Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dragdeler]

a

[Frumple]

After watching enough NileRed, I'm fairly sure you can synthesize anything out of anything

anything

except love ._.

love chemicals can be synthesized, too, you just need a delivery mechanism

[Naturegirl1999]

I don’t see a problem with artificial meat. Then again I’m not religious anymore. I used to be a Christian but I don’t think there’s anything in the Bible against fake meat. I don’t know a whole lot about other religions regrettably. Theoretically lab grown meat would need less food and water than an animal, plus we could grow just the parts we eat and not have to worry about skinning/gutting/deboning carcasses

My fear with artificial meat is the same with most other artificial things: what it's actually made of. The lowest quality meat is still somewhere around 30% actual meat. The worst cuts, possibly expired, but still meat.

When the only objective is that it has the consistency and flavor of meat and has protein, well, I'm sure all kinds of things can meet that bar. Reminds me of a story once told to me by a guy who works in chemical manufacturing. One of the older artificial sweetners, I forget which one, was a byproduct of the rubber vulcanization process. Yet another byproduct of that process was later used by Subway to keep their bread firm and make it last longer.

No one actually knows what this shit does in the human body after decades of consuming it. The business cycle in the US doesn't allow for that kind of research and proofing before we approve it for human consumption. We just want to know if it will, more or less, instantly kill people. If it just shaves 10 to 20 years off someone's life ehhhhhh.....they were probably the bad ones anyways right?

So I'm increasingly leery of food items where the primary cook is a PHD Chemist.

I assume that meat vats aren't going to be synthesized from chemicals. It's going to be muscle and fat cells that can grow without limit, and they just keep feeding it nutrients and cutting off chunks as it grows.

This, this is what I think artificial meat will be, essentially growing the muscle without having to worry about dealing with an entire animal

[Micro102]

Yep. munching on cancer. 

[MrRoboto75]

you just need a delivery mechanism

hot

[Rolan7]

@Micro102
I was about to object to you calling it a carcinogen, but I reread what you said!  I guess it is kinda like cancer, though growing as lean muscle tissue instead of a tumor

Anyway, it absolutely boggles my mind that people would be queasy about artificial meat if they willingly eat processed meat.  It's like that meme...

"Is that ham processed? If it's processed I don't want it"
Ma'am, that is an eleven pound whole slab of deli ham. It has no bones, fat, or connective tissue. It is an amalgamation of the meat of several pigs, emulsified, liquefied, strained, and ultimately inexorably joined in an unholy meat obelisk. God had no hand in the creation of this abhorrence. The fact that this ham monolith exists proves that God is either impotent to alter His universe or ignorant to the horrors taking place in his kingdom. This prism of pork is more than deli meat. It is a physical declaration of mankind's contempt for the natural order. It is hubris manifest. We also have a lower sodium variety if you would prefer that.

Obviously that's a joke, and it hurt my point by exaggerating for comedic effect.  While mostly people rarely think about the process behind processed meat, they definitely know how unnatural it is for meat to be so convenient and boneless.  When they really think about it for a second, I'm sure they realize that lab-grown "cancer" meat (hehe) is no less natural than a hotdog.  It might even be a lot safer, since it's a very specific process that *doesn't* involve pureeing miscellaneous organs and spare bits of an animal raised on a tight budget.

I'm totally ready to eat texturized bug protein, but I'd much rather eat a lean straightforward meat that didn't spend years as part of a pig's butt.  In the meantime, I still eat hotdogs and other mystery meats sometimes.  They're tasty, cheap, and probably not *that* unhealthy in proper moderation.

[Superdorf]

From the USDA public list of meat and poultry labeling terms:

Spoiler: kinda gross (click to show/hide)

"Meat" derived by advanced meat/bone separation and meat recovery systems

The definition of "meat" was amended in December 1994 to include as "meat" product derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery which is comparable in appearance, texture and composition to meat trimmings and similar meat products derived by hand. Product produced by advanced meat recovery (AMR) machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product, e.g., "beef" or "pork" trimmings and ground "beef" or "pork." The AMR machinery cannot grind, crush or pulverize bones to remove edible meat tissue and bones must emerge essentially intact. The meat produced in this manner can contain no more than 130 milligrams of calcium per 100 grams product. Product that exceeds the calcium content limit must be labeled "mechanically separated beef or pork."

Mechanically separated meat

Mechanically separated meat is a paste-like and batter-like meat product produced by forcing bones with attached edible meat under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. In 1982, a final rule published by FSIS on mechanically separated meat said it was safe and established a standard of identity for the food product. Some restrictions were made on how much can be used and the type of products in which it can be used. These restrictions were based on concerns for limited intake of certain components in MSM, like calcium. Due to FSIS regulations enacted in 2004 to protect consumers against Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, mechanically separated beef is considered inedible and is prohibited for use as human food. However, mechanically separated pork is permitted and must be labeled as "mechanically separated pork" in the ingredients statement.

In the eyes of modern agriculture, a pig is only so much edible, organic matter in an inconveniently structured package.

[Kassire]

Yikes. I went to sleep so I missed what happened after my last post. Sorry if I accidentally added fuel to the fire.

There's a few genetic engineering projects out there that aim to grow crops off of seawater, the idea being the sea has plenty of free real estate if you can overcome that obstacle.

Live and drink, friend.

I honestly think lab-grown/artificial meat is the next big thing.  Meat needs more water (and food) than plants do, after all.  It's on the cusp of proper mass production, and gets cheaper every year.

I do expect the religious to reject it, though, as not being "natural" enough.

Is the water consumption by animals and plants that big of a deal? Pardon my ignorance. I know that almonds or whatever grown in California require a monstrous irrigation system to sustain, but I know that for cattle at least, they get practically all their water intake from the grass they eat, and whatever other green water comes down. Cattle are pretty useful for waste reduction too, given that they turn all those calories humans can't eat from silage like corn stalks into human-edible calories. Which is useful if your concern is feeding a population in a manner that's not wholly hostile to the environment.

I think the only premise for Christians rejecting artificial meat is the whole seed-mixing thing in Deuteronomy, but you'd have to have a very specific interpretation for that. I'd figure most opposition would be from Alex Jones types who think that the government/corporations are putting crazy chemicals into the food.

[delphonso]

I think pigs and chickens are the only animals which provide a better protein/landarea ratio than plants do. Cows, although mostly subsisting on grass, require a lot of land. Pigs can live off denser crops and need less space. Not sure about water, though.

Then again, those ratios are moot if we are linking together proteins in a lab. The land/water-effeciency of that process would no doubt be way better, and if factorized, faster and cheaper.

[Rolan7]

Personally I don't count fish because I've caught so many fish, by my own hand, tempting them with meat.
Meat that I caught by casting nets into a shrimp-pool.

Reality sucks a lot, but I... hh.

Right, what is the ideal arrangement for humanity?

Beans in the short term, and lab meat as a possible future.

[wierd]

Better:  Live like the products of nature that we are, and stop trying to be artificially removed from all the consequences there of.  The attempt at such removal has seriously fucked the planet 7 ways to sunday.

So, eat the meat. Just accept the trichina that comes with it.

Live in the forest. Just accept the bears eating you.

That sort of thing.

[Arx]

I don't think there's any sensible Christian opposition to artificial meat (I'm not a *professional* Biblical scholar or anything, but I think I probably know my way around it better than many). You'd probably see more people who are Christians rejecting it (in the US anyway) but there'd probably be suspiciously strong correlation with also distrusting science and living in the South.

[wierd]

The real correllation is with conservatism in general, which has a pillar of "Change is BAD".

Meat from a vat is biochemically identical (more or less) to what comes off the cow.  That wont stop certain groups from deriding it as being the worst thing since Cher's last album.

[Naturegirl1999]

If it’s biochemically identical, there should be no problem

[Rolan7]

If it passes the taste test, it'll be fine-
Because it will be healthier!
Meat which is grown specificially to be meat will be healthier.  Yes it is "unnatural", but unnaturally nutritious!

Jokes aside, I see no downside to lab-grown meat.
Or you can continue to eat

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Literally anus meat, and intestines, and brains.

As I do.  I like eating strange meat!