What do you think of lab meat or In vitro meat? Will it save us from all the murder?

I'd like to see an OC with it, but there's no one on Veeky Forums who could come close to affording it.

i like labia meat, if you know what i mean

There is no murder involved with real steak, why would I give a shit about some fake meat which is more expensive than gold and will probably be found to cause thirteen types of cancer.

And you don't seem to understand production scaling associated with improved technology.

a handmade automobile in 1900 could cost the equivalent of 100's of thousand of dollars, and even the most basic models could still set someone back 40-100 grand. people thought cars were novel toys that would never catch on until technology caught up and in 1920 the price was quartered or even tenthed.

Mark my words. Grown meat is going to be the next automobile.

being vegan applies to more than just not eating meat, it's about not using animal proudcts of any kind

like how they do some crazy shit with certain shampoos have a chemical from cow kidneys or some nut shit

>chicke-pork
Don't you mean chork?
Fish and Duck will be Fuck.

Once they really master it to become cheap, it's going to be great. until then all I can do is wait.

I hope you're right.

I'll have a fuck sandwich.

How is it fake meat

I'm hoping it becomes superior to real meat.
Custom flavors and textures. Fat completely interspersed within the meat rather than streaks and marbling.

>Eating animals
>Not eating human meat cloned from HeLa cell lines

the taste of the meat is given from what the animal eat during is life, from his age, health and how much he moves, whit this shit you will get always the same meat

The price has already dropped drastically as they improve the efficiency of the process. It's only a matter of time.

I'd try lab grown meat at least once for novelty. I don't each that much beef in the first place but I'm not opposed and would buy if it somehow ends up being the cheaper option.

the price has already decreased drastically, something like 80 or 18 thousand for a burger down to 8 thousand, and it's just going to continue to get cheaper.

i'm all for it, if it tastes looks and feels like organic meat and is priced the same or even cheaper there's no reason not to eat it. it would be nuts for the environment, too

I will personally go out and execute some feral horses to eat, if "lab-grown" ever becomes required.

Also dogs, bunnies, and any other wild mammal in sight.

or Dish, or Fuck Dish.

What if it cost 12 dollars a burger patty?

abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4205857.htm

>down to 8 thousand
Isn't the cost down to 3 figures or less for 1 lb. around now?

Whoops, posted the wrong link. That one says 80kg a kilo currently, giving you a 150 gram patty for 12 dollars.

Calm down user, regular beef and meat will probably still be sold. It'll be the new "organic" option

the definition of vegan is to reduce animal suffering as much as reasonably possible.

I don't think people will want to eat cancer cells. You could probably convince a bunch of people to eat human cells, but I really doubt the market is there for cancer.

It will only contain what scientists put into it, so it will lack vital micronutrients whose nutritional value we still don't understand.

Also, people will start to crave naturally raised meat given special diets, etc. Like pigs that fed on acorns or kobe beef, except in the future it will be an massive luxury to eat beef that fed on grass from chalky soil, for example. It will be as expensive as eating a zoo animal.

That's why they restrict their cats and dogs to a vegan diet, too ...

Vegan logic.

>the definition of vegan is to reduce animal suffering as much as reasonably possible.
I thought it was about being a pretentious cunt

Hold the mayo

It's the difference between an on paper definition and how it actually plays out in real life

I would do it if:

>It was healthy
>Cheap
>Tasted indistinguishable from real meat

I agree with the notion of vegetarianism/veganism (Not the radicalism that comes out of it) but I simply can't be fucked to do it.

I don't think it'll be received well by the stupid general public, and unless they can perfectly grow all varieties of meat and have them be EXACTLY as good as the real thing, then people will still be farming good meat off animals anyway and in vitro meat will just be seen as an inferior product for poor people at best.

Pretty hyped for it, hope they can fix the taste to be like premium meat. It will take a while to get there, but having a different option then supporting the killing of animals (sometimes in barbaric ways) would be pretty cool.

what murder?
have you been threatened of murder?

I would do it with just the first two, but I'm confident it'll be less healthy than eating natural meat until well after my lifetime when they get their shit figured out.

It's gonna have to go through at least a couple phases of "EVEN MODERATE CONSUMPTION OF LAB MEAT REDUCES LIFESPAN NEWS AT 11" before it's actually as good for people as real meat.

But if it was actually healthy and cheap I wouldn't care if it tasted relatively bland because animals are qt, I could make real meat a once-in-a-while thing if lab meat just tasted decent.

I wonder how lab meat and its inevitable varieties will be marketed. I hope once it gets really cheap it's the protein source for plebians since I can't eat eggs for cheap protein

probably, last time i bothered to check it out was a while ago

I don't give a heck about the "morality" of meat eating, but the idea of mass meat production is pretty nuts, grow a ton of food to produce a little food

>in a number of years they could theoretically 3d print meat that looks like it came out of a cartoon

>80kg a kilo

If lab meat cuts down typical beef production by 30% in the future how much land would open up?

This is worrisome because the first thing major manufacturers are going to do is pack tons of sugar into the meat.

Then buy regular meat until there's more options with no sugar?

They'll triple the price on normal meat.

biggest problem will be texture

is it all ground meat or can they make actual steaks?

I agree with this.

It's also way easier on the environment since you grow steaks rather than whole cows and there is a whole lot less waste and a whole lot less methane in the air.

Since you won't get the world to go vegan, vat meat is the answer to our problems.

There are also other benefits like taking the DNA from the very best wagyu and making a steak in perfect conditions and selling it for cheap to everyone.

Post scarcity beef almost desu flemelem

How do you know? That would make it even less competitive if lab meat gets cheap enough. Give me your future vision user, since you can predict every factor about the economy

Wrong. They can decide the nutrition exactly and make the muscles work with electric pulses.

There's a podcast with one of the leaders in the field:

samharris.org/podcast/item/meat-without-murder

Fascinating stuff desu.

>but I'm confident it'll be less healthy than eating natural meat until well after my lifetime when they get their shit figured out.
It's going to have no antibiotics, no growth hormone, no e coli and other shit bacteria.

They can even play with the settings about what kind of fats you want to be prevalent and in which amounts.

It will be the healthiest meat around.

>tfw lab grown shellfish/seafood that is free from runoff pollution in the oceans

Also they are making a lot of headway with regular plant based meat substitutes that are virtually indistinguishable and don't rely on soy

>plant based meat
>virtually indistinguishable

just stop

raising expectations with lies like that helps no one

>It's also way easier on the environment....

We have no idea what the lab process is, therefore we have no idea if it's easier on the environment or not. For all we know the lab process requires special chemicals or a massive amount of energy. Nobody has disclosed how the process works. So while we might hope that it's more environmentally friendly, the fact is that we simply don't know.

>> taking the DNA from the very best wagyu and making a steak in perfect conditions and selling it for cheap to everyone.
That would be awesome. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Look at what's been going on with GMO crops: Sure, they COULD have used the technology to focus on improving the taste and the texture of the crops involved. But they didn't. Instead, they completely ignored the quality aspect and instead focused on yield. It's all about "cheaper"; they don't give a shit about quality.

Reminder that the South American food industry crashing means that lots and lots of people will pack and move north.

Not eating Argentinian steak means supporting white genocide.

>It will be the healthiest meat around.

and how will it contain all the natural micronutrients and minerals that regular meat has?

As someone who lived a few years in Ranch Country I'm all for this. I've seen first hand how much land and water and other resources the fucking cows require. Once this sort of tech becomes economical on a large scale we can open up mega labs outputting as much biomass as an average cattle herd but requiring 1/100 of the land. Land that can then be turned into nature preserves, or farm land, or residential or business development, or anything more useful than acres and acres of pasture.

I would assume that whatever artificial blood supply is used to grow the meat would contain the requisite nutrients, the same way that a nutrient solution is used in hydroponic gardening.

>We have no idea what the lab process is, therefore we have no idea if it's easier on the environment or not
Are you for real? They're not just hypothesizing, they've done the numbers since lab meat is a thing they're making right at this moment, and have been for many years by now. The basic process is taking stem cells from a living cow through a needle and injecting it into agar to let it grow. Like those science experiments in elementary school where you grow bacteria in a petri dish. More complicated than that obviously, but the general gist is finding a more efficient way to produce meat while having to use up less land and resources.

>More complicated than that obviously, but the general gist is finding a more efficient way to produce meat while having to use up less land and resources.

I realize that's the goal, but has anyone published an actual, empirical, description of exactly what they are doing and what the costs are (materials, energy, etc.)

Don't get me wrong--I think the idea of lab-grown meat is a great thing. But when I read this thread I see precious little in the way of actual facts and a whole lot of wishful thinking.

You say "they've done the numbers"--are these published anywhere? Or is this just conjecture?

We don't have to let them in.

I've been a butcher for almost 10 years now. If you take this trade away from me I will be out of the job and struggling to support my family.

If you want to eat lab-made and gas-sealed meat go to walmart and tell me how good it is.

I trust the word of the people working on it more than randoms since they're the ones who managed to bring the price down to 12$ a patty. Google the site of the leading company, can't be assed to find their name again but it was in a recent article about lab meat.

I really don't see anything that could be as nefarious as how beef is currently being produced and manufactured. Lab meat as far as I can tell doesn't require pesticides and a shit ton of methane by product.

lmao calm down you raging sperg, you're probably fine for a good many years since it'll take a while for the public at large to trust it and there will still be people who prefer the taste of what the meat they've always eaten.

This.

Don't worry, there is no way they're anywhere near scaling it up to industrial quantities, plus it's massively more expensive than cow grown beef, and look at diamonds... Perfect ones can be grown in a lab but people still buy "natural" diamonds. You know like you can taste the grass and dirt the cow was grown on or something....

And if they did to replace really cow grown meat with lab meat there would be a lot of pissed of ranchers, and they're an unruly lot as it is.

>I really don't see anything that could be as nefarious as how beef is currently being produced and manufactured

I don't either. But the fact remains that I have yet to see any hard facts on the subject, and I DO see a whole lot of wishful thinking.

The butcher trade will never go away. Even if lab-grown meat is honestly fantastic there will always be people who won't trust it and want the old school stuff instead. Not to mention there is no doubt in my mind that lab grown meat will focus on a cheap low-end product for the masses, the exact same way that GMOs have played out with produce. Perhaps I could go to the market and buy a slab of "meat", but what if I want liver? hearts? caul fat? intestine for sausage casings? Skin to make crackling? I don't think that niche products like those are going to get lab-grown anytime soon, if ever. Gotta go to the butcher for that stuff.

>raging sperg
t-that was my first post user, what did I do...
Obviously it's not an overnight thing.
Agreed.

Here's an article that took 1 minute to google:
sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/lab-grown-meat-inches-closer-us-market-industry-wonders-who-will-regulate
How is it that far of a reach to consider it achievable within the next two decades when people have made larger revolutions before?

>More complicated than that obviously,

Yes, and possibly more expensive and with worse environmental impact. These "simple" processes get into a silly level of complexity if you want the result to be consistent and marketable.

And any of the little side-effects and side-processes may add to the environmental impact.

Say, you need to get rid of some impurities from the agar. For this, you need a health-safe chemical which you need to filter through an osmium catalyst grid. To obtain a few grams of osmium, about a square mile of terrain is strip-mined, then heavy industry processes separate the trace amounts of the element from other ores. You want this on industrial scale? You'll need a hundred kilograms of osmium.

The core process may be trivial, but you need to trace the whole production infrastructure tree to see the complete impact.

I wouldn't say "never", but I guess a perspective of 50-100 years is likely, more is still possible.

Plus how long till all 3rd world countries abandon animal meat?

Isn't food grade agar already manufactured on a large scale?

>How is it that far of a reach to consider it achievable within the next two decades when people have made larger revolutions before?

It's not. All I'm saying is that right now we don't know any specifics, and therefore we need to be careful making conjecture. It's binary. We either know the facts or we don't. And right now, we don't.

Remember what happened when they first started talking about GMO crops. People thought it was going to be fantastic since we could now get the best possible tasting [insert name of your favorite fruit or veggie here]. But the fact is that no, GMO crops completely ignored quality and focused on yield instead.

Food grade =/= Good enough to grow a culture.

Imagine the difference between the quality of work needed to wash dishes for everyday home use as opposed to what a hospital needs to do in order to sterilize surgical tools.

This is the problem here. Plenty of people with wishful thinking, but nobody knows the facts.

How poor are you that beef is so expensive

Analogies are never actually an argument, though. And why are gmos and the practices involved with it considered static for all time when genetics modification is basically in its infancy?

So you're basically butthurt about people getting hopes up for something that's many years off anyway and will obviously go through trials of improvements for the decades following its introduction like anything else?

Agar was just an example. There are hundreds of thousands of small subprocesses to every industrial process. Most of them are mostly harmless, or required in mostly harmless amounts. But every new process gets a few "elephants" that are only developed to "friendly" levels as the technology catches on and funds start flowing from actual mass consumers and not VCs.

Considering the current alternative, the "elephants" would need to be quite huge to outweigh the benefits, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that they aren't enormous - we just don't know.

Talk to me when it can compete with the price and quality of normal beef.

I mean, I still don't see why the alarmism. Lab meat will be on shaky ground whenever it manages to sell in the future, if someone finds out that they're sekritly poisoning the environment on a worrying scale or there's something else wrong with it (and there will be a lot of sniffing around) and companis are breaking regulations to make it, people will be swift to avoid it like the plague.

If the price and nutrition is comparable, and the taste is tolerable, then yes I would opt for lab-grown over harvested meat.

There are two ways around that problem:
- don't do the evil shit
- hide the evil shit really well.

I'm not trying to be alarmist, and I really wish them all my best, but I curb my enthusiasm - seeing too much kool-aid and people buying into some really bad marketing lies "in the name of the environment".

All these "environment-friendly detergents" that biodegrade in your sewage without poisoning ground water and are so nice and safe and friendly you could drink them? Yeah, they are as safe and friendly and they really don't harm the nature, that's all honest truth! The little lie is in the manufacturing process, which pollutes the environment way worse than the sum of pollution of manufacturing of "normal detergents" and their environmental impact after use.

It's an ugly lie through omission. Pollution was made worse than it was before, it's just that the point where the pollution is created was shifted from households to factories.

Meh, I just don't see the meat industry not being hypervigilant and eager to slander lab meat (in the future) with any little opening they can find

>ostracized for not being a "real" vegan
Not if lab-grown meat doesn't cast a shadow

>Analogies are never actually an argument, though
They're not proof, if that's what you mean. But they most certainly are an argument.

>>And why are gmos and the practices involved with it considered static..
The GMO technology will obviously improve over time. But that's missing the point. The point is that what happened with GMOs gives us insight into how the industry operates. It shows us that the industry does not care about quality and instead focuses on cheaper. Heck, you can see the same thing with factory-farmed meat. Factory farming of pigs and chickens produces very cheap meat, but also nearly flavorless meat. This trend goes back to the 1970's (Refer to On Food and Cooking by McGee for more information). Empirically we can see that most customers and certainly the industry don't care about quality. They care about cheap. And it would be foolish indeed to expect any different from lab-grown meat.

>>people getting hopes up for something
I'm just warning those people not to hold their breath. I'm sure lab grown meat will indeed become practical at some point. But I think that the dream of being able to buy high-grade "wagyu" at your local supermarket is just that--a dream. I'm trying to bring a little reality to the discussion.

>But they most certainly are an argument.
Not one worth saying, since contexts are never identical and they're never persuasive either, so they got nothing to back them up.

You're a retard.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Neither do I. But they are bound to take cheap shots if the opportunity presents itself and artificial meat makers do something stupid.

And the vat-grown meat development enthusiast drink enough kool-aid to look over these and let the production and sale begin.

Yes, do it, work on it, but don't fucking rush it! Make it work, make it safe, make it cheap, good and flawless, then open the door to broad public. If you rush it, you'll set the whole development decades back.

No, being a retard is thinking history even works that way. Beyond very general statements that can be made about human nature (that can be observed entirely in the present as well), there's rarely any situation from history more specific than that that's useful in to apply to a situation today. Especially as the rate of change in modern society and technology continues to just get faster

>Beyond very general statements that can be made about human nature (that can be observed entirely in the present as well)

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. We can observe from the present, as well as from recent history, that the Ag industry puts cheaper first and quality second.

Therefore it would be silly to expect anything different from the lab meat industry.

I'm not saying that lab meat will be dangerous. I'm saying it will likely be of shit-tier quality, the exact same way that factory-farmed meats and GMO crops are.

In other words, it's a pipe dream to imagine going to the supermarket and buying premium lab-grown meats. In this century, anyway.

>>there's rarely any situation from history more specific than that that's useful in to apply to a situation today

That is without a doubt the stupidest thing I have ever read on this website. I mean that.

>That is without a doubt the stupidest thing I have ever read on this website. I mean that.
Disprove it then with the perfect example of a situation from 100+ years ago that would notably speed up the resolution of a modern problem. How exactly would that knowledge be applied? How would it be executed? Is it even possible if the people who have power over that problem don't give a shit?

And it has to be a very specific situation that goes beyond
>people are greedy and have vices mmkay

years ago
Sounds like the goalposts just moved.

But that can still be easily answered. Ever read The Art of War by Sun Tzu? One of the battles he discusses involves a tiny army facing a much greater foe. He discusses how the smaller force used their greater mobility, hit-and-run, and demoralizing tactics in order to defeat the enemy despite being greatly outnumbered. That was exactly the same strategy the Finns used to beat the Russians during the one-year war, roughly 1400 years later.

If you want a more modern example of how people have *not* learned from history, compare the current "war on drugs" to prohibition in the USA. During prohibition the lack of a legal alcohol market created a massive black market in which was controlled by heavily armed gangsters & organized crime. It was ripe with violence. Sound anything like today's drug dealing cartels? Back in the 20's and 30's we had Al Capone. In modern times we have El Chapo.

>And it has to be a very specific situation that goes beyond

Phew, son. Leave those goalposts alone. Especially since we're discussing a general situation here rather than specifics.

Not that user, but you're assuming there were people in positions of power who didn't know about prohibition when marching into the war on drugs, though. Knowing about it isn't going to be useful if they had ulterior motivations to carry it out. And I don't think cocaine and meth will ever get reasonably legalized anyway like alcohol.

>a war tactic even the native americans came up with now counts as a specific historical situation
That's like saying the drawing techniques of the renaissance masters count as 1 specific situation in history