Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
No more farmers, lab grown food! Better for the environment, better for animals. Win win. Farmers in The Netherlands are seriously fucked up, going as far as threatening politicians with murder at their private home. So fuck meat, dairy and egg farmers. We only need fruits and vegetables, and lab grown meat is a nice addition.
I didn't find an answer in my very limited search for what is actually used to grow the meat, so depending on what makes up the "stuff" that brings nutrients into the growing part, we may still need a lot of farmers for something like this. There's also no way the growing environment, which seeks to create an artificial "animal", is energyefficient.
I'll celebrate the day we don't need farmers, and I'll celebrate the day it'll be at least environmentally equivolent, but until I see evidence of those things, I'll be very sceptical of this stuff.
I didn’t find an answer in my very limited search for what is actually used to grow the meat
If you're referencing how cultured meat used to require amniotic fluids to grow meat, those days are long-since passed and there are multiple companies that have proven methodology for production, the only thing preventing large-scale cultured-meat operations is commercial investment and public sentiment.
Your skepticism here is a product of the pushback against lab-grown meat, they have injected endless lies and hyperbolic ideas into the public discourse because it threatens the beef industry, which is currently our least efficient protein source by far, so as the climate changes and as our tarifs turn into gulag-like isolation from the international market, you're basically going to have to choose between $40.00 burgers and laboratory-grown beef that tastes the same but is healthier and cheaper.
Since humans are so easily swayed by the most pathetic arguments and propaganda campaigns, and are so incredibly to make scared, disgusted or hateful of literally anything, I don't expect to see lab-grown meat in my lifetime sadly.
I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but my point is that without more information, I would have to see some actual data to compare this stuff. I am however aware that we won't get reliable data until large-scale production is both possible, and profitable.
It's the same scepticism I have when a new building material says it's much better for the environment, but then it turns out it's either not possible to upscale to the point that it's actually environmentally friendly, because it uses a very limited by-product from a different production. Or it turns out they don't count the materials needed for the underlying construction to make it possible to use, because it's not directly part of the material.
I just want some proper articles about this stuff, with actual numbers and calculations made public, instead of a picture shared on some social media.
I just want some proper articles about this stuff, with actual numbers and calculations made public, instead of a picture shared on some social media.
It's a commercial venture, so a lot of it is kept behind some level of secrecy because this is capitalism baybeeeee. That said, if you are actually interested in the numbers, you can probably look up organizations like The Good Food Institute who are giving millions in grants to scientific methods for alternative protein sources and they have a public outreach where you can read up on their science and scientists, but if you want technical specs... well, see every other technology like AI, microprocessors, the formulas for popular snacks and and sodas.
There’s also no way the growing environment, which seeks to create an artificial “animal”, is energyefficient.
Why not, could you elaborate on this?
It’s quite concerning that something like 37% of the land on this planet is used for agriculture with most of it used for livestock. Biodiversity is being destroyed so we can enjoy a grilled ribeye.
So, I understand the enthusiasm for lab-grown meat. At the same time, I don’t trust big corporations and their captured government agencies to be truthful about the long-term health effects of something like lab-grown meat, and I also expect the positive environmental impact may get overstated to push for outlawing traditional livestock in favor of lab-grown meat for which a handful of big corporations will own patents. Patented seeds for plants that don’t produce viable seeds and lab-grown meat sounds like a good way for corporations to have complete control over humanity’s food supply, more so than they do already.
Am I the only one that feels bad about how that guy feels about fucking up his marriage? Lol.
Nah that's real
No farmers no food!
lab grown meat joins the game
Oy! That's not fair!
Starting to think a significant portion of rich people genuinely view suffering as an essential if not occult component to the value of their products. Like it means more to them when a thing suffers or dies to produce what they have.
diamond rings come to mind, i dont know why some people have a bone to pick with lab-grown diamonds, does the horrible labor behind mining make the "real thing" better?
Same. To some, yes.
Not just products but life as a whole.
Too many people have the mentality of "If I suffered, you should to", or equate their value to their suffering "Suffering builds character", "You only slept 6 hours? Try 4 like me".
Humanity has an unhealthy obsession with suffering equating validation.
Yes. Hearing about how pre colonial Hawaiians worked like 9-12am and were so efficient they could spend the rest of the day playing, makes me deeply sad to see how far we’ve regressed.
the only reason i'd have an issue with it is because of the markup on most items like this (looking in your direction beyond and morningstar).
if they can have a sustainable and ethical method of creating food then it should be free to everyone who needs it.
Potatoes aren't even free so I doubt that is happening.
Cheaper food would be a good start, potatoes and rice are incredibly cheap foods.
Lab grown food is legitimately super expensive to make though.
When I got a playstation 2, my stepfather was amazed it had a blue led. They were crazy expensive just a few years earlier and this console just used one for no real reason other than it looked good.
At least in the US I'd say it's because the government pumps billions and billions in subsidies to the different farm sectors (70+ billion a year for beef alone). The products you mentioned don't get that funding and don't sell the volume either.
The tricky part of lab grown meat is you need to keep it from being infected.
Keep the factory perfectly sterile.
Any time a vat is colonised by fungi or bacteria or a virus its contents would have to be dumped and the equipment sterilised
That's going to be expensive.
It will need feedstock. It will produce waste CO2
Meanwhile a cow has an immune system and eats low quality grass.
Lab meat will not be able to compete with field grown meat
IMO the biggest customers for this once it reaches parity with real meat for cost and quality will be companies like McDonalds, Sysco and other companies that manufacture foods in biblical quantities. Once they can save money by doing it, they absolutely will and once they start putting their level of investment into the tech, it will advance very rapidly.
I watched a video (no source) on this stuff a while back and it compared the carbon footprint of plant based diets, meat alternatives and meat and came to the conclusion that the current way lab grown meat (not plant protein shaped like meat like planted, beyond etc) of the kind that article means can actually be more carbon intensive to produce than factory farmed chicken. (The least carbon intense meat). That said it is still better than free range beef, but one should consider the reason why one buys this. Vegans seem to not like it either because it resembles meat or because it contains the cells harvested from real animals and meat eaters don't like it because its not real meat, not to mention it's insanely expensive, just eat the plant protein, its not that bad lol. (Also put on a linear scale the carbon footprint of beef compared to plant based protein and fake meat is insane, thinking about that video alwqys makes me eat less meat)
That's partly because they fail to market it well. Meat alternatives never taste the same. Trying to replace beef or pork or chicken will always fail to entice people that already enjoy meat.
It's better described as a new meat with new recipe/cooking requirements. You wouldn't complain about how much the assumed pork ribs didn't taste right if I told you they were beef ribs. You'd agree, because you wouldn't expect them to taste the same.
I needed cheap protein that stores well for my disaster emergency plan and the best thing I found was peanuts. They can be stored for a long time before they spoil, they're cheap, high in protein, and easy to grow. They grow well in hot weather, so if you can't grow them where you live, wait a few years and climate change will fix that.
Doesn't this mean that the tech just isn't ready yet?
As in, they can't sell it if it's more expensive, is fake, and is worse for the environment.
No new technology ever starts cheap so I would expect to see reductions in carbon use with time.
There is also the added benefit of land not being used for cattle being regenerated. Looking at the cattle ranches in my state, a quick (very rough) calculation puts that combined size around 200,000km², or the size of Kyrgyzstan. If half of that was reclaimed thanks to ranches being closed, that would pay a huge benefit.
I wonder if benefits like these are calculated into the carbon footprint.
I would absolutely eat this if it was the same price, or even slightly more expensive, than equivalent beef.