[smallpoxgirl]

That's sick. I'm sure McDonalds would be in to it, but not me.

[The_Virginian]

Sorry Lorenzo, I preffer the good old fashioned Food Replicator

[lorenzo]

That's sick. I'm sure McDonalds would be in to it, but not me.

Smallpoxgirl, I assume you are a vegetarian.

If not, why would be taking a few cells from an animal to produce millions of steaks from these few cells, be sicker than torturing millions of real animals with brains and massacring them?

I don't understand how you can think that killing an animal is less sick than growing a few cells without killing an animal, while in the process preventing the destruction of the planet, so that everyone can live in peace and prosperity.

[jlw61]

The original concept for this type of device is called the "Santa Clause Machine" because it will make almost any shape out of a liquid polymer. Those machines are used in the auto and other industries where they typically create a model before creating the real thing in metal.

The machine described in the story was dubbed the "God Machine" a few years back and is being designed so that replacement parts will someday be easily made for transplants. A seriously warped and far out version of it was conceived on the movie The 5th Element.

I seriously doubt that we'll be using such a device to make steak and eggs on a sunday morning in our lifetime.

[Ferretlover]

Food replicator?

[ROCKMAN]

Really not all that weird. Folks eat tofu as a meat substitute. And how many folks here have no problem eating bacterial excrement on a regular basis? (That's cheese, btw).

[Ludi]

none of the above

[Lumpy]

I checked the "I'll transition slowly" box.

But I have to tell you, as a medical person, I am excited about the possibilities in THAT realm. Bringing people back to a life of productivity is going to be an important ... er, "meat by product."

(No, seriously - think of all the people who could be off disability and welfare payments and able to be productive, happier human beings again with help from this technology. I have one particular nephew in mind -- age 37 -- been partially disable due to accident at work - age 26, and totally disabled due to terrible motorcycle wreck since age 30. He could be "fixed" and working again. Wow!)

Lumpy

[JustaGirl]

I honestly would not care. Would I also have the benefit of leaving all the hormones that are currently injected into our meat out? Seems like a win-win to me. If it tastes good with A1, I would have no problem eating it

[smallpoxgirl]

If not, why would be taking a few cells from an animal to produce millions of steaks from these few cells, be sicker than torturing millions of real animals with brains and massacring them?

Humans are omnivoric heterotrophs. That is the way nature built us. We are intended to eat plants and other animals, not some science project crap. While I am thankful to the plants and animals that give their life to be my meal, I feel no remorse about it and find the concept of "massacring" animals laughable.

[Dreamtwister]

I just filed a copyright on the name "MeatJet". You know, just in case...

[Ebyss]

, (when I am facing a hysterectomy/cancer over this)

Ok, first off - I didn't realise that. You do not need the stress of arguing online when facing that. I am deeply sorry that you are facing cancer - and I won't be continuing the argument. I will look again at the articles, consider again the rebuttals, and I will be mindful of your warning. Thank you.

This is what I expect out of arguments of typical liberal vegetarians.

In my previous posts in this thread I'm sure you'll find that I'm definitely not a vegetarian.

If you were facing a hysterectomy over soy products given to you years ago, you would. If I am correct, (and I believe I am ) I hope I've had some parents question whether they are correct in giving their child soymilk,

Honestly, if you are facing cancer from eating soy, then you should sue the pants off soy companies for not having warning labels on their products (at the least). And I hope you would win, and take them for every penny.

On this topic, have you looked at the work of Prof. Jane Plant and her findings that dairy products are a major cause of hormonal cancers?

Big Agriculture is laughing at you, all the way to the bank.

No it's not, again, you are making assumptions about me. I never said I was a soy eating vegetarian liberal. Actually, I'm quite the carnivore, and I'm not nearly as reliant on Big Ag as you might think given that I support my local organic veg farm and my local meat farmers and buy their fresh, seasonal and ethically raised food. Big Ag can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned - and on the point of soy; it's hardly an environmentally friendly option given that much of the world's soy comes from Brazil on land that was once pristine rainforest, so it doesn't get my support necessarily - and I sure as hell don't support genetically modified farming practices! Don't touch crap with corn syrup (in all those processed "foods"), and I buy flouride free toothpaste and SLS free shampoo and conditioner. Cosmetics don't really feature in my life.

I seriously and wholeheartedly wish you well in your health and I have zero desire to argue any further with you. I have taken what you've said on board.

[vaseline2008]

The meat that we currently consume has it's texture and properties due to the cow's amount of exercise. Veal (baby cow) is very tender because it has not had a whole lot of exercise in it's life. Kobe beef cows in Japan are hand massaged with cream and stuff, they never get out to really exercise, therefore their meat is very tender. Until they can make tiny electrodes to "exercise" the meat tissue, it will be very soft and mushy, much like baby food. I'm sure that most of you eat meat and like its physical properties...too tender is no good.

As for the hormones go, wouldn't it make sense (in a business sense) to add them into this "test tube" beef too? The whole point is to increase the yield. Unless it was tagged "Organic" I think this type of meat would probably have the same or more hormones in it.

There's an Isaac Asimov short story that had some space colony do the same with cow liver, I hate liver so it didn't appeal to me but I'm sure that this process for liver would work out just fine. Afterall, liver is supposed to be soft and creamy not tough and chewy.

In nature we have to accept the "food chain". Does anyone feel badly for the gazelle that gets "massacred" by lions? How about all the millions of krill that get eaten by our best friends the whales? It's all food, until there is a higher species that calls us humans "food", we are the top of the food chain and get to eat whatever pleases us.

I read about this in Popular Science a couple of years ago and they discussed the whole pros and the cons. I eat Spam so what's the difference?

[burtonridr]

Common how can this be any better than producing a cow?

It comes down to carbons in and carbons out right?

It has to use more energy to produce the food than energy consumed.... sounds to me like another way to carelessly exploit energy in order to keep up an unstable growing population.

[mos6507]

sounds to me like another way to carelessly exploit energy in order to keep up an unstable growing population.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the green revolution? What about agriculture itself? Where do you draw the line? As long as food production reaches certain limits, people will keep trying to come up with ways to exceed them, all the way up to eating bugs and soylent green.

[Cabrone]

Soon to be grown in a high street near you?

Taste The Secret

[burtonridr]

sounds to me like another way to carelessly exploit energy in order to keep up an unstable growing population.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the green revolution? What about agriculture itself? Where do you draw the line? As long as food production reaches certain limits, people will keep trying to come up with ways to exceed them, all the way up to eating bugs and soylent green.

I would say the exact same thing about the green revolution, they obviously dont have sustainability in mind. Its just another band aid on the gangrene infection that is overshoot.

Its never going to stop

Show me a birth control method or something that will actually help solve the problem. That is the real problem, there are to many people living on this planet... That is the problem, it isnt that the earth cannot support life. The problem is that society has gotten out of hand and is now actively destroying every last resource the planet has to keep an unsustainable population alive for as long as possible.

I dont understand how anyone can think that un-checked limitless population growth can be a good thing. I'm not directing much (if any) of this at you, your statement just brought up this line of thought. I'm sure you are well aware of the problem with this.

[pedalling_faster]

Obviously, a steak from the meat-printer is far less carbon, nitrous oxide and methane intensive to produce, than the real old world stuff.

sounds great. positively Jetson's-ish.

what about EREOI ?

would i eat meat from the restaurant at Deep Space Nine ? sure. i was thinking how nice it would be to have a dentist office with a holodeck, so you can have your plaque scraped while you're surrounded by virtual redwoods.

[TheDude]

Worldchanging, July 7, 2005: Fighting Global Warming With Lab-Grown Meat

"Faux" meat biologically identical to real tissue but grown in the lab is something of a staple in science fiction. In January, researchers at the University of Manchester, UK, came up with a method of using ink-jet printer technology to build animal tissue structures, including differentiated skin, bones and organs. I referred to them as "meat-jet" printers, and argued that they could be the harbinger of the future emergence a new kind of cuisine: cruelty-free, waste-free, prion-free meats grown in the lab. Little did I know how rapidly this scenario might come about.

Oh, 3 years from now? Sounds like this will always be the meat synthesizer of the future. Bets are someone prophesized this in Astounding Science Fiction back in the 1930s.

Vaseline made the point I first thought of, wondering whether this would replicate fully the product obtained by animals living in the wild. High quality cheeses derived from Alpine cows can taste of the specific herbs the animals feast on, for instance. This is a far cry from your typical industrial corn-fed antibiotic ridden feedlot cow; the synthesized "meat" has the potential to make high quality food available for many, with attendant reduction in fuel use/creation of GHGs/impact on environment, etc. Whether you find this more horrifying than what goes in a typical abbatoir...

No way it could find mass application without resistance from Big Ag. Lorenzo's obnoxious poll choices will be conversely applied by the people he's deriding with them. And, like nanotech, much agonizing will be had fretting over the possible unforeseen consequences - how about synthesizing an army of mindless soldiers while you're at it? Carhole posted about that chip controlled rat. Or was it a rat-controlled chip...? Bee dee bee dee, need to hurl, Buck...

Doesn't address the need for population reduction, either. Quite the contrary. We'll be Standing on Zanzibar soon. Where's Monte when you need him?

[lorenzo]

sounds to me like another way to carelessly exploit energy in order to keep up an unstable growing population.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the green revolution? What about agriculture itself? Where do you draw the line? As long as food production reaches certain limits, people will keep trying to come up with ways to exceed them, all the way up to eating bugs and soylent green.

I would say the exact same thing about the green revolution, they obviously dont have sustainability in mind. Its just another band aid on the gangrene infection that is overshoot.

Its never going to stop

Show me a birth control method or something that will actually help solve the problem. That is the real problem, there are to many people living on this planet... That is the problem, it isnt that the earth cannot support life. The problem is that society has gotten out of hand and is now actively destroying every last resource the planet has to keep an unsustainable population alive for as long as possible.

I dont understand how anyone can think that un-checked limitless population growth can be a good thing. I'm not directing much (if any) of this at you, your statement just brought up this line of thought. I'm sure you are well aware of the problem with this.

Why can't you be a bit more patient?

From 2075 onwards, world population stabilizes, then, a few decades later, it begins to decline. We only need a few more years of patience. Is that too much to ask?

Look at it, in major parts of the world, population is already declining: Japan, Europe, China, Russia... It's only a matter of time before the other parts also begin to show lower fertility rates.


You're asking for a universal birth control method. I have one. It's called Modernity and Progress.

Just hold on, buddy. A few more decades, and we've peaked. Naturally. Spontaneously. Without killing anyone. On the contrary, by making people wealthier and healthier.

We're almost there. The beginning is near.