Poll: Would you eat in vitro meat?

[Vausch]

On the one hand, I'm all for meat that doesn't have to come at the price of life.

From a culinary standpoint though - different cuts of meat taste the way they do because of where on the animal the meat came from and what purpose it served. It's the difference between dark and white meat, flank steak and tenderloin, veal and beef etc. If they grow the meat in a lab, and it's never used for anything, would it taste the same as if it were on a live, raised animal?

I've heard some sources on the cultured meat side say that they can grow specific types of meat pretty easily. Heck, kobe beef might become a more accessible food in that sense.

 

[Thyunda]

I eat meat, but I already dislike the idea of processed meat. I don't want lab grown meat either. Why? I think it has something to do with it being unnatural, and very unhealthy.
Sketchy, and yes I do prefer to slay my beasts and eat them. Its natural, and natural trumps man-made for food/nourishment.

Except for clothing. And flight. And medicine. And shelter. And transport.

Let me FIX this for you since I wasn't clear.

Quorn. Confectionery. Soft drinks. Pretty much any symbol of modern consumerist culture isn't natural. Everything's been preserved, added to, taken from, reformed, rebuilt, enhanced, or otherwise modified.

You haven't had any natural food unless you've grown it in your back garden.

 

[Yopaz]

On the one hand, I'm all for meat that doesn't have to come at the price of life.

From a culinary standpoint though - different cuts of meat taste the way they do because of where on the animal the meat came from and what purpose it served. It's the difference between dark and white meat, flank steak and tenderloin, veal and beef etc. If they grow the meat in a lab, and it's never used for anything, would it taste the same as if it were on a live, raised animal?

My concern too. If an in vitro steak tastes like a regular one I would be all for it. I would want it to taste the same and to have the same qualities. With some work we could probably improve on regular meat since we wont have bones or fat, but I am skeptical as to how well we can emulate the taste of chicken, pork or beef when the reason they taste differently is tied to their physiology.

 

[tahrey]

How does more people improve an economy? We have more people now than in any point in human history and yet for some odd reason the world economy is in the toilet vs. 60 yrs ago when we had about half as many people alive and a much better economy. You can stick to whatever economic theory you like but the reality is all around us.

That graph means bugger all without being normalised per-capita. Business 101: higher turnover does not necessarily equate to being more successful / having greater profits. Some kind of consideration of the (per capita) national deficit and/or debt might also be useful, so you can see whether said PCGDP is actually sufficient to cover both your repayments and the stuff you want/need to buy.

My annual salary just about pays my bills. Yet it would be a fortune for someone living in, say, the Gambia, but laughably insufficient if I aimed just for a similar quality of life in the heart of London, or in Seoul, Dubai, Beverly Hills. And the GDP you arrive at is dependent on taking said paycheque (if we assume it to be equal to the national average) and multiplying it by your working population (...and later, dividing it by your TOTAL population, which also includes those of working age and ability who can't find a job because there's too many people and not enough work).

 

[Da Orky Man]

How does more people improve an economy? We have more people now than in any point in human history and yet for some odd reason the world economy is in the toilet vs. 60 yrs ago when we had about half as many people alive and a much better economy. You can stick to whatever economic theory you like but the reality is all around us.

That graph means bugger all without being normalised per-capita. Business 101: higher turnover does not necessarily equate to being more successful / having greater profits. Some kind of consideration of the (per capita) national deficit and/or debt might also be useful, so you can see whether said PCGDP is actually sufficient to cover both your repayments and the stuff you want/need to buy.

My annual salary just about pays my bills. Yet it would be a fortune for someone living in, say, the Gambia, but laughably insufficient if I aimed just for a similar quality of life in the heart of London, or in Seoul, Dubai, Beverly Hills. And the GDP you arrive at is dependent on taking said paycheque (if we assume it to be equal to the national average) and multiplying it by your working population (...and later, dividing it by your TOTAL population, which also includes those of working age and ability who can't find a job because there's too many people and not enough work).

How about this one?

Sure, its rising slower than the first one, but its certainly still rising. People forget that, with the exception of a few things like rent, most people could live like a well-off business person from the 50s. The problem is that people don't want to give up the internet, mobile phones, out of season food, fast food and so on. Per person, we have gotten significantly richer, but there are more things to spend money on.

 

[asap]

I did some research into this for uni, the costs are just too large. It could only serve as a meat option for vegetarians who wouldn't mind eating meat if it was twice the price, so long as it was never alive. This is under the assumption it would be mass produced, have high demand and using technology we currently do not have, at least for 15 years. It would probably give consumers cancer due to the method of encouraging rapid growth in the tissues.
Overall its a dream, at least in the next 20 years.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Anyone that says no is a fucking moron that's slowing us down as a species. There is nothing wrong with controlled science, especially when it's just IVF, it's hardly going to make your skin turn green. The same with GM crops, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just madness to deny progress because you're scared it might be dangerous to do science and mess with nature.

It's probably even safer to do it in the lab too, it's going to end up having to pass the same tests as regular meat too.