let’s be completely real here though, lab grown meat does not scale at all - it’s low scale, insanely expensive and probably not all that environmentally friendly when you count all the steps too. All this is just for political points, it does not really make a tiny bit of a difference.
That’s true as of now, but if we stopped subsidising farmers and spent that funding on lab grow technology then, much like solar, it would go from expensive niche to cheap mainstream a whole lot quicker. All decisions like this do is slow that process down.
or, you know, we could incentivize people to stop eating beef and eat meat with lower carbon footprint and put the money that would go into lab grown meat research into something that will actually have some impact.
Peronally, every time I hear about lab grown meat just the pure stupidity of it makes me want to have a nice, juicy, old-school grass-fed ribeye.
source: I’m a biochem phd that works with bioreactors
I mean, I don’t disagree but ultimately it’s going to be which ever option goes down the easiest with the general population: ‘eat less beef’ or ‘continue eating beef’. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for reducing the amount of meat we eat in general, and I’ve been doing that myself, but from my uneducated view-point lab grown meat appears to offer greater benefits, and fewer disbenefits compared to trying to persuade people to adopt the current alternatives. Not just from a environmental point of view but ethical as well.
And don’t forget: we can do both. We can research improvements to lab grown meat and other alternatives at the same time. These shouldn’t be binary choices.
Because fuck the environment, we gotta keep the farmers happy.
let’s be completely real here though, lab grown meat does not scale at all - it’s low scale, insanely expensive and probably not all that environmentally friendly when you count all the steps too. All this is just for political points, it does not really make a tiny bit of a difference.
That’s true as of now, but if we stopped subsidising farmers and spent that funding on lab grow technology then, much like solar, it would go from expensive niche to cheap mainstream a whole lot quicker. All decisions like this do is slow that process down.
or, you know, we could incentivize people to stop eating beef and eat meat with lower carbon footprint and put the money that would go into lab grown meat research into something that will actually have some impact.
Peronally, every time I hear about lab grown meat just the pure stupidity of it makes me want to have a nice, juicy, old-school grass-fed ribeye.
source: I’m a biochem phd that works with bioreactors
I mean, I don’t disagree but ultimately it’s going to be which ever option goes down the easiest with the general population: ‘eat less beef’ or ‘continue eating beef’. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for reducing the amount of meat we eat in general, and I’ve been doing that myself, but from my uneducated view-point lab grown meat appears to offer greater benefits, and fewer disbenefits compared to trying to persuade people to adopt the current alternatives. Not just from a environmental point of view but ethical as well.
And don’t forget: we can do both. We can research improvements to lab grown meat and other alternatives at the same time. These shouldn’t be binary choices.