Meatable can transform pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) into high-quality fat and muscle tissue in a record four days, down from eight days, a faster process than any in the industry.
Regardless, we really shouldn’t be preventing progress for the sake of protecting jobs. Especially when the status quo is so wantonly destructive. And even as this would replace some jobs, it would create new ones.
You do realize that not all farmland is suitable for growing onions or melons. A pretty good chunk of it is pretty much suitable for grass only. Where I live, half of all the farmland is growing grasses for grazing and hay, (no, its not alfalfa). What are those farmers supposed to switch to make a living? The rest is used for wheat, rye, and barley and some green chop corn silage. And yields can be quite limited depending on the year.
Unless you are fine with massively more use of fertilizers and pumping ground water to irrigate those food crops on marginal land. And even then the growing season overrides all.
Then you stop using that land to grow feed and let nature do its thing and the people working that land can just go work somewhere where there’s demand.
Should we have stopped telecommunication progress to keep the switchboard operators working?
“the people working that land can just go work somewhere where there’s demand.”
So easy to say when it’s not your job isn’t it.
Now, I don’t know what you do to make a living, but with AI, your job as a programmer should just go away and you should find a different job where there is demand - maybe you could be a servant or stock shelves. It’s so easy to do so, just go somewhere else.
I don’t know what you do for a living. But the odds are that at some point technology will find a way to make it less necessary. You will very likely become surplus to needs. And that will most likely happen when you are nearing the end of your working life. What do you do then?
So the issue is, what do you do with those people who no longer have a job? Can you afford to spend the money and years that might be required to retrain a, let’s say a 50 year old truck driver for another job? And remember that not everyone can be retrained.
Start thinking beyond the end of your nose and look at the broader picture.
The industrialized meat industry in Europe has very little to do with farming. An industrial stable with tens of thousands of pigs who never see daylight or breath fresh air is a factory, where bought animal feed is input, and manure and pigs are output.
The industrialized meat industry in Europe has very little to do with farming. An industrial stanle with thens of thousands of pigs who never see daylight or breath fresh air is a factory, where bought animal feed is input, and manure and pigs are output.
deleted by creator
Regardless, we really shouldn’t be preventing progress for the sake of protecting jobs. Especially when the status quo is so wantonly destructive. And even as this would replace some jobs, it would create new ones.
All that said, I’m very skeptical of this tech.
It needs to be done at small to moderate scale with properly strong regulations.
The fields used to feed livestock would be used to grow stuff to feed humans
The buildings… Should we really stop progress to save some buildings used to raise animals in order to kill them?
There’s a labor crisis in the farming industry already (and in general really) so it’s not as if they had no option in front of them
You do realize that not all farmland is suitable for growing onions or melons. A pretty good chunk of it is pretty much suitable for grass only. Where I live, half of all the farmland is growing grasses for grazing and hay, (no, its not alfalfa). What are those farmers supposed to switch to make a living? The rest is used for wheat, rye, and barley and some green chop corn silage. And yields can be quite limited depending on the year.
Unless you are fine with massively more use of fertilizers and pumping ground water to irrigate those food crops on marginal land. And even then the growing season overrides all.
Then you stop using that land to grow feed and let nature do its thing and the people working that land can just go work somewhere where there’s demand.
Should we have stopped telecommunication progress to keep the switchboard operators working?
“the people working that land can just go work somewhere where there’s demand.”
So easy to say when it’s not your job isn’t it.
Now, I don’t know what you do to make a living, but with AI, your job as a programmer should just go away and you should find a different job where there is demand - maybe you could be a servant or stock shelves. It’s so easy to do so, just go somewhere else.
Again, should we stop all progress so as not to eliminate jobs that would otherwise become unnecessary?
As long as it’s not YOUR job right?
What do you know about the field I work in and its necessity in the long run?
And again, are you saying that we should stop progress because some people will lose their job? How hard is it to answer that question?
I don’t know what you do for a living. But the odds are that at some point technology will find a way to make it less necessary. You will very likely become surplus to needs. And that will most likely happen when you are nearing the end of your working life. What do you do then?
So the issue is, what do you do with those people who no longer have a job? Can you afford to spend the money and years that might be required to retrain a, let’s say a 50 year old truck driver for another job? And remember that not everyone can be retrained.
Start thinking beyond the end of your nose and look at the broader picture.
The industrialized meat industry in Europe has very little to do with farming. An industrial stable with tens of thousands of pigs who never see daylight or breath fresh air is a factory, where bought animal feed is input, and manure and pigs are output.
sounds like the US system, without the child labor.
Perhaps they were referring to pivoting from animal feed to human crops