Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Synthesized Meat
zamphir66
Posts: 582 Member
in Debate Club
(Not a debate so much as a thought experiment. )
Let's say that sometime in the next several years, we develop the ability to create any kind of meat in the lab. Steak, lobster, hamburger -- whatever. We can do it. And it's been proven incontrovertibly safe. Biologically and chemically, the synthesized meat is indistinguishable from "real" meat. If you're a vegetarian or vegan, would you be OK eating this new food?
Now let's go it a step further. I want us all to put our imagination caps on. You've been whisked centuries into the future, and society is now much like what you would see on "Star Trek." All food comes from replicators. People are taken aback at the thought of food actually coming from soil, or from animals. How would you adjust to that?
What's the point? Well, we can already grow skin in labs for purposes of grafting. More complex tissues cannot be much further away. I think the artificial production of food, once it's scaled up, could be a revolution on several fronts -- eco-friendliness, sustainability, food safety, cost, etc and so on (more things I'm probably not thinking of.
Unfortunately, such a revolution will probably be met with heavy doses of irrational fear. Consider how terrified people were of "horseless carriages," or airplanes, or electricity. Now we take those things entirely for granted.
So: do you embrace this new future, or do you, like the factory workers of the early Industrial Revolution, toss your wooden shoes (sabot) into the machinery (sabotage)?
Let's say that sometime in the next several years, we develop the ability to create any kind of meat in the lab. Steak, lobster, hamburger -- whatever. We can do it. And it's been proven incontrovertibly safe. Biologically and chemically, the synthesized meat is indistinguishable from "real" meat. If you're a vegetarian or vegan, would you be OK eating this new food?
Now let's go it a step further. I want us all to put our imagination caps on. You've been whisked centuries into the future, and society is now much like what you would see on "Star Trek." All food comes from replicators. People are taken aback at the thought of food actually coming from soil, or from animals. How would you adjust to that?
What's the point? Well, we can already grow skin in labs for purposes of grafting. More complex tissues cannot be much further away. I think the artificial production of food, once it's scaled up, could be a revolution on several fronts -- eco-friendliness, sustainability, food safety, cost, etc and so on (more things I'm probably not thinking of.
Unfortunately, such a revolution will probably be met with heavy doses of irrational fear. Consider how terrified people were of "horseless carriages," or airplanes, or electricity. Now we take those things entirely for granted.
So: do you embrace this new future, or do you, like the factory workers of the early Industrial Revolution, toss your wooden shoes (sabot) into the machinery (sabotage)?
0
Replies
-
People adapt to environments they are put in. In other words, if all they grew up on was synthesized foods, they willing accept it.
It's been that way for centuries now.
What I see in our future is countries relying less on oil and more on natural energy so they won't be handcuffed to other countries (like the Middle East) and trying to keep great relations because of resources instead of common ideologies.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Are you kidding? H-E-L-L to the YES, if this could help repopulate the oceans with fish, stop the overfishing, reduce factory farming so that instead of the choice between factory farmed and fancy gently raised heritage meats we had lab grown and fancy gently raised heritage meats?
Yes.
And I have wanted a star trek style replicator since I was a little girl. I just want to be able to throw all the household waste into a big machine that deconstructs it into atoms then assembles whatever we need. Clean water, new clothes, ingredients for food, whatever. Self cleaning carpets, self cleaning walls. Safety foam in the car. Yes.
I want this. And think it's about the most optimistic possible future of all.
8 -
I've longed for a long time for a plastic cup filled with a liquid that [is] almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.11
-
Unfortunately, such a revolution will probably be met with heavy doses of irrational fear. Consider how terrified people were of "horseless carriages," or airplanes, or electricity. Now we take those things entirely for granted.
About 35,000 Americans die every year in horseless carriage accidents. I was riding my bike last October when a driver of a horseless carriage ran a red light, hit me, and I spent the rest of that day and most of the next one in the hospital. I disagree with you about the fear being irrational.And it's been proven incontrovertibly safe.
It would be the first thing in history to be proven incontrovertibly safe. I mean, even animal meat hasn't been proven safe, what's happened is that we've established that the risk of properly prepared meat is acceptably low for most people.
This probably sounds like pedantic nit picking, but I think it goes to the heart of your question. I have no doubt we'll be able to grow meat in a laboratory. I don't doubt that it will be safe. But we can't prove it and won't be able to, there will always be question, and in light of our history, some amount of incredulity is wise and appropriate on peoples' part.1 -
i would not eat flesh even if its created in a lab the thought makes me sick0
-
YES - if it were healthier (or just as healthy) as the real thing. In a heartbeat.0
-
I love eating meat currently. I would definitely eat artificial meat if the taste was the same, it is had more or less the same proteins and fatty acids and what not I get from meat consumption, and if the cost was the same or less than regular meat.
I would not pay extra even if it were more "ethical" because I have a very snug budget as the provider in a single-income household.
I am also a Trekkie and science-fiction nerd. I welcome scientific advancement and to do no harm to Earth in the process is a big plus.2 -
There's actually a Kickstarter campaign for exactly this currently. I can't remember the name off the top of my head, if it pops up on my Youtube again I'll come back and share it.
I like the idea in theory but in all honesty I don't know how quick I'd be to try it.1 -
I'm in. I already have no quarrel with eating the dead. If I can eat the same without the death, I'm fine with it.
The fact is, that as our population continues to expand, this will become necessary. Animal farming already requires a lot of land and resource use, for the amount of food produced, and it will just get worse as demand continues to rise.1 -
0
-
@vintagefeline
I wonder why they need so much money to get this supermeat going? You'd figure a college would at least have a sample by now. Does not sound that hard to do.
Or are Biomedical and biomolecular engineers at CalTech, Stanford, and MIT that worthless?
I wonder, wonder, wonder if it's just a scam site for raising money.
Here is their begging site: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/supermeat-real-meat-without-harming-animals-food-technology#/
Compaints : http://indiegogo.pissedconsumer.com/ "ITS PARADISE FOR SCAMMERS"1 -
1
-
Nope. I enjoy raising animals and eating them too much. I also enjoy hunting animals and eating them too much. Those preferences sabotage nothing.
2 -
I'm actually looking forward to this. I love meat, but I would transition in a heartbeat.0
-
But people don't need meat so it doesn't matter. Theres already plenty of meat-like substitutes out there. Your question is irrelevant.0
-
littlechiaseed wrote: »But people don't need meat so it doesn't matter. Theres already plenty of meat-like substitutes out there. Your question is irrelevant.
That's not the question - those are made from plants and eggs and other grown foods - he's asking if there was a way to create food from waste, create food from the constituent atoms without growing it in or on the earth, would you eat this?
Even plant foods are harming the environment, at least where I live. Fertilizer runoff is killing the rivers, lakes, and to some extent the oceans. Pesticides are killing the bees, and using so much land for cultivation reduces the wilderness available to animals and other plants.
I don't ever want a future with NO natural foods, but if we could scale it back to a sustainable level that would be fantastic.1 -
There's a company that is already making great strides towards making lab meat a viable option. There was a recent interview with their CEO on Sam Harris' podcast that I found pretty exciting. From what they discuss, already the meat they produce is far more efficient (I believe they said it takes 3 calories to make 1 calorie of lab meat rather than the 27 calories it takes to make one calorie of meat from an animal), healthier since it is grown in a sterile environment and does not need to be given antibiotics, and tastes the same. They can even control the kinds and % of fat contained within to make it healthier or taste differently. I think right now where it falls short is texture.
I'm probably over hyping the current state of things but there's so much promise in this to be healthier, better for the environment, and without the need for animal suffering that I kind of get amped about it too much. In any case the podcast is definitely worth a listen.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/meat-without-murder2 -
littlechiaseed wrote: »But people don't need meat so it doesn't matter. Theres already plenty of meat-like substitutes out there. Your question is irrelevant.
That's not the question - those are made from plants and eggs and other grown foods - he's asking if there was a way to create food from waste, create food from the constituent atoms without growing it in or on the earth, would you eat this?
Even plant foods are harming the environment, at least where I live. Fertilizer runoff is killing the rivers, lakes, and to some extent the oceans. Pesticides are killing the bees, and using so much land for cultivation reduces the wilderness available to animals and other plants.
I don't ever want a future with NO natural foods, but if we could scale it back to a sustainable level that would be fantastic.
The easiest way to scale it back would be less people = less people having kids. Which totally isn't happening because people think they need to make 5 more of themselves.
But no I wouldn't eat the lab grown meat, meat isn't even healthy for you in the amounts people eat and I assume animals would still be used in the process.0 -
People keep trying to make things that taste like meat. Ain't nobody trying to make meat that tastes like vegetables. That's all I'm saying.9
-
littlechiaseed wrote: »But people don't need meat so it doesn't matter. Theres already plenty of meat-like substitutes out there. Your question is irrelevant.
They aren't that meat-like -- I like plenty of vegetarian protein sources, like tofu, tempeh, and seitan, but they don't taste like meat and I personally dislike the ones that are mock meat (I have an aversion to mock anything, which is why I always wonder why people make cauliflower rice or mash instead of just letting cauliflower be cauliflower!)* Also, the nutrient profile is not the same (which is both good and bad depending on what specifically you are looking for).
I agree that people don't need meat, and I am not sure if I'd eat synthetic meat, as it kind of squicks me out. I'm pretty open about having some issues with food that I can't logically defend, though, and that would be one of them.
I eat meat because I like it (especially fish). I could give it up, but having thought about the issues and done periods of vegetarianism and even plant-based, I don't currently agree that there's an ethical reason to do so (I am concerned with sourcing, but the killing of animals for food itself is not something I consider immoral). I respect those who have different opinions. (The environmental issue is a a separate one, of course. I could probably come around to the synthetic thing when it stopped seeming so odd and new.)
*Jokey West Wing reference.0 -
There is no such thing as natural food. All food is processed.
0 -
littlechiaseed wrote: »littlechiaseed wrote: »But people don't need meat so it doesn't matter. Theres already plenty of meat-like substitutes out there. Your question is irrelevant.
That's not the question - those are made from plants and eggs and other grown foods - he's asking if there was a way to create food from waste, create food from the constituent atoms without growing it in or on the earth, would you eat this?
Even plant foods are harming the environment, at least where I live. Fertilizer runoff is killing the rivers, lakes, and to some extent the oceans. Pesticides are killing the bees, and using so much land for cultivation reduces the wilderness available to animals and other plants.
I don't ever want a future with NO natural foods, but if we could scale it back to a sustainable level that would be fantastic.
The easiest way to scale it back would be less people = less people having kids. Which totally isn't happening because people think they need to make 5 more of themselves.
The fertility rate is not anywhere near 5, especially not in the US or Europe (or many other places). Here are the relevant stats:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
Worldwide=2.5, and it's been consistently declining. Canada 1.6, UK 1.8, US 1.9.5 -
littlechiaseed wrote: »The easiest way to scale it back would be less people = less people having kids. Which totally isn't happening because people think they need to make 5 more of themselves.
People are having fewer kids in most of the rich countries, it's the third world where this is happening. The best way anybody has found to get people to have less kids is to give women educations.1 -
-
While I do eat meat, no I would not eat that. I'd take the real stuff other that any day.1
-
NorthCascades wrote: »littlechiaseed wrote: »The easiest way to scale it back would be less people = less people having kids. Which totally isn't happening because people think they need to make 5 more of themselves.
People are having fewer kids in most of the rich countries, it's the third world where this is happening. The best way anybody has found to get people to have less kids is to give women educations.
But still, most people have kids. Period. No one cares about the effect on the environment a large population has. Theres like 7 billion people on this planet. That is unsustainable the way people are eating, especially since many countries are moving towards eating like Americans, such as China.0 -
When I think of how many millions of acres of farmland are dedicated to growing feed for the meat animals (not to mention the cost of the equipment to do that); plus how much money is devoted to raising the animals themselves, I doubt the Farm Lobby will let this go too far? But yes, I'd try it, assuming it was readily available and competitively-priced. I've eaten things like Spam and "potted meat" - how much worse could it be?1
-
-
https://youtu.be/XSD0_I1MwqU
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions