Poll: Artificial Meat?

[Risingblade]

Only if it was cheaper, tastier and healthier.

 

[Dwarfman]

The thing is, is that meat has different flavours, textures, fat distributions cooking times/preparations and what not between species. And that's not including the different methods of making meat based products like bacon and other cured meats.

If I want lamb. Then I'm going to buy lamb. If I want bacon? I'll buy bacon. I'm not going to buy prefab meat because there is no way you could replicate everything required to make it taste and feel like lamb when I'm masticating it without adding only God knows how many flavour enhancers to it.

That being said. We are fast reaching a point where the world is becoming unable to sustain us through normal means. If such a product could be made cheaply on mass with as little impact on the environment and the people eating it. Then hell yes! get that shit into the stores right away!

 

[Batou667]

Can't say I love the idea. Give me real (but sustainably/ethically produced) real meat any day.

On a practical note, I can't imagine vat-grown meat ever being economically superior to putting Mr Bull and Mrs Cow in a barn, letting nature take its course, and letting the Bullock family eat grass to fatten up. It might be a useful technology for eventual use by colonists on the moon or Mars (or any other place with a distinct lack of arable land).

 

[IceStar100]

I know I would.

Heck creat clone meat. Less land used for cows. Nothing is tortured to death. Still wonder how peta will stay relvent if this happend.

 

[Yopaz]

I mentioned that in my post. It was by grounding the central nervous system, either brain or bone marrow. Please don't quote me out of context.

I think my chosen quote was properly representative of your post (which is to say confusing and contradictory, specifically because you're using "cause" alternately as proximate and ultimate without specifying which), which is a lot more than I can say for you quoting my entire post to respond to one section in the middle.

I was quite clear that cannibalism had nothing to do in actually causing it. I mentioned that it didn't matter what species you fed to the animal as long as it contained prions. However, you insist on nitpicking so let me point out that what you said about eating brains is actually incorrect. It is caused by improperly folded proteins called prions that have greater stability than normal proteins which gives them a catalytic capability that makes them able to convert other healthy proteins to the same misfolded form. It is most commonly found within the CNS (which is more than just the brain), but it does not actually require that you eat the brain or the bone marrow to cause harm. There is also evidence that you might not have to eat it at all and that improper use of gloves or protection gear when handling infected meat can lead to the disease. So if you plan to correct me in the future, please don't quote me out of context and don't cite false information.

So. All known cases of spongiform encephalopathic prion disease involved eating central nervous systems - either as proximate or ultimate cause. Vat grown meat does not involve eating central nervous systems. Therefore, there is no reason to think it represents a heightened risk over normal meat, and may even reduce risk.

The first part is wrong and uses poor logic and shows lack of understanding of molecular biology and the second part is confusing. I have never made any such claim, why do you try to convince me about that? I haven't mentioned that as a risk even once, I just got into this discussion because of the misconception that cannibalism causes spongioform encephalopathy and tried to explain what causes it. Maybe if you didn't quote me out of context you would know tha, but you won't even admit that the part you quoted isn't representative of my entire post which explains the workings of prions and a brief explanation of how the whole thing started so I guess I won't expect you to admit that anything you say could ever be wrong.

 

[Dwarfman]

Have you read the ingredients in your bacon lately?

Yes. Yes I have. I'm also aware of the curing and smoking methods used to make the product as well.

 

[FalloutJack]

I've heard about scientists being able to create artificial meat, or in vitro meat, and it got me wondering what would happen if this became a mainsteam practice. Do you think we would have an ethical obligation to stop eating real meat (as in stop killing animals)? Would vegetarians/vegans be willing to eat artificial meat? What do you guys think?

What's it ACTUALLY made from? That's the crux of the matter.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I'd still eat normal meat.
Cows and chickens would basically just die off anyway if we didn't breed them for food. I wouldn't say no to the fake meat but I wouldn't refuse to eat regular meat for some ethical reason.
I dislike killing things, but god damn. Killing for food is how the world works.
I mean, if they invented synthetic food would we all stop eating plants? Where does the ethics behind killing living things stop?

 

[Dwarfman]

Have you read the ingredients in your bacon lately?

Yes. Yes I have. I'm also aware of the curing and smoking methods used to make the product as well.

OK, then flavor enhancement and preservatives are not a problem.

Considering bacon is a preserved meat, then no, preservatives are not a problem, one would say it's kind of essential in making bacon, bacon in the first place. As for flavour enhancment, the bacon I - and the kitchen I work in - use is Primo. The only flavour enhancers Primo use are salts, dextrose and sucrose. Sugar and salt being essential ingredients when curing any kind of meat before smoking it. An antioxidant is also used to ensure the bacon keeps its colour and not go grey and nasty looking.

 

[Shiftygiant]

I'd eat both

 

[Joccaren]

It depends greatly. How does the meat taste?

If it tastes like watered down crap compared to real meat, you're not going to sell a lot. I eat almost only meat [Vegies because I have to in order to stay alive T.T], and I'm going to want what I'm eating to taste as good as it can. Artificial meat needs to be more meaty than Coke zero is Cokey in order to get me to eat it regularly.

Additionally, probably the bigger issue, is cost. It isn't free to make artificial meat, and even when it hits mainstream I can't imagine it coming in any less than it costs to buy protein powder - which is around $5.50 per 100gs here. In this way it may be cheaper than the more expensive cuts of meat, but by and large I can pay $2.90 per 100g for meat at the local supermarket, and its cheaper if I go to a wholesale butcher instead. If fake meat is more expensive than real meat, its also unlikely to exactly catch on.

If it can successfully pass both the above tests, however, or on both come within a very small margin of price/flavour such that, whilst obviously noticeable, its not even really a thing, then yeah, I'd probably eat artificial meat more. Its the above two that are the big problems though...

 

[Dwarfman]

You should judge food based on the scientific research into its properties, not what you think of it from a cultural perspective.

I beg your pardon! As a chef I most vehemontly disagree. Culture! History, society, geography, asthetics. These are the basis of what defines what we eat and how we eat. And just as Culture defines food, food also has defined culture.

Science has an important place too. Through it's secrets we have refined and defined the ways we can and what we can and how we can. Beyond that it has no meaning. If you are looking for what defines health, then look to common sense. As the King of Chefs and the Chef of Kings once said " It is my job to cater to your vices majesty. It is your job to curb them"

What do you think most flavor enhancers are? I'd add how critical those nitrates formed during the curing and/or smoking process are to flavor and product stability.

Yes they are. That's why I mentioned them.

Why is it fine to use saltpeter, metric tons of salt and sugar, and everything in smoke on bacon, but not on chips? Surely it's about how you eat either respectfully and in moderation.

As you say. It's how you eat. Respectfully and in moderation. As a person should.Although I would also add that variety has it's place in there as well. At no point did I ever say "eat tonnes of bacon, it's good for you". That being said you need the cure to make the bacon. Salt is an ingredient to make chips tasty, but it is not a requirement. It all boils down to the old phrase 'Does it taste good".

 

[Dwarfman]

You should judge food based on the scientific research into its properties, not what you think of it from a cultural perspective.

I beg your pardon! As a chef I most vehemontly disagree. Culture! History, society, geography, asthetics. These are the basis of what defines what we eat and how we eat. And just as Culture defines food, food also has defined culture.

Seriously? In the context of this conversation wasn't it clear that I mean, "judge THE HEALTHY PROPERTIES of food"? Lets not go off on a tangent here. I'm not interested in a history of the culture of food as it relates to the known carcinogenic properties of smoke, because it has no bearing on it.

If you worry about carcinogens so much, then might I suggest a move to the country. Or perhaps live in a bubble. Such properties exist all around our environment nowadays and can affect us much more intimately than through the consumption of a product that was created in such a way as to ensure that when you eat it you DON'T die. Eating rotten food is a ***** and the ancients knew about it better than any. That's why they incorporated these methods when they prepared their food to preserve them so nothing was wasted and you don't starve to death. Yes nowadays we have refrigeration and we aren't as relying on the changing of the seasons as we used to be to ensure nutritional diversity but these methods live on. Not to annoy killjoys like yourself, but because it's ingrained in the culture it's what brings them together. Sets off the endorphins and other watchamacallits in the brain and make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And they're still effective means of preserving foodstuffs.

And as for context of conversation and tangents I think it's plainly obvious that there ARE no tangents. When it comes to this conversation we exist on two separate planes. Our thoughts and ideals completely different. In your sterile context. Yes you are right. In my context? I damn well know I'm right. When ideologies such as ours clash it may be best to agree to disagree.

 

[MonsterCrit]

I've heard about scientists being able to create artificial meat, or in vitro meat, and it got me wondering what would happen if this became a mainsteam practice. Do you think we would have an ethical obligation to stop eating real meat (as in stop killing animals)? Would vegetarians/vegans be willing to eat artificial meat? What do you guys think?

Vegans are basically hypocrites any way. I mean they are against killing animals but plants.. no fuck plants, plants can die. At least the cow has the chance to run and fight back (and if you check how many how related deaths there are in the us each year.. you realize they're not doing too badly.)

I can say with moral superiority that at least my steak was dead when ithit the grill. That carrot some vegan threw in the blender fro a smoothie... was still alive. Yes they also have discovered plants do 'feel' pain as in they do have the ability to detect injury to themselves and respond in defensive manner (anti-bodies and what not). Plants feel pain.. they just can't ruyn or cry or make soulful eyes.


As for artificial meat... meh. I have nothing against it. I am a strict Omnivore. If it's tasty I'll eat it

 

[DrOswald]

Provided it tastes just as good, costs about the same, is just as nutritious and doesn't have some even worse drawback, then sure, why wouldn't I? It's not like many people live anything close to an all natural diet anyway. How many of you right now are eating some kind of processed junkfood or drinking something equally artificial?

Honestly, despite me unashamedly eating meat and having no regrets, nor any intentions of becoming vegetarian/vegan, whenever the topic of vegetarianism/veganism comes up I find myself embarrassed by the stupid arguments put forth by people who I'm ostensibly on the same side as.
"But what will become of all those animals that are yet to be slaughtered?"
"But if it weren't for meat we wouldn't be here today, therefore it is perfectly moral, just like all the other past actions of our society ..."
"But what about all the poor carrots? They're living things too, so isn't vegetarianism just as bad?"

Christ, get some new arguments, because these ones are cringe-worthy and seem to be brought out every time.

On a coincidental side note, I'm off to buy a meat-lovers' pizza.

I am actually curious about the "But what will become of all those animals that are yet to be slaughtered?" question, from a logistical standpoint. Like, if "artificial" meat tastes better is cheaper and is healthier, what do we do with all those cows? They are useless to us now, we are not going to keep on feeding them.

The amount of animals slaughtered in a year is staggering, the logistics of largely eliminating that industry are hard to comprehend.

 

[Nailzzz]

If I ever became incredibly wealthy, this is where I would invest a good chunk of my fortune. I view morality as the path taken to reduce suffering in this world. This would be a huge step in that direction. Hopefully with more investment, they could refine and create ways to make this more feasible. It would of course have to be made affordable and as similar to the real thing in terms of taste and texture as possible.

 

[Dwarfman]

You should judge food based on the scientific research into its properties, not what you think of it from a cultural perspective.

I beg your pardon! As a chef I most vehemontly disagree. Culture! History, society, geography, asthetics. These are the basis of what defines what we eat and how we eat. And just as Culture defines food, food also has defined culture.

Seriously? In the context of this conversation wasn't it clear that I mean, "judge THE HEALTHY PROPERTIES of food"? Lets not go off on a tangent here. I'm not interested in a history of the culture of food as it relates to the known carcinogenic properties of smoke, because it has no bearing on it.

If you worry about carcinogens so much, then might I suggest a move to the country. Or perhaps live in a bubble.

This marks your shift from an actual discussion, to fallacy. It also marks the moment I stopped reading, and disengaged completely. I think it's only polite to tell you that in no uncertain terms.

Each to their own buddy. As I mentioned although you didn't read. Agree to disagree. This was a discussion that was destined to go no where.

 

[Maphysto]

If we reach the point that we can create artificial meat of the same quality/nutrition, and with none of the suffering found in modern industrial livestock farming, then yeah, I would switch to artificial meat.

 

[Jadak]

If it turns out to be appropriately delicious and priced similarly or cheaper, than sure. If it's tasty and will keep me alive, don't especially care whether it was once a real animal or not.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Provided it tastes just as good, costs about the same, is just as nutritious and doesn't have some even worse drawback, then sure, why wouldn't I? It's not like many people live anything close to an all natural diet anyway. How many of you right now are eating some kind of processed junkfood or drinking something equally artificial?

Honestly, despite me unashamedly eating meat and having no regrets, nor any intentions of becoming vegetarian/vegan, whenever the topic of vegetarianism/veganism comes up I find myself embarrassed by the stupid arguments put forth by people who I'm ostensibly on the same side as.
"But what will become of all those animals that are yet to be slaughtered?"
"But if it weren't for meat we wouldn't be here today, therefore it is perfectly moral, just like all the other past actions of our society ..."
"But what about all the poor carrots? They're living things too, so isn't vegetarianism just as bad?"

Christ, get some new arguments, because these ones are cringe-worthy and seem to be brought out every time.

On a coincidental side note, I'm off to buy a meat-lovers' pizza.

I am actually curious about the "But what will become of all those animals that are yet to be slaughtered?" question, from a logistical standpoint. Like, if "artificial" meat tastes better is cheaper and is healthier, what do we do with all those cows? They are useless to us now, we are not going to keep on feeding them.

The amount of animals slaughtered in a year is staggering, the logistics of largely eliminating that industry are hard to comprehend.

Because the problems with all those left over animals only exists in some hypothetical situation in which the entire country decides to give up meat over night, whereas even if the entirety of society became vegan (which they never will) it would happen slowly over time, resulting in the supply gradually diminishing as the demand does. Unless some absolute idiot politician decided to suddenly ban meat without warning, there would never be a situation in which the demand goes from massive numbers of cows to absolutely nothing in a short enough time to cause problems.

As for the idea of artificial meat completely supplanting actual meat, it's possible but unlikely, and if it does supplant actual meat to any extent it certainly won't do it rapidly enough for it to cause any problems with left over animals either. People are already terrified of genetically modified vegetables, I would wager that plenty of people will be equally suspicious of artificial meat when it does hit the shelves, and I'm sure there will be those who never make the switch no matter how far into the future. There are still people who shun modern medicine in favour of healing crystals for fuck sake, I think it's pretty clear there will be those who regard artificial meat as "unnatural" and will seek out the traditional route just for the sake of it.