I am not a vegetarian but do try to reduce meat consumption for environmental and health reasons and eat closer to a "Mediterranean diet." I'm curious what others think about the concept of lab-grown or deathless meat
OMG did you just say even cows are having a hard time growing real meat? Actually, let's think about this now... mother gives birth, baby fed _____ but not fed mother's milk ever because we drink it (not me). So if the baby cows that do get to live more than a few weeks don't drink mother's milk then the mother only grew the first half of that cow, everything after birth we grew with... whatever we grow them with.
widespread adoption of vegetarian diet would cut food-related emissions by 63% and make people healthier too.shifting to a mostly vegetarian diet, or even simply cutting down meat consumption to within accepted health guidelines, would make a large dent in greenhouse gases.Adhering to health guidelines on meat consumption could cut global food-related emissions by nearly a third by 2050, while widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet would bring down emissions by 63%.The additional benefit of going further, with the widespread adoption of veganism, brought a smaller incremental benefit, with emissions falling by about 70% in the projections.
Creating MORE denatured food has no substantive environmental benefit.
Our environment is already overly toxic thanks to laboratory "created" food substitutes. Don't forget all the toxic soup of fossil fuels, plastics and pharmaceutical.
Stepping off Soapbox
Peace
Out.
I am sure that you are right @hussnain, everything I see about environmental arguments shows that animal agriculture accounts for more greenhouse gasses than all the planes, trains and automobiles. The amount of grain we feed our food and dairy animals could feed the world easily so add resolving world hunger to the list of benefits to veganism.
Switching to a vegan diet for me cured type 2 diabetes, allowed me to stop all medications and nearly eliminated all symptoms of severe hardening of arteries/stroke/heart disease. I also spend about 50.00$ less on my food bill.
I might be a weird person and this might just be me, but as someone who chose to avoid eating meat from 4 legged land animals (I still eat fish and chicken) I just don't find the taste of those kinds of meat appealing.
The saying "It is the best thing since sliced bread." would be unusually accurate in case of artificial meat tissue.
Sure, clumps of muscle cells can be grown in a lab at a high cost, and sure enough, that's a necessary step towards actual artificial meat but that is not very interesting in itself.
Well, I'm thinking of the good ole "it's unnatural." If people complain about GMOs (GMO's have a couple of valid criticisms, but I'm talking about those who complain basically about what they don't understand), I would consider this to be even "worse." Actually, your critical thinking series could help with all of this!
I'm suuuuuuper excited for fake meat. But I'm also in the interim excited to try BEYOND burgers too, which you can't get where I live. I'm not a vegetarian, but still am super open to eating animal-less meat.
I think eating labgrown meat in exotic forms like kangaroo-, chimpanzee-, etc.-meat wouldn't be immoral. In the opposite.
If this process still needs cells from animals, it could even be more reasonable to use the cells from animals living in the region to grow meat than importing them from animals from other regions in the world. Using local animal-cells in combination with a decentralization of lab-grown-meat-production would save us a lot of logistic-costs and a lot of CO2-emissions.
This process would be more reasonable in my opinion then importing meat from all over the world, but likely we even won't need to extract cells from animals in the future. Even today there are already successful experiments to greatly extend, not just modify, the genetic code of E coli-microbes ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/23/organisms-created-with-synthetic-dna-pave-way-for-new-entirely-new-life-forms ) which could pave the way for completely newly created lifeforms possibly including completely artificial meat-cells.
If completely artificial meat-cells without the need to extract them from other animals should become produceable then moral questions about the form of meat won't matter anymore in my opinion.
While it's true that countless genetic manipulations are possible with E. coli, I wouldn't use it as a basis for synthetic meat, mainly because it's a single-celled organism. You would need to put an unreasonable amount of effort into teaching E. coli how to build multicellular structures. I don't think it has ever been done before and I presume it would take decades if anyone even wants to pursue that path. It's much more practical to use cells that already know how to form multicellular structures. All you have to do is convince them to grow outside of an organism. And you could get the inital cells from biopsies that don't do much harm to the animals, so I don't think there would be any ethical problems.
I always stand away Of cultivated meat
For environmental and health reasons
Thank you for this information
nice one!
I'm not scared to test new things, we need to be forward thinking about food consumption, due to the fast increase in population globally.
They have meatless meat at McDonald's they call it a big mac
OMG did you just say even cows are having a hard time growing real meat? Actually, let's think about this now... mother gives birth, baby fed _____ but not fed mother's milk ever because we drink it (not me). So if the baby cows that do get to live more than a few weeks don't drink mother's milk then the mother only grew the first half of that cow, everything after birth we grew with... whatever we grow them with.
widespread adoption of vegetarian diet would cut food-related emissions by 63% and make people healthier too.shifting to a mostly vegetarian diet, or even simply cutting down meat consumption to within accepted health guidelines, would make a large dent in greenhouse gases.Adhering to health guidelines on meat consumption could cut global food-related emissions by nearly a third by 2050, while widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet would bring down emissions by 63%.The additional benefit of going further, with the widespread adoption of veganism, brought a smaller incremental benefit, with emissions falling by about 70% in the projections.
significant environmental benefits to be had, for sure
Creating MORE denatured food has no substantive environmental benefit.
Our environment is already overly toxic thanks to laboratory "created" food substitutes. Don't forget all the toxic soup of fossil fuels, plastics and pharmaceutical.
Stepping off Soapbox
Peace
Out.
What would help is much healthier and balanced diet, not a "vegetarian diet." A healthy, balanced diet could look very similar to a vegetarian diet.
I am sure that you are right @hussnain, everything I see about environmental arguments shows that animal agriculture accounts for more greenhouse gasses than all the planes, trains and automobiles. The amount of grain we feed our food and dairy animals could feed the world easily so add resolving world hunger to the list of benefits to veganism.
Switching to a vegan diet for me cured type 2 diabetes, allowed me to stop all medications and nearly eliminated all symptoms of severe hardening of arteries/stroke/heart disease. I also spend about 50.00$ less on my food bill.
I might be a weird person and this might just be me, but as someone who chose to avoid eating meat from 4 legged land animals (I still eat fish and chicken) I just don't find the taste of those kinds of meat appealing.
ah, well that's a different story altogether
Way to self upvote your reply %100 and the comment 5% @davidpakman Bro - do you even STEEM?
You did WHAT now?
I'd definitely eat it if it was like real meat and the price was right.
Developing it will further tissue engineering, too.
indeed it will!
The saying "It is the best thing since sliced bread." would be unusually accurate in case of artificial meat tissue.
Sure, clumps of muscle cells can be grown in a lab at a high cost, and sure enough, that's a necessary step towards actual artificial meat but that is not very interesting in itself.
I really hope this takes off, the anti-intellectuals and anti-vaxxers and etc will probably fight it all the way.
You think? What justification would they use for fighting it?
Well, I'm thinking of the good ole "it's unnatural." If people complain about GMOs (GMO's have a couple of valid criticisms, but I'm talking about those who complain basically about what they don't understand), I would consider this to be even "worse." Actually, your critical thinking series could help with all of this!
I'm suuuuuuper excited for fake meat. But I'm also in the interim excited to try BEYOND burgers too, which you can't get where I live. I'm not a vegetarian, but still am super open to eating animal-less meat.
I've heard those are good but have never tried them
I think eating labgrown meat in exotic forms like kangaroo-, chimpanzee-, etc.-meat wouldn't be immoral. In the opposite.
If this process still needs cells from animals, it could even be more reasonable to use the cells from animals living in the region to grow meat than importing them from animals from other regions in the world. Using local animal-cells in combination with a decentralization of lab-grown-meat-production would save us a lot of logistic-costs and a lot of CO2-emissions.
This process would be more reasonable in my opinion then importing meat from all over the world, but likely we even won't need to extract cells from animals in the future. Even today there are already successful experiments to greatly extend, not just modify, the genetic code of E coli-microbes ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/23/organisms-created-with-synthetic-dna-pave-way-for-new-entirely-new-life-forms ) which could pave the way for completely newly created lifeforms possibly including completely artificial meat-cells.
If completely artificial meat-cells without the need to extract them from other animals should become produceable then moral questions about the form of meat won't matter anymore in my opinion.
very interesting take, thanks!
While it's true that countless genetic manipulations are possible with E. coli, I wouldn't use it as a basis for synthetic meat, mainly because it's a single-celled organism. You would need to put an unreasonable amount of effort into teaching E. coli how to build multicellular structures. I don't think it has ever been done before and I presume it would take decades if anyone even wants to pursue that path. It's much more practical to use cells that already know how to form multicellular structures. All you have to do is convince them to grow outside of an organism. And you could get the inital cells from biopsies that don't do much harm to the animals, so I don't think there would be any ethical problems.