Why do people have an overwhelming distrust of cultured meat...

>Literally the only thing holding it back is price. If it was cheaper than regular meat and tasted like regular meat then it would sell

This seems correct. If it tasted good and was competitively priced it would sell. It has nothing to do with bias against it. I personally find tendons/bones/etc disgusting after halfway eating chicken wings. I'm sure people would prefer mcchicken type shit over actual chicken breast anyway. The "weirdness" of the meat holding it back is nonsense.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Cultured meat is soooooo much more efficient than naturally raised animal meat. It's a technology problem, the first order principles are great for it.

Is the lack of blood vessels and fat solvable technical problems? I don't know who enough about the field to know better.

Why don't we just use genetic engineering to make this, except not as a comedy sketch?

youtu.be/DMDJ0h401kw

I'm being serious.

>Cultured meat is soooooo much more efficient than naturally raised animal meat.
Except that's patently false. All cattle need to grow is a field with some grass. That cultured "meat" needs all kinds of other bullshit and external energy input.

But the meat is grown alone, it doesn't have to grow the whole other fucking rest of a stupid farting cow with it. And the whole "just some grass" is hugely significant when making food for populations. Given the whole point of this is to conserve resources, consider maybe that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Jut give me my goddamn insects to eat and some poultry now and then so we can manage ourselves out of the upcoming food crisis

I want red meat only very rarely, and would like more fish if fish stocks weren't doing so bad

It is claimed that there is a difference between cattle fed grass or something else, the first is healthier
And I don't got that from some New Age diet guru, I just can't remember the explanation of it

Hospitals charge mothers money for removing their babies' foreskins, then sell the foreskin to burn victims to use as grafts. You'd have to pay them to grow artificial grafts to compete with the baby dick skin they already use.

>Blood vessels
Could theoretically be solved by other means of nutritional distribution. Your blood vessels exist only to deliver gas, remove waste, and provide a route for nutrients. If the cells were grown on a porous grid, for example, everything could be circulated with an artificial current. I'm sure there are other methods too, including growing the whole tissue.
>fat
I would think we could do this too, just not sure how. An early technical fix would be growing lean tissue and fat cells separately and blending them to achieve ground meat or sausage.

Cattle need water, huge amounts of land, antibiotics, and care. They also produce methane like nothing else. Just growing the Porterhouse steak alone solves every one of these problems.

Just getting 100% lean ground beef for a reasonable price would be a godsend
t. fatty

>Why do people have an overwhelming distrust of cultured meat?
I've never actually encountered that - the people I've talked to have generally been pretty positive about the idea.

>all you need is grass bro!
>forgets about farmland
>forgets about licenses
>forgets about checking for diseases

fucking kill yourself. cultured meat is a billion times easier to deal with than a hundred cows thay may or may not have pathogens.

Yeah and the supply of baby dick skin is rather limited. If someome manages to grow skin, they'll take over the enotrw market

>t. underage that's never been on a farm
Plus you fags are ignoring the fact that they have to simulate muscle movenent for the cultured meat in order to stimulate growth, necessitating the use of extremely complicated machinery to "give the meat a workout." It still consumes large amounts of nutrients, except instead of coming from grass which is free, they now come from very expensive and labor-intensive pharmaceutical grade supplies. This whole thing is a farce and cattle are extremely easy to care for because they largely oversee their own development.

Pic related: it's you.

>quotes 4 posts
>refutes exactly 0 arguments
Cows in particular use a fuck ton of land. Pigs produce waste that has to be pumped underground because it's so bad. Ignoring the benefits of lab-grown meat because you think the current process is the most efficient is the ultimate feat of luddite mental gymnastics.

You're retarded.
>multibillion dollar lab instead of a few tens of thousands for farmland
>massive quantities of high purity refined glucose that relies on even more farmland than grass fed cattle because of lower process yields
>massive energy requirements from needing to maintain external life support
>the fossil fuel emissions from construction of the facility, as well as the disgustingly complicated supply chain are easily thousands of times worse than the cows' natural emissions
>the synthetic meat can't even be used to produce fertilizer for fields

Should I go on?

im not that user, and i dont doubt your experience raising cattle, but many of your costs/claims are not true. i completely agree it is not likely to be viable anytime in the near future though.

Although the idea of selling a $25,000 cruelty-free hamburger isnt out of the realm of possibility, for very rich virtue signalers

>He must be farmer XD
No.

The thermodynamics of synthetic meat will never be more efficient than just grazing cattle on a field. You're not going to make a process more efficient by increasing its complexity several orders of magnitude. It doesn't make sense to try to simulate the biology inside of a cow when it's so cheap and easy to raise cattle in the first place.

It's been done, see OP pic. It's only a matter of time before cost decreases exponentially.

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible. The point is that it can never be more efficient than the nearly direct energy conversion of sunlight -> grass -> cattle.

Tfw being a mcdonalds employee will require a phd in cellular biology. Reee

You're looking at the "cleanliness" (not sure how much is technical or ideological) of each step, and completely ignorant of the numbers involved.

Marketing hasn't taken over. Once it's called "clean meat," "cruelty free meat," or something like that and it's cost competitive with natural meat people will buy it. In the meantime they still have to get the taste right.

DIdn't that one burger cost £300k or something to produce

Incredibly inefficient
Cows are great for our agriculture, instead of keeping them on some isolated manure mountain, we should be strongly encouraging herbivore migration and distribution.

We need them moving, healthy, and eating all the carbon grass is receiving and putting that shit, literally, into the ground. Why would anyone think it's more efficient to recreate meat when you have an animal that has all its biology in place to allocate fat and tissue to all the right places?

I'd rather the lab boys focus on working with the butchers and treating meat so that it is healthier for consumption, in whatever way they can find that accomplishes that. Not this cell culture shit. Leave that for the geneticists.

>For every hectare that is used for vertical farming and/or cultured meat manufacturing, anywhere between 10 and 20 hectares of land may be converted from conventional agriculture usage back into its natural state.
It shouldn't fall to other people to point out things proven with just a cursory glance at wikipedia, but here we are.

>this whole post

[citation needed]

I don't think people really do, most people i've heard talk about it think its a great Idea

it'll be a very niche product when it comes out though, in order to compete in price with meat it'll need decades of infrostructure built up around it, not to mention the massive government subsidies that the meat industry gets.

>Ages. That plate in your picture cost around 50k to produce if i remember right.

Upscaling will solve that, easily. That one petri dish had all the staff hours, lab operating costs etc. associated with it - all of which either do not exist for a finished industrial production line, or are small compared to the amount of bulk production.

why can't we grow meat with blood vessels? tumours can do it, just have a single seed blood vessel and add FGF

it'd be more expensive and not really worth it for the added flavour as of now but its definitely feasible

doesn't work like that, cows shit methane and scientists know better than you where their work is best placed

it must have a consciousnesses before it gets the good taste . lets grow that

What did you even prove?
We want agriculture, I didn't say anything about reducing agriculture, we should want more. Do we not want cheaper produce?

>cows shit methane
I see. And how is that relevant?
>appeal to authority
Sure.
youtu.be/4Z75A_JMBx4
youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI
Do any of you know what you're talking?
I didn't just wake up and pull that out if my ass, there's already people moving in that direction, because it's a lot more economical than trying to grow tons of tissue in a lab to feed people

I don't know anyone who's against it

>if you've never been on a farm you're underaged
What did he actually mean by this?

Didn't the first computer cost 8 million dollars?

More agriculture would be available total, because land use dedicated to meat growing goes way down. The world is already straining to feed everyone, and that capacity is set to drop.

If this isn't enough for you, I have no idea what you call principles.

What part of
>strongly encouraging herbivore migration
did you have a hard time understanding?

Do you not think soil resting is important? Ecosystems are symbiotic. Herbivores play a clear role in soil replenishment, if they migrate. Meat feeds people, reducing meat will only encourage even more overfishing.

You're asking for a whole host of other issues for no particular rhyme or reason besides the achievement of cybermeat factories, which offer no benefit to the environment, at all, let's be clear of this, and has no sufficient data on how efficient the process can be. If it ends up requiring even more energy than what animals use, then you already ask for a larger carbon footprint for the factory to even run.

Meanwhile, herbivores can and do eat and shit out the carbon that biomass contains. This isn't terribly complicated. There are two videos that easily introduce you to this concept.

How would the supply chain of lab meat be any different than the supply chain of farmed meat?

I'm an user with actual farming experience. I left the family farm at 18 to pursue my degree in CS. The family farm raised a wide array of animals, but most of our large livestock were horses. However, my next door (about 400 feet away next door) neighbor was a cattle rancher.
so let me explain how
is a fucking idiot
>a few tens of thousands for farmland
You're off by a factor of at least ten. Large scale farm land in the hundreds of acres costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Land isn't as cheap as you think it is.
>massive quantities of high purity refined glucose that relies on even more farmland than grass fed cattle because of lower process yields
Do you know how much hay a single head of cattle has to eat in a single day in winter? You don't, and a single winter is going to require more land for hay and oats than the equivalent to grow the same amount of meat.
>the fossil fuel emissions from construction of the facility, as well as the disgustingly complicated supply chain are easily thousands of times worse than the cows' natural emissions
As opposed to the emissions to keep the cows warm, grow the feed they eat, drive them to market, and process them?
>the synthetic meat can't even be used to produce fertilizer for fields
What? Are talking about using cow shit to fertilize fields? There's far more efficient ways to do that and nobody's doing that on a large scale. We don't even fertilize our gardens with that. My neighbor did it a few times to his hay fields but stopped doing it because it isn't worth the effort.

The worst assumption you made was that cows just graze out in the field 24/7/365. Also, most ranchers maintain a number of fields for grazing because cows eat a lot. It's about all they do.

In short, grown meat has the potential to be massively more efficient than traditional ranching.

thanks for the insight user

...

This guy knows what's up.

Again you're going on about some ideological crap and ignoring numbers, just with a bit more actual logic this time. The amount of wandering cattle appropriate to reinvigorating the soil of the world's farmlands as it's between farming sessions is far far smaller than the amount of meat actually consumed. Even making that amount of meat efficient to gather, process and ship out is a godawful mess without an industrial structure to help with it.

It is absolutely unsustainable, and if growing meat turns out to be a waste of time our only other option is barely any meat being consumed at all.

>cows shit methane
I see. And how is that relevant?

Ever heard of this agricultural nightmare called climate change? lol. It's also pretty well-known that farming cattle requires a lot of natural resources before it gets to your grocery store. There have been pushes to reduce red meat intake because of it by tree huggers. I'm not a vegetarian, but the reality of the meat industry (specifically pigs and cows) is pretty freaky when it comes to environmental implications.