though in my book, the "real thing" picks through grass for its food and spends its days running around a barnyard. That might be hard to compete with.)
I tried an Impossible Burger last week, and it was very good. I could not distinguish it from good beef. It's plant protein with heme, a sort of lab-grown blood. A few places in the Bay Area now serve them. Worth trying.
I think fake meat is having an electric car moment, where there is suddenly a product every bit as good as the previous technology, just more expensive. When the price comes down, real meat will seem gratuitously cruel and unsustainable.
Exactly. Or, to put it in fancy philosophy terms, there is a difference of moral agency. You can't assign moral blame to creatures that aren't morally cognizant.
Is there any indication that the "lab-grown" tissue is really produced without animal products?
Most mammalian cell culture requires "serum," the non-cellular fraction of blood from a similar critter which contains a pretty complex mixture of growth factors, hormones etc. plus other proteiny things like collagen.
Serum-free cell culture is tricky in well characterized cell lines, and "meat" is tissue culture from cells which is tricky in itself, at production scale which is also tricky by itself. For context, pharma companies manufacturing biologics at scale do use animal serum in cultures despite animal products being a vector for contamination issues which have literally killed successful pharma companies.
Also, cell culture requires antibiotics much more than animal farming requires antibiotics, so don't expect "ethical" tissue culture groups to voluntarily minimize antibiotic usage any more than farmers do
tl;dr cells grown in labs like to eat animal products and other things that people consider unethical
Edit: If you can grow realistic muscle tissue at feeding-people scale you've accomplished something much bigger than "ethical meat." If you're just producing animal cells-- basically textureless slime-- it would be more ethical to process existing waste meat into a palatable form aka rebranding "pink slime" as "recycled meat" or something.
Everyone is focusing on the "ethical" issue of killing animals but in fact I think this issue does not matter to the majority of the global meat market. Instead I think the ecological factors (greenhouse gas emissions from meat production) and economic factors (could theoretically be cheaper, easier to manage, and more efficient than a farm) will be the primary drivers here.
Also, funny to imagine someone walking into a16z with just a piece of chicken and walking out with a $3 million check.
71 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadIn the mean time, I think this is the wrong way to try to solve the issue. Raising a few chickens is not a big deal. I live in rural Michigan, many of my neighbors have chickens with no real environmental impact and not much cost at all.
All of the problems come from industrialized livestock practices. If we simply outlawed those practices, and/or put huge taxes and tariffs on the products the issue would solve itself (in that the monetary cost of meat would reflect its real costs, and consumption would drop accordingly.)
His "Rules for Rulers" video is an excellent summary of The Dictator's Handbook [1], itself a summary of well-regarded selectorate theory [2]. I have yet to watch a CPG Grey video which does not honestly separate fact from opinion, and ensure the former is well sourced.
His delivery is excellent. But that, alone, is not substitute for well-written and -researched material.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
But regardless, replying to someone with "Hey watch this 40 minute CGP Grey video which explains why you're wrong." is both hilarious and insulting on multiple levels.
CPG Grey's summaries are just that, summaries. They miss nuance by design. In many cases nuance isn't necessary. If someone is arguing over what is on what continent, CPG Grey's "What Are Continents?" video [1] is an acceptable response. It's just a summary. But even the summary adequately shows the baselessness of the question.
TL; DR CPG Grey's videos are, on average, of better quality than many newspapers, blogs and other secondary sources. It's perfectly fine to reference them.
[1] http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/what-are-continents.html
IMHO it's not a better society when we're forcing people to eat synthetic meat grown in a lab.
If you've got a real winner on cost, taste, or ecological impact, then compete in the open market and make a better chicken nugget.
What would need to happen is to push the idea that cultured chicken meat is more uniform in quality (well, assuming that it will be.)
I'm advocating making the price of things (including meat) reflect their actual cost instead of allowing producers to offset those costs on the rest of us and future generations (e.g. by dumping the waste from thousands of chickens in public water systems.)
But rather than eat lab meat, maybe people would migrate to plant-based substitutes such as jackfruit, reported yesterday, 'I think there's meat in my burger and I'm vegan':
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-01-02/jackfruit-findin...
Animals may not be an energy efficient food, but they are the only way to get meat.
I'm interested in reading more about athletic advantages gained from consuming meat. Is there a reason that other sources of protein aren't giving the same benefit?
https://www.muscleforlife.com/animal-protein-vs-plant-protei...
Being vegan is that efficient either.
For cattle, it takes 100 calories of grains to produce 10 calories of beef.
1. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nil-zacharias/its-time-to-end...
2. http://www.goodfoodworld.com/2012/01/grass-fed-vs-feedlot-be...
Most all cattle start their life being grass fed.
I meant compared to lab-grown meat, as most of the energy from food is not used for building muscles but rather for the brain.
How are you able to say this? Have you seen any data about how efficient lab-grown mean is to produce?
Same taste and no ethical issue ? I am ready to pay a big premium for that.
So the objection would be because it is a cultural taboo (and as others have mentioned, would it be safe ?) .
Morally speaking, yeah sure. Practically speaking, no?
What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in...
If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis?
Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource?
I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats (at least we do in the NW of USA) and I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat. Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves?
I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species[0]... is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet?
So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's really my main question here.
I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly larvae, etc) which provide comparable protein/nutrient profiles to farm meats while requiring a fraction of the inputs (notably water and land) and a massive decrease in the sentient suffering of the protein source (most are just put into hibernation and don't wake up). I haven't made one yet, but I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and still provide comparable nutrition.
[0] http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/im...
With respect to environmental harm, these are usually accidents of bad practices more than necessities of, say, eating tofu.
Thus far, killing animals has been pretty closely tied to eating their flesh.
Separating those two is also exciting to me.
1. Suffering caused to conscious beings directly to produce a meal;
2. Suffering caused to conscious beings indirectly (e.g. crop monocultures impacting biodiversity; animal products used in the production of a "vegetarian" meal).
3. Total biomass required per calorie.
"Clean meat" seems likely a better performer in all three categories, unless animal-derived amino acids are required — but that feels like a non-starter. Why bother to liquefy and reconstitute a cow muscle?
Unrelatedly, this strikes me as one of those things where economies of scale will develop surprisingly quickly. Meat is a huge industry, and it costs a lot of money to actually raise animals. There's a lot of incentive to make cheaper meat. The fact that it can get bootstrapped by guilt-inclined non-vegetarians is just bonus runway.
Yups. But for most definitions it is going to be a heck of a lot more ethical!
> What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in...
Ethically, growing it in a sentient being, thereby commodified, often made part of an industrial production process, is EXTREMELY unethical. The animals that we produce for food know concepts like "family", "pain" and "danger". While they may have the children taken from them, or may be "raped" in order to force reproduction.
> If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis?
We're going to find out. I find this more to be part of the economic viability question then the ethical question. I know economics can provide many ethical dilemmas, but in my view they rarely stack up to justify enclosing/hurting/raping/child-robbing/killing sentient beings.
> Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource?
If you are concerned with this: you can switch to a plantbased diet! http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article19970922....
To my understanding all you give up when going plant-based is some taste bud pleasure and the convenience of not having to change your habits.
And the taste bud pleasure "gap" is being closed by initiatives like the one described in the linked article.
> I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats
Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
Also, while non-factory-farmed is better for the animals, it is still not nice to transport and kill them. Heck, they still need to be fenced!
> I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat.
$2 burgers is not something sustainable. We should aim for $2 salads or $2 falafels or $2 <be creative with plants>.
> Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves?
Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
And why only rich people? The has the potential to be lots cheaper on the long run.
> I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species...
About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
[1] http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed
> is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet?
Farm animals have nothing to do wit...
I wasn't looking to get into a debate regarding the ethics of eating animals vs not eating them. I'm very clear in my ethics regarding that. I, personally, find myself much more concerned with the living system as a whole, rather than individuals.
> About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their conscious is clean. They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.
It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.
> Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure.
I seriously doubt that. What technology can you think of that has made any discussion more "pure"?
> If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their paycheck on lab-grown protein sources, though I suppose they'd be more of a "poor fuck". Many people don't bother making a distinction between the two.
> Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
One assumption that's constantly made regarding meat consumption, both as it relates to ecology and nutrition, is that we're either talking about 0 meat consumption or the typical average American diet of meat consumption, totally excluding the middle. I do not think that the average American diet of animal meat is sustainable or healthy and this is why I advocate for substitutes that don't cost billions in R&D and have a better chance of reaching the price point for an average American. Lets not forget that wages for average Americans are stagnant, so given inflation and other increasing costs the goal posts for what would be a reasonable protein price point is moving. So even if it gets cheaper over time, it's a race.
My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.
Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response, though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab grown meat vs nature grown meat.
Here is something published 7 years ago which I had to find on my own (found in search of response to your comment, thanks for that) which did a pretty good job of answering my core question and softening me to the lab meat:
https://phys.org/news/2011-06-lab-grown-meat-emissions-energ...
However, I also found a more recent article on lab meat which I found aligned with the core point I've been trying to make on many other issues as well:...
So go vegan. Have a look at Cowspiracy for example. Our meat consumption is killing our habitat on this planet.
> > About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.
> This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their conscious is clean.
How do you know? I say it's BS as the vegans I know are making a daily effort to improve the shituation, while omnis keep coming with lame excuses.
> They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.
laughs Sorry man, not even replying to this. Any research to back this statement up? I guess nah.
> It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.
Yes. And it is the vegans that are the exception here. I picked fruit! I pulled a cabbage from soil. I would never like to kill an animal, not even when it give me taste pleasure.
> > Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. > > If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?
> Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their paycheck on lab-grown protein sources
I forgot to say that the price-at-shop is same of cheaper for the faux meat. So that what I mean by a pure discussion: we have the same-price-same-experience right here, why buy cruelty?
> > Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?
> One assumption [...] it's a race.
Are you concerned with resource consumption or not? If yes: do your research and go (mostly) vegan. Why wait for it to be to expensive for you to pay for?
> My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not h
Without substantial foundation that's called F.U.D.
> Having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.
So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.
> Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response
Thanks for noticing. :)
> though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab grown meat vs nature grown meat.
Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.
> We're not using technology to become more moral or ethical, we're using it to become lazier and more complacent.
The ethical impact of this tech is a side-effect. The ones investing are simply looking to make money. That we cannot grow fu...
> So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.
You gotta take some deep breaths before you reply because you and every other vegan I end up engaged with lay it on so thick with the defensive self-righteousness that you are more apt to have people dig their heels in. This doesn't end up making any difference except to how you feel about yourself and the social cred you get amongst your bubble-buddies when you share how much you "destroyed" some rando on the internet.
My point was that you can't see me and I can't see you, so you don't truly see me as another person, just some adversary or potential convert to get a notch in the belt. I took the time to calm myself, do some more research and then reply respectfully (imo) to most of your points.
> Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.
See, you obviously didn't even click the last two links I sent in your rush to shove more of your own information down my throat, because the first link is for an article about a study that specifically asks the main question in my original post... and their findings support your position, I mean wow...
> Says who? At the same price/experience it has the potential to make a huge difference! I know loads of peeps who'd switch (or pretty much have switch since the alternative are good enough for them). They do not need to re-learn cooking, just pick the other "meat" and do as you always do.
> "Srsly. Where do you get this from?"
From the second link you didn't look at, I was literally paraphrasing the article for you, but it makes the points much better than me, cause, ya know, professional writer at scientific publication.
So yeah, if you want to make a difference in online debate then you should probably leave your ego in whatever room your computer isn't and actually try listening to whoever you're engaged with. Good night and good luck in your crusade.
Does anybody have any more information about the company's specific technology here? I've done some research into this space, and the big blocker at the moment is the use of Fetal Bovine Serum which is used to "grow" the meat. FBS is exactly what it sounds like, so it's not a huge victory to make lab grown meat if it requires liquid-cow-baby to actually grow.
A plant-based FBS replacement would be the holy grail for this industry. Some companies have claimed to have done it but nobody has actually publicly demonstrated it yet. If there are any investors out there looking to make an impactful investment in this space, please invest heavily into solving the FBS problem.
EDIT: From SuperMeat's FAQ:
> Does clean meat contain animal products?
> One of SuperMeat's purposes is to produce meat products without having to resort to ongoing animal use. SuperMeat has developed a unique technology that will make that happen, without having to use animal serum or other animal ingredients.
So, they are claiming to have solved the serum problem, which is good. Others have also made this claim, but so far nobody has had a public demonstration, let alone actually create a commercial product, so this is still vapourware. Still, I wish them luck.
In summary, in the case of chicken it might not be as hard to beat the "real thing". (Though in my book, the "real thing" picks through grass for its food and spends its days running around a barnyard. That might be hard to compete with.)
I think fake meat is having an electric car moment, where there is suddenly a product every bit as good as the previous technology, just more expensive. When the price comes down, real meat will seem gratuitously cruel and unsustainable.
I'd argue most people actually know it's morally wrong and just choose to eat it out of convenience.
Most mammalian cell culture requires "serum," the non-cellular fraction of blood from a similar critter which contains a pretty complex mixture of growth factors, hormones etc. plus other proteiny things like collagen.
Serum-free cell culture is tricky in well characterized cell lines, and "meat" is tissue culture from cells which is tricky in itself, at production scale which is also tricky by itself. For context, pharma companies manufacturing biologics at scale do use animal serum in cultures despite animal products being a vector for contamination issues which have literally killed successful pharma companies.
Also, cell culture requires antibiotics much more than animal farming requires antibiotics, so don't expect "ethical" tissue culture groups to voluntarily minimize antibiotic usage any more than farmers do
tl;dr cells grown in labs like to eat animal products and other things that people consider unethical
Edit: If you can grow realistic muscle tissue at feeding-people scale you've accomplished something much bigger than "ethical meat." If you're just producing animal cells-- basically textureless slime-- it would be more ethical to process existing waste meat into a palatable form aka rebranding "pink slime" as "recycled meat" or something.
Also, funny to imagine someone walking into a16z with just a piece of chicken and walking out with a $3 million check.