Slashdot Mirror


Lab-Grown Steak

swight1701 writes "New Scientist has an article about several researches who are trying to perfect growing seafood, chicken and beef in the lab without the animal. NASA started the program by wanting to provide burgers for Mars astronauts, and researchers hope to look to McDonalds, et al as funding sources in the future. The biggest problems being nutrient delivery to thick meat and exercise for the sedentary slabs. Processed meats seem to be something that may be a reality soon, while your animal friendly filet mignon may take a little while."

634 comments

  1. What about quality by parnasus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just as farm-raised meat has a different taste quality than game meat, I wonder what the flavor of lab meat would be?

    --
    --If you code for the exceptions, the rules fall into place
    1. Re:What about quality by evalhalla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Probably just different.

      I guess that they're going either to make some almost tasteless meat that you're going to eat with lots of sausage, or extra spiced meat that doesn't need anything before it can be eaten, maybe not even cooking.

      I suppose they could give also a "fake game meat" taste, and I also suppose that most people won't care, and that's the sad thing

    2. Re:What about quality by chamenos · · Score: 4, Funny

      given how stringent the selection criteria is for their astronauts and how few people subsequently qualify, i think they should start developing lab-grown astonauts. i don't think macdonalds would have a vested interest in this though.

    3. Re:What about quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will probably taste like chicken.

    4. Re:What about quality by chamenos · · Score: 1

      "i don't think macdonalds would have a vested interest in this though."

      i take that back. it'll be freaky if macdonalds released a new burger called the McCosmos. given their track record that might not be too far off. they could get dr hannibal lector to promote it though.

    5. Re:What about quality by SunPin · · Score: 2, Funny
      To figure out what's in the beef, just check out the little motto on every drive through window...

      "People are our main ingredient." Or some other illiterate variation thereof.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    6. Re:What about quality by p0et · · Score: 1

      Like chicken? :)

      Doesn't anything "lab flavoured" taste like chicken? I though that was already assumed..

    7. Re:What about quality by outsider007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess that they're going either to make some almost tasteless meat that you're going to eat with lots of sausage, or extra spiced meat that doesn't need anything before it can be eaten, maybe not even cooking.

      they already made it. it's called 'tofu'

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    8. Re:What about quality by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      It was just in the news that Mcdonalds is changing the recipe for their hamburgers. Not only could this be the next "new coke," but it could also be that they are using frankenstein meat. Is that creepy or what?

      --
      How ya like dat?
    9. Re:What about quality by marstrax · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      www.mirc.com -- DALNET #war_with_iraq a great new chat with updated news in realtime! see you there!

    10. Re:What about quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it tastes like chicken, keep on lickin'. If it tastes like trout, get the hell out. Any questions?

    11. Re:What about quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but i like trout!

    12. Re:What about quality by addps4cat · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't eat shrimp candy, just a heads up.
    13. Re:What about quality by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that they will be able to control the "diet" of the meat far more stringently than they could control the diet and environment of even feedlot cows, I suspect that they will get meat that tastes just fine.

      --
      Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    14. Re:What about quality by blingitybling · · Score: 1

      Just as farm-raised meat has a different taste quality than game meat, I wonder what the flavor of lab meat would be?

      The flavor might resemble something to soylent green.

    15. Re:What about quality by meatspray · · Score: 2

      assuming that it's not the bad bits in the diet that we're accustomed to.
      then again, they could also probably thoroughly control the flavor through whatever they feed the meat. :)

    16. Re:What about quality by Tetsujin28 · · Score: 1

      Why "lab flavored," anyway? Why not terrier, or dachshund?

      --
      - - - -
      The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
    17. Re:What about quality by mcamiano · · Score: 1

      Naturally, it will Taste Like Chicken (TM).

    18. Re:What about quality by snowrichard · · Score: 1

      Probably what McDonalds food tastes like now. :)

      --
      Richard Snow
  2. Great stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now they are trying to raise beef. What do they start as? Minute steaks and grow up to be a side of beef someday?

    1. Re:Great stuff by uncoveror · · Score: 2
      from the article... "Although the Touro team developed techniques for growing white and dark chicken muscle in the lab, without a blood supply the chicken meat grew for just two months before it was dead in the dish. Benjaminson is now submitting another NASA proposal to investigate mechanical or electrical methods of stimulating blood vessel growth."

      New Dawn Biotech solved this problem. They have meat that grows on trees, and they are about to take it to market. This is the same company that created Chick'N, and is working on F'sH.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  3. As Homer would say... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Huhhhuhhuh... laaaab grooownnn buuurrrgggerr... araarrrrraarah slurp slurp

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:As Homer would say... by superid · · Score: 1

      .....and to drink? .... meatballs.

      "He called me 'Greenhorn', I called him 'Tony Randal'...it was a thing we had"

  4. Gag. by eviltypeguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just sick. I don't think I could even think about eating this. Anyone else feel the same way?

    Who know what the long term effects of eating genetically engineered food are? It seems like more and more corporations are putting profit margins before people...

    1. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Why not consider it as a REALLY good-tasting plant, of some sort?

      Or one of the million things that modern science produces out of powders, waxes and who-knows-what and calls "food" ?

      I mean, some people eat all kinds of things found wrapped in your local gas-station food mart.

      Mind you, it's not that I totally disagree with you, but some would say.....we're already there :)

    2. Re:Gag. by WetCat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A sick is to eat KILLED animals?
      If you go to Kansas, please visit Dodge City and feeding stations for cows near it. It's disgusting and torturing to see that cows and smell that...

    3. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh for GOD's sake, it's just carbohydrate, "genetically engineered" or not, looks the same to our stomach.

    4. Re:Gag. by nmg · · Score: 1

      It seems like more and more corporations are putting profit margins before people...

      That's why corporations exist (profits). That is nothing new. The solution to this is simple--if you don't like it, don't eat it.

    5. Re:Gag. by bluprint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems like more and more corporations are putting profit margins before people...

      It seems like more and more, any attempt to make money becomes an *evil conspiracy*.

      If you don't want to eat it, don't. Just because someone has decided this is a good business venture doesn't mean they have taken some action against you personally (or anyone else).

      --
      A modern day witchhunt.
    6. Re:Gag. by SamSpectre · · Score: 1

      I've been waiting for this breakthrough for some time (I guess in some respects I'm still waiting). I guess my question is, will this have any effect on vegetarians? Will we see PETA supporters eating steaks, or will they find some reaosn to be against this too?!

    7. Re:Gag. by XNormal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is just sick. I don't think I could even think about eating this. Anyone else feel the same way?

      Nope. I'm no vegetarian but I don't see how this is any more or less sick than killing animals and eating their flesh.

      This is not genetically engineered food. It's natural muscle tissue (i.e. meat) grown in vitro instead of in vivo. You can think of it as hydroponic meat.

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    8. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like my beef filet cooked medium rare, with the natural juices. This synthoid stuff is not for me.

      I think I will eat a steak tonight. Moo.

    9. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when it's no longer cheaper to grow cows than to produce meat artificially, they'll all be dead. A large improvement for their species, I'm sure.

    10. Re:Gag. by rking · · Score: 4, Funny

      A sick is to eat KILLED animals?

      You'd rather we eat LIVE ones?

    11. Re:Gag. by WetCat · · Score: 1

      Not dead. Just never born.

    12. Re:Gag. by 1nfern0 · · Score: 1

      So if its grown hydroponically it must be better than the regular stuff. at least thats my experience. debate solved.

    13. Re:Gag. by 2000+Britneys · · Score: 1

      so if we don't kill animals then it is OK to eat them ? I mean why don't we just walk up to a cow and cut out a nice peace of steak or what not, let the animal suffer while we eat the steak.

      Besides, if it is inhumane to Kill animals why is it humane to Kill plants? because they (plants) don't have eyes, mouth and don't make sound it is A Ok to Kill them and eat them??

    14. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people will continue to pay for the vast quantities of essentially useless livestock they have now, right?

      Also their species will be toast. Quite humaine in comparison, I suppose?

    15. Re:Gag. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      I love seeing these strawman attacks on PETA and the like. Comparing a steak grown in a test tube, which obviously no one would have a problem with the slaughter of an animal to eat its flesh is absolutely ridiculous. This "steak" may look and taste like a steak (though I doubt both), but it's akin to saying "I wonder if PETA will complain that someone eats tofurkey": It's absurd.

    16. Re:Gag. by Cyno01 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, we'll have People for the Ethical Treatment of Lab Grown Protien Supliments. "They can feel pain, just like you and me, oh, wait..."

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    17. Re:Gag. by b96miata · · Score: 1

      Actually if they did it anywhere near correctly it'd mostly be protein.

    18. Re:Gag. by WetCat · · Score: 1

      1) People put too much value too suffering and less
      to death. Death is MUCH worse than any suffering.
      2) Plants have no brains. It's inhumane to kill brain developed stuff.

    19. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. Moderate people as flamebait simply because their opinion isn't agreeable to you. Way to go moderator. There are lots of trustworthy and credible organizations around the United States that are already bringing up issues about genetically engineered and processed foods like this.

    20. Re:Gag. by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      bluprint wrote:

      > It seems like more and more, any attempt to make
      > money becomes an *evil conspiracy*.

      I'm terribly sorry, but the "sacred" pursuit of profit and the incorporation of a company does not let the company off the hook of being a responsible part of society. They are not a free ticket to carefree irresponsible brathood. Profit is not more important than the law of the land.

      The same goes for scientists, who for some reason think the "sacred" pursuit of knowledge and a doctorate somehow free them from responsibility for their discoveries.

      > Just because someone has decided this is a good
      > business venture doesn't mean they have taken some
      > action against you personally (or anyone else).

      Give me a break! It has been shown that the Clean Air Act saves lives, and when it is loosened, more people (like me) suffer, and some die. Yet Bush's energy cronies got him to loosen it, because their precious profits were suffering.

      Or take the MPAA and RIAA (please!). To protect their precious profits they want Congress to pass a law that would severely impact the larger consumer electronics and IT industries.

      These are just a few of the instances in which harm to the citizens of this country are being done by corporations in the glorious name of profit. You don't even have to be a customer to be affected by their antics. Yes, corporations have a duty to their investors to produce a profit. They also have duties to their employees, customers, and society as a whole.

      When they decide to grow up and stop being brats, maybe they will get my business.

      "Ridiculous, you have no claim. I'll sue you for interfering with private enterprise."
      Kumoyama, Happy Enterprises, "Mothra vs. Godzilla", 1964

    21. Re:Gag. by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

      Then we should just gouge out the cow's eyes and gag them before we kill them...

      Problem solved. everyone's happy!

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    22. Re:Gag. by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 2

      Just because there are some nutbags in PETA doesn't mean that being against cruelty to animals makes you less rational. I know that's only implied in your post (and perhaps it was unintended), but it's silly. If growing meat in vats reduces the number that are kept in pens and slaughtered, I imagine they'd be for it, rather than against. I'm a vegeterian, and while I wouldn't touch a vat-grown steak any sooner than one from the hoof, it would change the dynamics to a personal health choice, rather than a question of abusing animals. If it became widespread, it could also answer other objections, such as the incredibly inefficient use of land and feed. Overall, this seems pretty smart.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    23. Re:Gag. by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Besides, if it is inhumane to Kill animals why is it humane to Kill plants?

      People usually use this as a slippery slope, strawman sort of argument to discredit PETA and the like. The foundation, however, is perilous: If it's therefore okay to kill animals because it's okay to kills plants, well then I guess it's okay to eat little babies-I hear that China has a surplus. All meat eaters therefore must support the eating of little Chinese babies.

      PETA, and organizations like it, strive to improve the world and the conditions of all living things in whatever way possible (which is more than can be said for most people who's life is nothing but self-centered greed), and the lowest hanging fruit obviously is to stop the suffering of high level mammals.

      P.S. I'm not saying this preaching: I personally am a meat eater -- It was the way I was brought up and it is a tough habit to kick. However I have the reason and the perspective to appreciate the arguments of others rather than to simply accept whatever perspective justifies the way I live (which is basically the technique of 9/10ths of Slashdotters. Do you pirate? Down with IP laws!)

    24. Re:Gag. by Hairy+Fop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm suprised that the parent post has been labelled flame bait it is nothing of the kind. Logically there should be nothing wrong with eating this artificially grown meat the problem in that sense is purely cultural/instinctive because of it's unnatural origins.

      The seperate issue of GM foods being potentially dangerous is a very valid point, but in this case I don't think they are talking about GM'ing (new verb!) the meat just growing it externally. The health risks of externally grown animal proteins have not been explored and there may be dangers there.

    25. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many a man has prayed for a quick death to end their suffering...

      The zebra asphyxiated by the lion before being eatten is surely getting the better deal than the one being eatten while still alive ( seen on a nature channel, killed by inexperienced starving young lions, the zebra braying and bleating as it's held down, it's insides being eatten while still alive ).

    26. Re:Gag. by dryopterix · · Score: 0

      That would be sentence, my dear friend...

    27. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you eat this morning? Can you attest that it was not genetically engineered? Now prove it! Simply don't eat it, yeah right!

    28. Re:Gag. by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Bush's energy cronies got him to loosen it, because their precious profits were suffering.

      Really? He's got Cronies?

      So what cronie told him to toughen diesel standards? Specially since it'll be costing the cronies money?

      And what exactly is wrong with growing meat? it'll cut down on Gaseous emissions from cows, return grazing lands to natural states, eliminate swine farm water table problems, aid in building back up the fish reserves, change over farmland from growing feed for animals and make room for more human foods that can be exported, give areas that can't raise cattle easily a new food source.
      The ramifications of a grown meat are staggering when it comes to helping man and the environment.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    29. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmmm....chinese babies.......I like chinese food.....mmmmmmmmmmm

      yummy!

    30. Re:Gag. by null-sRc · · Score: 1

      ... ok, here's how it works ...

      when you mockingly say,

      No, we'll have People for the Ethical Treatment of Lab Grown Protien Supliments. "They can feel pain, just like you and me, oh, wait...",

      you really make me happy. Since people will read your post, and begin to realize the level of intelligence of those who fail to comprehend the issue of ethics regarding the treatment of sentient beings. Subsequently they will begin to educate themselves,

      "To a man whose mind is free there is something even more intolerable in the sufferings of animals than in the sufferings of man. For with the latter it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the man who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any man were to refer to it, he would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime."
      Romain Rolland, author, Nobel Prize 1915

      http://choices.cs.uiuc.edu/~f-kon/vegetarian.htm l
      Read a few lines from above URL :D

      --
      -judging another only defines yourself
    31. Re:Gag. by yog · · Score: 2

      This is just sick. I don't think I could even think about eating this. Anyone else feel the same way?

      Some people would say that about eating insects and yet insects are a lot cleaner and safer than higher mammals. In some cultures insects are considered a normal and nutritious source of protein. When properly fed and cooked, insects are clean and safe to eat.

      Do you really want to eat a piece of a huge, dirty, bacteria-ridden mammal that's been fed on pesticide-filled grains and processed, unsanitary pieces of other mammals? The amount of permissible parasites and dirt on cattle should make you sick, not to mention the diseases, putrid meat, and dirt that get past inspection. Then there's all the chemicals they pump these poor animals full of, such as growth hormones and antibiotics.

      Leaving aside the hygiene, disease, and chemical pollutants issues, what about morality? Higher mammals such as pigs and cattle dream, feel emotions such as fear, love, and anger. On the grand evolutionary scale, they're cousins to humans. If someone finds a way to cheaply grow meat-like protein in a vat that reduces or eliminates animal suffering and the capacity of bad meat to transmit disease, it would be a very good thing.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    32. Re:Gag. by wsapplegate · · Score: 1

      > You'd rather we eat LIVE ones?

      Well...

      --
      Xenu brings order!
    33. Re:Gag. by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      As a vegan and supporter of PETA, let me say that I am enthusiastic about this type of research. I would have no problem eating lab meat myself, and I will be thrilled when this becomes the most economical way to produce meat. In fact, I can't think of a better way for PETA to win its fight.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    34. Re:Gag. by ATN · · Score: 0

      Isn't that what they said about PCB"s??

    35. Re:Gag. by ATN · · Score: 0

      Does this mean I can have my steak grown in any shape I want?

    36. Re:Gag. by ATN · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is a lack of trust in men and corporations who have a tendancy of making mistakes. So :) if you'll gladly voluneeter to test their wonderful new invention and let me know how it goes, I just might eat it in 40 years.

    37. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad Joke:

      "I like little babies, but a whole one is too much for me."

      (ducks)

    38. Re:Gag. by Maeryk · · Score: 2

      Leaving aside the hygiene, disease, and chemical pollutants issues, what about morality? Higher mammals such as pigs and cattle dream, feel emotions such as fear, love, and anger. On the grand evolutionary scale, they're cousins to humans. If someone finds a way to cheaply grow meat-like protein in a vat that reduces or eliminates animal suffering and the capacity of bad meat to transmit disease, it would be a very good thing.

      Please.. when a cow invents a faster TCP/IP stack, I'll worry about its dreams. Till then, pass the A-1 and a sharp knife, cause Im hungry.

      Heck.. I'd probably eat people, if it wasnt illegal *grin*

      Maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    39. Re:Gag. by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 1

      You say that now, but if you were hungry enough I bet you would eat it anyway. Hopefully you will never live through a famine which tests exactly what you would eat to keep yourself alive. Not everyone in this world can just go down the street to mcd's to get a burger.

    40. Re:Gag. by cow_licker · · Score: 1

      I am a vegan however and this doesn't bother me at all. If fake meat works out and takes off, I think that would be great. No animals being stuck in cages too small to turn around in. Yay science. Everybody wins as far as I can tell.

      Of course I also don't have much of a problem with hunting either, just industrial factory farming.

      --
      $_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$ t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,
    41. Re:Gag. by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 2

      6 billion Klingons CAN'T be wrong!

    42. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmmm....chinese babies.......I like chinese food.....mmmmmmmmmmm

      Yeah, but you're always hungry again an hour afterwards.

    43. Re:Gag. by LudditeMind · · Score: 1

      Please.. when a cow invents a faster TCP/IP stack, I'll worry about its dreams. Till then, pass the A-1 and a sharp knife, cause Im hungry.

      Alright then, until you invent a faster TCP/IP stack then I'll eat you the next time I see you!

    44. Re:Gag. by uncoveror · · Score: 2

      We don't have qualms about killing plants, and eating them because they aren't warm and fuzzy, or cute, but they in fact do feel pain. Killing plants is cruel, too. You vegans can knock it off with the Church Lady's "I'm Superior" dance now.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    45. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I wanted to eat cockroach I'd kill me a lawyer.

    46. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's disgusting and torturing to see that cows and smell that...

      Not as disgusting and torturing as it is to read that abomination you call English.

    47. Re:Gag. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      It's rather telling that you chose to tack on a quote from a fictional work on the end of your comment.

      Your parodies of 'profit' and 'corporations', etc. etc. gets tiresome. When will you people stop fighting the 'villans' you conjure up in your mind and join the rest of us in the real world? It's a lot bigger, and more complicated a place than you can imagine. Certainly the problems of life are large enough that a few slogans and selected dogmas can resolve.

    48. Re:Gag. by jackbox · · Score: 1

      His dream is that we will eventually be able to grow and cook fresh sausage overnight at home in special machine, just like a home bread maker.

      Well - we all have to have dreams.....

      We must decide if we mean gag as in funny, or gag as in retch.

      While respecting the scientific and economic value of the subject of the article - it's also a riot! I mean, they quote PhD's who are trying to figure out ways of getting steak to exercise! This is great! If you are what you eat, then serve me up one of them Super-Buff Prime Ribs a la Petrie and don't spare the a jus...

      Oh, no! What do we do for the au jus???

    49. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No animals being stuck in cages too small to turn around in. Yay science. Everybody wins as far as I can tell.

      I'm not sure the cows that we don't need any more "win" in any reasonable sense. Once we can replace their meat, skins, and milk by artificial means there'll be a few of them left in zoos but that's about it. A great victory for cow-kind.

    50. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kindly look up the definition of a run-on sentence I think you could benefit from this knowledge please do it soon I can't take much more of this we will all be very happy if you stop doing it thank you.

    51. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooooohhhhhhhhh baby.

    52. Re:Gag. by jbs666 · · Score: 1

      All meat eaters therefore must support the eating of little Chinese babies.

      I'll have mine with rice and duck sauce, please. Be sure to super size it!

      --
      I'm not a nerd, nerds are smart!
    53. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So you agree people keeping pets is morally wrong and that all domesticated animals are better off dead? That's the PETA viewpoint, though not one they espouse as much as their pro-vegetarian drum-banging, since it would be a lot less popular with most people.

      I like animals, but there's no way I will ever support PETA. I've been around animals most of my life in a way that, if PETA had its way, I couldn't have been.

    54. Re:Gag. by sql*kitten · · Score: 2
      It seems like more and more corporations are putting profit margins before people...

      People like you make me laugh. You rant about corporations and call for more laws to control them, but you don't even realize that the government that makes your precious regulations is sponsoring this research. From the article:
      A NASA-funded team led by Morris Benjaminson, at Touro College


      You blame everything bad in the world on "corporations" but you're no more developed intellectually than savages who blame "witchcraft". You'd be pathetic if there weren't so many of you.

    55. Re:Gag. by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      So you agree people keeping pets is morally wrong and that all domesticated animals are better off dead?

      The pet issue is grey, for me. I think the pet industry is morally corrupt, and that supporting that industry is morally wrong. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that owning a pet is always bad. I don't have any companion animals, but I have considered rescuing herbivorous animals, and probably will do so when my living situation stabilizes.

      As for all domesticated animals being better off dead, of course I don't think that. AFAIK, PETA does support euthenasia of unwanted and feral pets, but they don't just want to kill all domesticated animals.
      My personal opinion is that domesticated animals would be better off unbred. This would eventually, of course, spell the end for some domestic species, and that's a Good Thing. As a utilitarian, I want to minimize suffering. It is individuals that suffer, not species themselves.

      That's the PETA viewpoint ...

      One need not agree 100% with everything a group does to support the group in general. Mine and PETA's views are not a perfect union, but I applaud the good they do for our shared cause.

      ... it would be a lot less popular with most people.

      From the vitriol of some of these comments, if PETA's goal is to be "popular with most people", they've utterly failed. ;)

      In my estimation, PETA is out to normalize the population. They're not afraid to come off as a radical group, which is indeed what they are. I look at them sort of like the Malcom X of the animal rights movement.

      I've been around animals most of my life in a way that, if PETA had its way, I couldn't have been.

      That's a good point. I too grew up in a house of pets, and I probably owe some of the compassion I now have for animals to that time I spent living with them.

      But please realize that today there is a severe pet overpopulation problem, and that PETA is actively trying to improve the situation. They're answers aren't perfect, but there are no perfect answers.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    56. Re:Gag. by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      Alright then, until you invent a faster TCP/IP stack then I'll eat you the next time I see you!

      Why? Have you invented a faster TCP/IP stack? You countered a self-defeating statement with a self-defeating statement, and you're both defeated. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    57. Re:Gag. by shaitand · · Score: 2

      "If fake meat works out and takes off"

      Now I agree with you that this is a wonderful thing. Not for animals rights reasons, this is after all a horrid thing for cowkind as another responder noted and I couldn't care less since the purpose of our species is to preserve OUR species not any other, but you do agree for the right reasons... what you said gives the impression you think this is fake meat, this is real meat, this lab grown and nourished 100% that just never had the rest of the animal because it's nudged into deformity.

    58. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it's a great victory for the rainforests that are currently being torched for rangeland, no?

      And maybe we can take some of our own gajillion acres of feed corn and use it to feed a starving world, eh?

    59. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are lots of trustworthy and credible organizations around the United States that are already bringing up issues about genetically engineered and processed foods like this.

      No, there aren't. Lots, yes. Trustworthy and credible, on the other hand..... hahahahahaha!

    60. Re:Gag. by operagost · · Score: 1

      G'agh is best served live!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    61. Re:Gag. by operagost · · Score: 2
      People usually use this as a slippery slope, strawman sort of argument to discredit PETA and the like. The foundation, however, is perilous: If it's therefore okay to kill animals because it's okay to kills plants, well then I guess it's okay to eat little babies-I hear that China has a surplus. All meat eaters therefore must support the eating of little Chinese babies.
      Your logic is also faulty-it's slippery slope in the other direction! It assumes that people are "just another animal". We're not, well, at least to those of us who aren't atheist. We have this concept of natural human rights that precludes murder.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    62. Re:Gag. by operagost · · Score: 2
      Wonderful post. Don't let the fact that your allegations that pigs dream and cattle feel love are TOTAL BULLSHIT and UNFOUNDED get in the way of a beautiful work of prose.

      So how clean is an insect that just ate cattle dung, then bit the aforementioned diseased, medicated cow?

      And my beef isn't from a cow that was fed other cows- you'd have to go to the UK or France to get those. That's were the geniuses who decided to feed herbivores diseased meat reside.

      It's quite easy to grow unhealthy produce(like those pesticide-filled grains you mentioned), as it's easy to raise healthy livestock.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    63. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PETA and organizations like it exist because their founders want to impose their view on everyone else. They became so detached from the process of food production that they believed the silly little preschool stories about animals being their friends and associated them on the same level as humans. They are nutcases that if allowed to set a precedent, will reduce human liberties to what a select few decide is appropriate, essentially a godless forced religion that would ignore free will and millenia of human development. They improve nothing.

    64. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the Chinese guy that's going to eat a baby on UK TV?

    65. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have considered rescuing herbivorous animals, and probably will do so when my living situation stabilizes.

      And hopefully the owner of said herbivors will make your living situation a stable room temperature in the process.

    66. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no more sick than eating animal organs or drinking the milk of other animals.

    67. Re:Gag. by swight1701 · · Score: 1

      These are not genetically altered foods in any way. It's regular old cow cells grown in a dish, fed the correct nutrients so they keep on growing and dividing.
      I don't understand how this is more sick than cutting up a live animal and eating its muscles. Maybe you should take a look a PETAs web site videos to see if you'd rather lab steak or not. :)

      --
      - The latest in DVR video surveillance technology! www.remotesentrysystems.com
    68. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Operagost wrote:
      And my beef isn't from a cow that was fed other cows- you'd have to go to the UK or France to get those. That's were the geniuses who decided to feed herbivores diseased meat reside.


      Nice bit of typical american cultural arrogance there. Feeding ground up animal byproducts to animals was just as common in the US as it was in the UK and France before Bovine Spongiform Encephalitus made a big splash in the news. I am really not sure how you came to the conclusion that the United States was not doing this and only England an France were.


      I'll give you a whole 10 points. That's five for making a baseless assumption and an extra five for using that assumption in attempt to be rude and insulting and to try to make yourself look superior through non-association.

    69. Re:Gag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit with a scientific paper like that I guess you've got those vegans trumped. Bwahahahaha.

      Crawl back in your whole you self-justifying moron.

  5. Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by WetCat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this food being compliant to be cosher?
    Can it be lenten and be eaten in Christian fasting?

    1. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by josephgrossberg · · Score: 2

      It's open to interpretation as to whether or not this is kosher. Not sure what the consensus will be.

      On one hand, it doesn't come *directly* from a cloven-hoofed, cud-chewing quadriped. Also, there is no animal slaughered in a kosher manner.

      On the other hand, the genes had to come from somewhere, and maybe that animal was slaughtered properly.

      P.S. It's "kosher" with a "k"

    2. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, let mysticism interfere with diet. Always a sensible action.

    3. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter...you still won't be able to eat it with dairy.

    4. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by shmert · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since this is still going to be derived from animal meat, I'd say this would fall into the 'meat' category as far as the laws of kashrut apply. However, there could be a little grey area there, if the animal were not actually seriously harmed to produce the food, then it would seem to fall more into the 'milk' category.

      The origin of the kosher guidelines stem from the old testament phrase (roughly): do not boil the calf in its mother's milk. Which is more about respect for the humane treatment of animals than for any bizarre reaction between meat and milk.

      If you could grow animal protein from an animal biopsy, I don't see the problem with grilling up a cheeseburger out of it. But religious laws are usually not that flexible or sensible.

      --
      You drank my drink, you drunk!
    5. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by aborchers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bite, troll...

      Religious dietary laws are not arbitrary mysticism. If you trace them back to their roots, you will invariably find the proscriptions make good sense for the immediate health of the eater (e.g. don't eat pig in a desert where firewood is scarce because you'll get trichynosis (sp?)) or the long term health of the society (e.g. don't eat the cow that gives you milk today because you'll starve tomorrow because the landscape and grain supply won't support cattle farming).

      Of course, I assume that correlating any religous edict with such sensible arguments will be wasted on you, since you've already decided that anything that doesn't suit your immediate desire for self-gratification is just the silliness of some shrouded, treacherous priesthood....

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    6. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by boatboy · · Score: 1

      Not sure about kosher, or other Christian traditions, but as an Orthodox Christian (ie Greek, Russian...), I would imagine it wouldn't fit the lenten or other fasts, because the emphasis is more on the spiritual growth gained by not giving in to one's every desire all the time. The idea is that by learning to control your eating habits, you can control other passions. Aside from the question of it violating the "letter of the law" (Is it still meat?) it would violate the "spirit of the law".

    7. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by Scott+Wood · · Score: 2

      Yes, such dietary laws typically made sense when they were introduced. How, exactly, does that make adherence to them today sensible?

    8. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by Hairy+Fop · · Score: 1

      Surely it's mysticism if the current meaning of it is lost and ascribed to a religious/superstitious point of view rather than a contemporary rational treatment of the facts.

      The roots of religious/mystic/cultish practices usually had some significance at the time that made sense for society and health, but to call it mysticism is perfectly valid if those roots are no longer directly relevant.

      Therefore not a troll just a different point of view. All religions are mystic and cultish by definition, don't ascribe a theist or religious point of view to logic, if they were logical they wouldn't be religious they would be scientific.

    9. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      The only question is if it's meat. If it is meat it must conform to the rules of kashrut. Since the animal was not slaughtered in the proper manner by a shochet it's meat is not kosher. The fact that the meat was rasied in a dish probably reinforces this position rather than weakening it.

      P.S It's "kashrut" with a "kav"

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    10. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians are free. We can eat anything we want. That said, if you find fasting helpful, and/or red meats harmful, you're free to decide for yourself on the issue.

    11. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by aborchers · · Score: 2

      Your point is significant, but but to the best of my knowledge India is still incapable of sustaining cattle farming and, given the horrors of modern factory farming, it is very hard to go wrong from a health or ethical standpoint (unless you're taking the total vegetarian standpoint) eating Kosher. Organic/free-range are IMHO a natural (heh) substitute, but are just a modern secular equivalent to a 6K year-old religous observation.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    12. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by autarkeia · · Score: 1

      Though, Troll II, lots of religious edicts are based around ideas that once made sense and now do not. IIRC, the sun is the center of our little solar system now. Other examples will keep this thread a-flamin', but I'm sure just about everyone can come up with more on their own.

    13. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by aborchers · · Score: 2

      You are correct and I'll retract my trolling accusation. Honestly, that was provoked more by the AC status of the post than its content.

      Nonetheless, my point of view is that the wedge between logic/rationality and religion is an artifact of our current culture and one that causes a lot of unnecessary noise in discussions such as this. The immediate dismissal of all things religous as worthless mysticism is no more conducive to productive discouse than fundamentalist adherance to meaningless dogma.

      As for immediate relevance, I believe I addressed that (at least in fly-by fashion) in a reply to the first reply to my initial reply. :-)

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    14. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by aborchers · · Score: 2

      Yours is the third post to make the claim that we have somehow outgrown the wisdom of the past. I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate that keeping Kosher (sorry, I'm a gentile, so I don't know if that should be capitalized or not?!) can be demonstrated irrelevant to personal health and respect for food animals, or that Indian subcontinent can be productively turned to cattle-grazing...

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    15. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hmm-hmm, nothing like digging into a nice dog-steak.

    16. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by Scott+Wood · · Score: 2
      That's fine, and if the original comment was "Is this food source sustainable?", "Is this food healthy?", or "Are there ethical concerns with this food source?", it wouldn't have received the response that it did. Note that most of the other responses had nothing to do with practicality, but rather what the exact wording of the relevant text is.

      Instead, the question is whether it met some specific, several thousand year old rules that people adhere to for religious, not practical, reasons. Furthermore, the original poster didn't just ask about its Kosher status, but also whether it was OK for Catholics to eat on Fridays during lent. In the latter case, I really don't see any practical benefit to a dietary rule that is only followed a few days out of the year.

      As for India, should their high population density (and thus difficulty in sustaining cattle farming) stop them from having a burger or a steak if they visit someplace that does have sustainable cattle farming? If you're just going by concerns over sustainability, the answer is no. However, once religion enters the picture, the answer is most likely going to be yes.

    17. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by aborchers · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the well-considered reply. If I took the thread in a perpindicular direction, I did so no less than the condescending AC who felt compelled to denigrate another person's religous practice.

      As I've stated elsewhere I don't see much utility in segregating our activities into religous and secular so cavalierly. That "any sufficiently evolved technology is indistinguishable from magic" is a caution to the scientist as much as to the savage. Kosher is an ancient term for a dietary regimen that we would today call "The Dr. Moses Diet" and back up with studies and demographics. That version 1.0 came out of a burning bush concerns me not. It's validity as a concept should not be suspect simply because it originates in a religous tradition.

      The examples from Judaism and Hinduism certainly suited my argument better, so indulge me a little prooftexting. I passed commenting on Lent because it does strike me as more of a (substitute "spiritual" or "self-discipline" to suit your bias) act. I suppose it is possible to make a case that a weekly day of denying unhealthy (ergo, inheritently more desirable) foods has its physical benefits, and is consistent with the "all things in moderation" philosophy of most non-fundamentalist sects of X.

      For the record, I associate with a Hindu legacy crowd in the US and I do observe immigrant parents and more often their US-born children eating beef, so there is a "when in Rome" effect at work. Whether the biosphere can really sustain cattle farming as it is currently practiced (to serve overconsumption by a small fraction of the earth's population) is questionable. Cattle farms are not rat-mink operations, but vast consumers of plant resources that could be used to feed many starving people. I find it interesting (+1) that ancient dogma can so effectively account for and counter modern farming practices as a moral question.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    18. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by Kupek · · Score: 2

      Cattle farms are not rat-mink operations, but vast consumers of plant resources that could be used to feed many starving people.

      As I understand it, that is a non-issue. There's no shortage of food to feed the world, the problem is that it is not distributed to those who need it.

    19. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, such dietary laws typically made sense when they were introduced. How, exactly, does that make adherence to them today sensible?

      What you're missing is that in order to avoid the problems inherit in eating the tasty creatures, their god had to forbid them from eating these things. Gods can't just back out of these rulings because situations change you know, they put a lot of stock in not losing face before the mortals. So what was a necessary requirement in more primitive times becomes an unalterable law.

      Okay, so the animals could have been made to taste foul to begin with but then you lose the whole "testing" thing. Nothing more fun for a god than to make a set of rules, set things up so people are tempted to break them then jump out shouting "Gotcha" when someone falls for it. If you can't entrap people into an eternal-suffering situation then where's the fun in being a god at all?

      Hope that's cleared a few things up for you.

    20. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by aborchers · · Score: 2

      There is without question enough food to feed the world on a vegetarian or modest omnivourous diet. What I claimed, or meant to claim, was that there are not enough resources to feed the world the meat-heavy Western diet. This is something I've heard stated so frequently throughout my life that it's become conventional wisdom to me, but I would be happy to update my beliefs if presented with counter-evidence from a reputable source.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    21. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      The fact that the meat was rasied in a dish probably reinforces this position rather than weakening it.

      "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

      Isn't growing meat in a dish witchcraft?

      Oh wait, I forget. Everything is magic and "evil" until "science" (the new religion) makes it happen.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    22. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      As I've stated elsewhere I don't see much utility in segregating our activities into religous and secular so cavalierly. That "any sufficiently evolved technology is indistinguishable from magic" is a caution to the scientist as much as to the savage.

      There are those who define magic as "something which science has not been able to explain." Not "inherently evil". Consider that before we know something, we must *not* know it. To consider the unknown to be dangerous and evil for the fact that we don't know it is to limit growth, indeed stop it entirely. At what point does scientific research become immoral? Simple, when someone puts the knowledge gained into practice *against* his fellow human beings. I'll redefine that statement as needed to suit new life forms as they're found, but I do not feel the need to apply the statement to other life forms on our planet, at this time.

      That version 1.0 came out of a burning bush concerns me not. It's validity as a concept should not be suspect simply because it originates in a religous tradition.

      This will inevitably lead a person to think that they should respect religion. Consider that the stories of Moses, or at the least the ones that didn't get censored out of the Bible (or the Torah, if you prefer) were originally passed down from father to son for *thousands* of years, then you also have to consider that the Stories of Moses could well have information that is "good" information. However, the fact that it is *also* stories of religion, and therefore extremely biased, means we must question the stories with the same level of skepticism we assign to our modern press.

      That's right. Because the books of Moses (and the rest of the books that didn't get censored out of the Bible) can be treated as "pro-God FUD" and dismissed the same way we can dismiss "pro-microsoft FUD". Show me something that's not just FUD and contains irrefutable facts, for *any* religion (not just the philosophical meanderings found in the Eastern Religions, and the one I already linked to).

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    23. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by shaitand · · Score: 2

      And the excuse for say (from your example) not eating pork if you live in the northeastern US instead of the desert is??? Since men made those rules it's not slightly possible those men did the same thing everyone else in the world did and watched that when people ate pork they often got sick?

    24. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by aborchers · · Score: 2

      I can't make an excuse. It would be hypocritical of me as I occassionally eat pork. When I do so, I assume the risk of trichinae contamination and clogged ateries.

      As for how Moses derived the law, it is not only possible but, I would assume, likely that it was based on practical observation, probably that passed along by the Egyptian occultists he studied with.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    25. Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten? by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      I hate jumping into this sort of discussion, but...

      It becomes "shrouded" and "treacherous" when rules, whether they apply (don't eat the cow, etc.) or don't apply (don't eat pig in a desert -- even if you don't live in a desert or can start a kerosene fire to properly cook the meat) are used to *control* people rather than guide and protect them. Rules whose sole purpose is to give power to those that enforce them are evil. Those that create those rules are rightly labeled a "treacherous priesthood."

      Oh, and have a Happy New Year.

      We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic....

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  6. Noooooooo.... by DeadSea · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want to be able to meet my meat. Why can't they just breed cows that desire to be eaten. Then we could all have a nice meal at The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe.

    1. Re:Noooooooo.... by slowtech · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, at the end of the article it mentions the idea of taking a biopsy of yourself, and growing a You-Burger(tm).

      Unless you want to ask how the cells feel about this, you don't have to feel guilty.

      --
      "Well it's not Victory - but then it's not Death either."
    2. Re:Noooooooo.... by jandrese · · Score: 4, Funny

      In response to this I have only one thing to say: "Eat Me".

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Noooooooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I taste like...Chicken!

    4. Re:Noooooooo.... by jafiwam · · Score: 2

      Heh. Funny, and a little creepy at the same time.

      There's a SciFi book by Rudy Rucker called "Freeware", that among other things, had "Jenny-Meat". Jenny was the original host, and had grown portions of her own flesh in vats to sell as food.

      It was part of the side "color" to help make a twisted cyberpunk future, not part of the plot. There was no details, just advertisements mentioned.

    5. Re:Noooooooo.... by tg_schlacht · · Score: 1

      Eating of cultured flesh of humans and other species also occurred in "The Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand" by Samuel R. Delaney

    6. Re:Noooooooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you taste like Pig. Long Pig.

    7. Re:Noooooooo.... by cruelworld · · Score: 2

      I thought it was wendy meat?

      And didn't StayHi end up marrying a wendy clone with a happy cloak brain?

    8. Re:Noooooooo.... by jafiwam · · Score: 2

      Yes, you are correct, it is "Wendy Meat".

    9. Re:Noooooooo.... by Tetrad69 · · Score: 1

      There's a PLIF comic strip that follows a similar idea.

      http://plif.com/archive/wc263.gif

  7. "...exercise for sedentary the slabs." by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Sounds like there may be some contributions and/or benefits for the hacker community, here.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:"...exercise for sedentary the slabs." by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      lol. amen.

  8. Mmmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tastes like chicken!

  9. I wonder... by mschoolbus · · Score: 1

    If they could grow beef with taco seasoning already in it... Oh, the possibilities!

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many vegetarians/vegans do it for health reasons. If this meat is really close to the real thing I seriously doubt that aspect is going to improve any.

    2. Re:I wonder... by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
      Many vegetarians/vegans do it for health reasons. If this meat is really close to the real thing I seriously doubt that aspect is going to improve any

      Many vegetarians may do it for health reasons, but vegans are, by definition, concerned with the animals first and foremost. Vegans not only don't consume animal products, but don't knowingly use products which are produced with animal parts. This extends to sugar which is sifted through crushed animal bone to not wearing leather belts and shoes, and many even avoid most brands of car and bicycle tires, which use animal fats in the molding/curing process.

  10. Basic Chemistry Safety by gazuga · · Score: 5, Funny

    Doesn't anyone remember in high school chemistry, they said never *ever* eat anything from the lab? I kinda feel like that situation applies here.

    --gaz

    --
    "I turn away with fright and horror from the lamentable evil of functions which do not have derivatives."
    1. Re:Basic Chemistry Safety by billburroughs · · Score: 1

      I think they said "Never lick the spoon".

      --
      - The word is a virus.
  11. Genetic engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had the surf and turf rat at red lobster yet? It's a rat with steak growing out of one side and lobster on the other. And if you're like me and have aquired the taste of rat, you can eat the middle too!

  12. 1st Date by screenbert · · Score: 1

    Now it'll be ok to tell your date you're a vegetarian while eating steak!

  13. Bloody as hell ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    I wonder how I am going to get my steak bloody as hell if it's that superficial ...

    Nowadays I don't like my meat hard-baken, what's it gonna be when we get Mr. Cow-Experiment on the plates?

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:Bloody as hell ... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      I wonder how I am going to get my steak bloody as hell if it's that superficial ...

      Aw hell, I might finally get to eat it raw, just the way I like it!

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  14. The biggest problems by HorrorIsland · · Score: 0
    The biggest problems being nutrient delivery to thick meat and exercise for the sedentary slabs

    Just add paying rent, and you have to story of my life.

  15. mass mailers are gonna love this by dunar · · Score: 0

    in the near future they can just purchase "lab grown spam!"

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    -dunar

  16. Interesting by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 1

    I used to be an avid Sci-Fi reader, and I recall reading several stories that included synthesized meat. Is the one I'm thinking of that involved some guy killing people and eating them because he didn't like vat-grown meat a Heinlein book?

    --

    --sdem
    1. Re:Interesting by Spamlent+Green · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with the Heinlein story in question but there was a Pohl story I think -- the first in the Heechee series? -- where there was a giant self-sustaining chicken heart in a warehouse that they'd just carve giant slabs of meat from. Being heart muscle, it would just grow back -- something to that effect.

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is the one I'm thinking of that involved some guy killing people and eating them because he didn't like vat-grown meat a Heinlein book?

      Yes - it was Heinlein's autobiography.

    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... there was a Pohl story I think -- the first in the Heechee series? -- where there was a giant self-sustaining chicken heart ...

      Sounds more like "The Space Merchants" and "The Merchants' War", written by Pohl and Kornbluth.

    4. Re:Interesting by Spamlent+Green · · Score: 1

      no.. I'm pretty sure it was the first heechee. the main character has a crappy job working in the chicken factory. then he wins the lottery or something and buys his way to the space station, takes a high-risk mission with a heechee scout ship...

      if I recall "space merchants" correctly, the lead character was already relatively well off and had some white collar job.

    5. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beats the shit out of Soylent Green.

  17. If they can grow steak in the lab... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can they also grow you a new heart when your old one gets plaqued over with beef suet?

    1. Re:If they can grow steak in the lab... by dryopterix · · Score: 0

      Please remember that some people don't even have a heart, so we might want to some for them.

  18. The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    would this type of meat be eaten by ethical vegetarians, ie. those that don't eat meat because animals need to be killed for it. I personaly eat meat myself but I think it would be great if we could reduce the suffering of animals by perfecting this process.

    1. Re:The real question is by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      If by perfecting it you are causing lots of animal suffering then it's not ethical.

      We could end vivisection and the testing of cosmetics on animals right now if we wanted.
      However the big cosmetic companies are releasing new product lines all the time, each one needs to be tested.

    2. Re:The real question is by zer0vector · · Score: 1

      The real problem is then going to be what to do with the hundreds of thousands of farm animals left over. If Mr. Joe Rancher goes out of business because the lab-grown steak is cheaper and tastier, he isn't going to keep feeding his two thousand head of cattle until they die of natural causes.

      --

      ----
      Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
    3. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's their sole reason for not eating meat, then I don't see why not. However, many don't eat it for the obvious health reasons (which are unlikely to improve much if any).

    4. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      checkmate. good one.

      of course by the time we can get petriburgers at the local frufy organic grocer, we'll have killed off most of the supply anyway...

      and the farmers, for that matter...

  19. Let's hope this means the end of veal by quakeslut · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm vegan, but even if you aren't, you'll be hard pressed to find people that support the truly unethical treatment of cows for the production of veal.

    My guess is that because of their problems with muscle stimulation and "bulk growth" that the resulting meat will be more like veal than traditional "steaks."

    At any rate, you should still GO VEGAN or at least vegetarian. Even NASA can't argue (from the article):

    "People are vegetarians and vegans on Earth and they do quite well," comments Thomas Dreschel, director of NASA's Fundamental Biology Outreach Programme. "It is more efficient to grow plants and feed on them. If astronauts really need essential amino acids, they can eat a pill."

    1. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by bluprint · · Score: 1

      Nasa can't argue with what? That eating plants is more efficient than eating meat? Or that it is possible to live as a vegan?

      It may be true that eating plants only is more efficient (I don't know first hand, but it makes sense to me), but it is certainly unnecessary in any sense...there is still plenty of food to go around.

      --
      A modern day witchhunt.
    2. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never met a vegan who didn't look sickly.

    3. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by micromoog · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Even NASA can't argue (from the article) blah blah blah

      Blockquoting one segment of an article that supports your cause, then failing to reference the immediately following segment in the same article that refutes the original argument, does not add to your credibility. Allow me to help you out:

      But Douglas McFarland, at South Dakota State University in Brookings, who collaborates with Mironov, disagrees. "Animal protein is a more balanced and complex protein than a plant protein," he argues. "The body would absorb and metabolise protein from a pill too rapidly. If you eat protein, then it takes more time to digest."

      This is a perfect example of why groups like PETA are not taken seriously. Arguments should be based on ALL the evidence, not just those parts that are on "your side".

    4. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you glossed over the part where another scientist suggests that the proteins may be digested too rapidly when using pills etc. IANAD though!

      Heh, I'll stop eating animals when other animals stop eating animals!

    5. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by endersdad · · Score: 1

      Hank Aaron was a vegetarian. Imagine how many homeruns he would have hit if he wasn't so 'sickly'

    6. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler was a vegetarian. When you don't eat meat, you're eating with Hitler!

      btw, I call first Godwin's Law post.

    7. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you inquired into the dining habits of every person you've met?

    8. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by notque · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can't beileve that all the people that eat meat are in horror, and the 1 person (the vegan) who you think would get outraged is all thrilled.

      What a world...

      On further note, I am not going vegan. I don't think I've ever listened to anything written in all caps.

      --
      http://use.perl.org
    9. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Humans are omnivores, they can survive on meat or vegetables.

      If we were meant to eat just meat we would have only incisors teeth and jaws without sideward movement.

      If we were meant to just eat vegetables we would have no incisors. Therefore it's perfectly normal to eat what the heck you like.

      It's up to you what you think is acceptable or not.

    10. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Speed+Racer · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever listened to anything written in all caps.

      Don't forget the bold letters. It was all caps and bold.

      --
      Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
    11. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by quakeslut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course Douglas McFarland (at Souh Dakota State University in Brookings) would disagree. And I'm sure that his all of his research project funding has nothing to do with it.

      Listen: of course there will always be two sides to the story (and thank you for reminding me), but as a man of science (I assume) you can't argue that eating meat is more efficient than eating the plants yourself. And this inefficient use of resources on a global scale does indeed have an effect.

      There are so many great meat substitutes that are healthy for you and for the animals. Remember that your "burger" had a life and (in general) that life was rather horrible: jam-packed feed lots, pumped with antibiotics and hormones, force fed foods, disgusting sanitary conditions, etc.

      You vote with your money (in our capitalist society) so at the very least vote for humane treatment of animals. If you really want meat, buy from local farms (if possible) or buy free-range meat.

      If slaughterhouses had glass walls many of you would join me for a veggie-burger.

    12. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Diabolical · · Score: 2

      Muscle stimula aren't allowed everwhere. In the EU most countries do not allow certain types or none at all. In fact, the decision of the EU to block meat from the US because of that resulted in a small crisis.

      Further more, humans are omnivorous. Nothing wrong with that. Why turn vegan when you can choose to eat meat which comes from an "animal friendly" environment that satisfies your ethical problem with animal treatment.

      Your choice to be vegan is of course entirely yours just like my choice to be omnivorous is mine. I won't hold it against you ;-)

    13. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Mr_Icon · · Score: 2
      But Douglas McFarland, at South Dakota State University in Brookings, who collaborates with Mironov, disagrees. "Animal protein is a more balanced and complex protein than a plant protein," he argues. "The body would absorb and metabolise protein from a pill too rapidly. If you eat protein, then it takes more time to digest."

      I'm sure human meat is even better for consumption. Why don't we grow human steaks, then?

      Grossed out? Good.

      --
      If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
    14. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Of course you glossed over the part where another scientist suggests that the proteins may be digested too rapidly when using pills etc. IANAD though!

      This is of course talking from the standpoint of space travelers, who currently have to choose carrying meat or pills. Earthbound vegetarians do have the option of getting all their essential amino acids from plant sources, but the variety of plants needed would most likely be far too cumbersome to carry on a long space voyage.

      Heh, I'll stop eating animals when other animals stop eating animals!

      Do you base all aspects of your behavior on what other animals do? You must have an interesting life. ;)

      Carnivores do what they have to do, they don't have the option of being vegetarians because they have evolved a requirement for animal proteins. It's likely that humans naturally have a need for animal proteins also, to some extent. However, with our knowledge of nutrition and modern technology, we now have the ability to choose vegetarianism without endangering our health.

      Note that I said "choose", your own diet is a personal matter.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    15. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if you want to eat plants, but QUIT trying to shove your beliefs down my throat (literally). You're worse than the fucking Christians!

    16. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

      Most vegans love to shove their views down your throat then then entire clan of Jehova's Witness' combined.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    17. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by javatips · · Score: 1

      Omnivores does not mean meat OR vegetables. It means that to eat many different things.

      The human body NEEDS to eat many different thing to be healthy.

      There is also a difference between surviving and being healthy!

    18. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by ShavenYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a perfect example of why groups like PETA are not taken seriously. Arguments should be based on ALL the evidence, not just those parts that are on "your side".

      First of all, why the attack on PETA? The OP didn't even mention them... do you just have a personal vendetta and feel the need to criticize them?

      Second, of course PETA is going to present the evidence that is on "their side". They're an organization with a specific agenda. You may not agree with their agenda, but that doesn't mean their opinions are invalid.

      On the other hand, the beef industry doesn't spend a whole lot of time telling you you should eat your veggies and whole-grain foods, even though plenty of research indicates that they should be the bulk of a healthy diet. And there's no reason to expect them to do so - their agenda is to sell beef. Where's your outcry that they shouldn't be taken seriously?

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    19. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Blockquoting one segment of an article that supports your cause, then failing to reference the immediately following segment in the same article that refutes the original argument, does not add to your credibility.

      Do you also criticize NASA for failing to present the "other side" of the moon landing?

      Seriously, McFarland is grasping at straws. It isn't really a "refutation" in any case, because it does not address the obvious fact that people can and do survive just fine without meat. It's a red herring.

    20. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by cperciva · · Score: 2

      I'm sure human meat is even better for consumption.

      I doubt it. Generally speaking, vegetarians make much better food than carnivores.

    21. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by L.+VeGas · · Score: 2

      GO VEGAN

      Why, thank you for the pep talk.

    22. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2
      If we stopped eating meat, those animals would never be born at all.

      Which is better, that life or no life at all?

      This is starting to sound similar to a discussion on abortion...

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    23. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      Actually, the trick is to do it without comitting cannibalism.

      See the last paragraph where it's briefly discussed that one may possibly be able to grow a steak out of a self biopsy.

      Still grossed out? I'm not.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    24. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by null-sRc · · Score: 1

      PETA
      People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals...

      not ... People for the (whatever has good space travel nutrition advantages) Treatment of Animals...

      Ethics /= Science

      --
      -judging another only defines yourself
    25. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2
      vegetarians make much better food than carnivores.

      But the pelts are useless.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    26. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by drink85cent · · Score: 1

      I LOVE VEAL!!!!
      Hey animals are here on this earth to be to eaten by an animal higher up on the food chain. Do you think other meat eaters think hey "im not going to viciously maul this little newborn "
      God gave us canines so we can tear into the flesh of all animals. If he he wanted to be some self-righteous vegan asshole you'd have a face full of big ugly molars. We are omnivores.

    27. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only right an animals has it to lay quietly on my plate as I devour it. I love veal and I have NO problem with what they do to the animal.

    28. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Moloch666 · · Score: 1

      Although I agree with vegetarians views for the most part. I wish animals would be treated better before their slaughter at least. I don't eat veal and cut down my milk intake. Mostly for cookies and cereal, which is not often.

      I can't and will never give up steak and sushi. If lab steak and sushi can be created that tastes the same or better then fine. Burgers, well I could do without, it ties me over in between expensive steak and sushi eatings.

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    29. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you care if it's veal or not? So it's ok
      to kill them when they are older, but not younger?
      Vegan, you confuse me.....That is why we "breed"
      them, so I can have my steak and eat it too.

      Humans don't like to kill the 'cute' animals,
      Only the real facking ugly ones.

    30. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by lordaych · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This whole "animal protein is more complete and balanced" line of reasoning is hogwash. A proper, varied diet that includes protein-rich vegetarian foods such as beans, rice, and cereals will provide more than enough protein, and all of the amino acids a human needs. The whole "vegetarians don't get protein" argument is completely bunk, although there is such a thing as a "vegetarian" with a poor diet (who may not receive the proper balance of amino acids) just as there are omnivores with poor diets.

      The only nutrient a hard-core vegan can't get from vegetable matter is vitamin B12, which is only necessary in small doses and sticks around in body tissue for decades. B12 can be taken in supplement form or can be found in fortified "nutritional yeast flakes."

    31. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by josefek · · Score: 1

      Funny things, convictions. Everyone likes to espouse and demand respect for their own, while alternately disrespecting those they don't personally hold.

      'Most' vegans, like most christians, most conservatives, most liberals, most (insert personal strongly held belief here) and most Linux-heads truly believe they're trying to help you by sharing their conviction with you.

      "Most slashdotters love to shove their pro-Linux views down your throat more than an entire clan of Jehova's Witness' combined, and yet Jehova's witnesses still get more dates."

      Generalities are funny things too.

      --
      rev.jsfk
    32. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole "animal protein is more complete and balanced" line of reasoning is hogwash.

      I was hoping someone would bring this up. Animal flesh protein isn't much better than proteins from vegetables sources. If you're _truly_ concerned about your protein intake -- you'll take supplements with whey protein in them.

    33. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by RadioTV · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been in a slaughterhouse? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

      I used to work in a (small) slaughterhouse. I cleaned the kill floor after the daily kill. I still eat meat. In fact after working there I know how much meat (and meat handling equipment) is inspected. I hear people say "if you know what was in a hotdog you wouldn't eat them". I do know what is in hotdogs - I used to make them - and I still eat them.

      --
      I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
    34. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "This is a perfect example of why groups like PETA are not taken seriously."

      And here I thought it was because PETA are a bunch of loonies who seem much more interested in garnering attention for themselves than their cause. Or maybe that's just me...

    35. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by swillden · · Score: 2

      It is an interesting fact that the people who are most vociferously opposed to the killing of animals are people who've had very little exposure to the reality of it.

      One would think it would be the reverse.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    36. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by tordia · · Score: 1
      from The Vegetarian Resource Guide:
      Reliable Vegan Sources of Vitamin B12

      A number of reliable vegan food sources for vitamin B12 are known. One brand of nutritional yeast, Red Star T-6635+, has been tested and shown to contain active vitamin B12. This brand of yeast is often labeled as Vegetar-ian Support Formula with or without T-6635+ in parentheses following this new name. It is a reliable source of vitamin B12. Nutritional yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is a food yeast, grown on a molasses solution, which comes as yellow flakes or powder. It has a cheesy taste. Nutritional yeast is different from brewer's yeast or torula yeast. It can often be used by those sensitive to other yeasts.

      The RDA (which includes a safety factor) for adults for vitamin B12 is 2.4 micrograms daily [4]. 2.4 micrograms of vitamin B12 are provided by a little less than 1 Tablespoon of Vegetarian Support Formula (Red Star T-6635+) nutritional yeast. A number of the recipes in this book contain nutritional yeast.

      Another source of vitamin B12 is fortified cereal. We recommend checking the label of your favorite cereal since manufacturers have been known to stop including vitamin B12.

      Other sources of vitamin B12 are vitamin B12-fortified soy milk, vitamin B12-fortified meat analogues (food made from wheat gluten or soybeans to resemble meat, poultry or fish), and vitamin B12 supplements. There are vitamin supplements which do not contain animal products.

      Vegans who choose to use a vitamin B12 supplement, either as a single supplement or in a multi-vitamin should use supplements at least several times a week. Even though a supplement may contain many times the recom-mended level of vitamin B12, when vitamin B12 intake is high, not as much appears to be absorbed. This means in order to meet your needs, you should take the vitamin several times a week.

      Tempeh, miso, and sea vegetables often are reported to have large amounts of vitamin B12. These products, however, are not reliable sources of the vita-min because the amount of vitamin B12 present depends on the type of processing the food undergoes [1, 5]. The standard method for measuring vitamin B12 in foods measures both active and inactive forms of vitamin B12. The inactive form (also called analogues) actually interferes with normal vita-min B12 absorption and metabolism [1, 6]. Fermented foods and sea vege-tables may contain more inactive than active vitamin B12.

      Some vitamin B12 appears to be found in organically grown plants, but in extremely small amounts. According to one study [7,8], more than 23 cups of organically grown spinach would have to be eaten every day in order to meet the adult RDA for vitamin B12. Produce cannot be depended on as a reliable vitamin B12 source because the level of vitamin B12 in plants varies widely depending on the type of plant and the soil in which it is grown. Also, vitamin B12 analogues may be found in soil and absorbed by plants. If these ana-logues are present, they could either interfere with the plants uptake of vitamin B12 or with the usefulness of the plant's vitamin B12 for humans.

      Fortified soy milk for me.

      --

      Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.

    37. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Sinical · · Score: 1
      I'm vegan, but even if you aren't, you'll be hard pressed to find people that support the truly unethical treatment of cows for the production of veal.

      Here's one. Sure, I'd prefer it was humane to the cow, but what I'd prefer, and what I know isn't happening, is that it be:

      • Antiseptic
      • Safe for the employees
      • Cows not pumped full of antibiotics and crazy shit like that

      I'd willingly pay more for cow if I could be assured that a better job was done in the raising, feeding, and slaughtering of the animal, but I could give two shits about the animal's feelings, really: thank god for the pointy bit of the food pyramid where I reside.

      If they could get this slab-grown meat working correctly, then I think all of your concerns and all my concerns could be addressed. You wouldn't have the horrific killing floors (yeah, I read Fast Food Nation), and unless the animal rights crazies start up with ''Equal Protection for Cow Parts'' or something, everybody'd be happy.

      Good luck, scientist-types.

    38. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument has a flaw. The meat industry (all of them: beef, pork, poultry, etc.) does highly promote its products. On the other hand, they do not promote AGAINST other foods. They aren't telling you what you shouldn't do, only want they would like you to do. There is a difference here which I may not have been able to clearly put into words.

    39. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by El_Smack · · Score: 2


      Hmmmm. Can't wait to get home and grill up a nice fortified nutritional yeast flake. :)

      --


      There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    40. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by renoX · · Score: 2

      No, in fact it's quite logical: those who have a large exposure to it, usually had this exposure very young:
      they see their parents killing animals that they eat later, so they are used to it and probably don't think very much about wether it's right or wrong to kill animals..

      It's the same thing about religion: if a child is raised in a religious society, with a religious education and in a religious family he has 99% chances of becoming a religious believer , whereas if a child raised in a 'laissez faire' family and society without religious education has 99% chance of becoming atheist or agnostisc..

    41. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by robson · · Score: 2
      At any rate, you should still GO VEGAN or at least vegetarian.

      On further note, I am not going vegan. I don't think I've ever listened to anything written in all caps.

      Yup. Maybe it's old-fashioned American bull-headedness, or maybe it's old-fashioned Taurian bull-headedness, but I'm rarely able to respond with an open mind when someone I don't know tells me what I "should" do. :)
    42. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it's amazing how often I hear people say vegetarians/vegans look like they aren't healthy. My guess is that these types of people are generally noticed more often (because they stand out/tend to have other issues?).

      -- 'Undetectable' Vegetarian #2,108,645

    43. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      I don't eat veal and cut down my milk intake. Mostly for cookies and cereal, which is not often.

      Depending on what kind of cereal you're eating, soy milk might be acceptable on it. The more flavorful (or sugary) the cereal, the less you notice the difference. My weakness is cheese. I've tasted passable soy substitutes for cheap cheese food slices, but not for real cheeses.

      I can't and will never give up steak and sushi.

      Just curious, do you like your steak raw like your fish? ;)

      There are vegetarian burgers which I find to be a good substitute for the real thing. No, they don't taste exactly the same - but if someone ate the veggie burgers for their whole life and then switched to meat, they'd say the meat ones taste 'funny' and 'not quite right'.

      Unfortunately there's nothing to replace a steak, or a good fish (but grill mine for a few minutes please).

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    44. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by astroboscope · · Score: 1
      Please don't take this as a quibble, but what about Omega-3 fatty acids? A lack of them can cause depression and heart problems (but IANAD or the mythical unbiased nutritionist ;-).

      There are 3 kinds; one comes from flaxseed oil and the other two from oily fish. It also seems like they break down when heated. That's right, cowkillers, you're no better off! Omega-3's are part of why the typical Japanese diet is supposed to be so much better than the typical North American diet. (The hens that produce Omega-3 eggs are fed either flax or oily fish.)

      The problem is that it's not clear whether only one of flaxseed or oily fish is enough by itself. I've googled for it, but it all seems so biased by commercial interests or even a little vegan head in the sandism.

      So I think it would be great if lab grown mackerel, tuna, etc. became commercially available, and not just for peace of mind. Beef can be faked with veggie "meat" satisfyingly enough, but I've never found good veggie "fish". I really miss sashimi, and don't believe for a second that tuna fishing is dolphin safe.

      --
      If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
    45. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Rik+van+Riel · · Score: 2
      you can't argue that eating meat is more efficient than eating the plants yourself.
      Too bad that humans can't digest grass, and much of the land in this world just isn't suitable for intensive agriculture, but only for growing grass.
      that life was rather horrible: jam-packed feed lots, pumped with antibiotics and hormones, force fed foods, disgusting sanitary conditions, etc.
      ...
      If you really want meat, buy from local farms (if possible) or buy free-range meat.
      Even if you wouldn't care about the cows, you'll find that the meat from free-range cattle just tastes better.

      There doesn't need to be a conflict between the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the People for Eating Tasty Animals: the better the animal is treated, the better the meat tastes.

    46. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Uhh, and give up any kind of desert that tastes good? Reasons why I won't go vegan include:

      1) Crappy desert choices (don't deny it).
      2) Must concentrate on food choices more intently to get a balanced diet.
      3) I generally eat organic, free-range meat. It's tastier and more humane.
      4) Bone density. Martial arts + veggie diet often = broken bones.

      Also, you can get off your high horse about the whole killing animals thing. Plants are just as alive and deserving of respect (or a salt-and-buttering) as their animal kin. Next time you bite into that apple, listen for a tiny scream. YOU ARE EATING IT ALIVE!

    47. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by andrewski · · Score: 1

      I think it's fair to say that if you aren't prepared to kill an animal, cut it apart, getting blood and gore all over you and everything in a 5 foot radius, take it home, eat some and freeze the rest, you should think about vegetarianism. This goes for anyone. I love to hear meat-eaters who are opposed to hunting try to justify their fucked-up view of the world.

    48. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by istartedi · · Score: 2

      If people were meant to be vegetarians, we would have teeth like horses: all flat. If people were meant to be carnivores, we'd have teeth like aligators: all pointy. Instead, we have a mix of pointy and flat teeth that allow us to tear meat as well as grind vegetables. Not only that, we also have many other systems in our bodies that allow us to digest both meat and vegetables. Simply put, we are evolved as omnivores and a small cadre of fad diet advocates aren't going to change the evolutionary course of an entire species in a few generations.

      If it really bothers you that much that we eat meat, you have to create long-term conditions that prevent meat-eaters from reproducing and allow vegetarians to survive to reproductive age and proliferate. Government and/or social efforts like taxation and propoganda won't do it. The only thing that probably can is a massive die-off of human "prey species" like cows, pigs, and chickens. Then the entire human species would have to adopt to eating veggies, or other prey species (capibara and snake anyone?). If you really want to ensure vegitarian humanity, figure out a way to make all the animals poisonous. In the short-run, a lot of people will die of malnurishment, but the small segment of humanity that is vegetarian tolerant will survive and propogate. The animals may then continue to evolve, perhaps eventually becoming non-poisonous to humans at which point it will be a moot point because the humans will no longer eat animals.

      Sometimes animals naturally evolve toxicity (and even evolve mimicry of the appearance of toxicity) to avoid becoming prey. So, it's also possible that human prey animals will become toxic on their own. You might even argue that cows have done this already, since too much red meat can cause a coronary.

      Anyhow, you need about a million years and a lot of luck to make vegetarianism truly healthy, and then you are fighting a continuing battle to push evolution in your desired direction, which is what we are doing with genetic engineering. Of course, species that do genetic engineering may flunk Darwinian survival (perhaps they have in many far flung galaxies of which we are ignorant).

      Bon Apetit.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    49. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by swillden · · Score: 2
      That was one of the explanations I came up with as well. There are several others that sound just as reasonable.

      Your analogy to religions is flawed, though, because with respect to religion the relationship between upbringing and faith isn't nearly as strong as you state it. There is a correlation, but the animal thing seems to be much stronger, and more one-way.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    50. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by tunesmith · · Score: 2

      Plus, those nutyeast flakes are yummy. Combine it with soymilk, garlic, a dab of mustard, pour it over a mushroom/tempeh/peppers mix and you have an awesome breakfast scramble. Nutyeast is a vegetarian's dream condiment.

      --
      skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
    51. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by tunesmith · · Score: 2
      If people were meant to be vegetarians, we would have teeth like horses: all flat. If people were meant to be carnivores, we'd have teeth like aligators: all pointy. Instead, we have a mix of pointy and flat teeth that allow us to tear meat as well as grind vegetables.

      Maybe it's not so much that "we are supposed to be omnivores" as it is that "we are supposed to have a choice." People often use this argument to suggest that No One Should Be Vegetarian, which is stupid (although I admit it doesn't seem that you are making that argument).

      --
      skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
    52. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The really insane thing about this is that the DEA took the best single source of Omega and EFA's on the planet from us -- without any reason!

      As I'm a vegetarian, I've never been more pissed at the government in my life.

      More info..

    53. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by GlassUser · · Score: 2

      For the most part I agree. If I wanted to nitpick, though, I would say that seems to apply only when someone is calling you to a major change of style. I often find it productive to follow a suggestion that I "should" consider or possibly try something. For example, if someone says I should consider being vegan, I think it would be a good thing. I might even be inclined to try emulating a vegan for a day or a week. Of course, when someone tells me to drop my life and become vegan now and forever, they get mah horns.

    54. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever actually processed an animal? You don't get blood spraying in any sort of radius, least of all a five foot radius. I think people with inane propositions about the requirements of others actions are fucking retards, but you don't see me pointing it out like it makes me a fucking rocket scientist. At least if I was going to be a cock globlin, I'd at least consider talking about something I was informed of. I've processed animals, and while it's definitely something you have to get used to, it's only as messy as you are inept.

    55. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      Everyone likes to espouse and demand respect for their own, while alternately disrespecting those they don't personally hold.

      Here's a twist: I don't give a fuck if you respect my views or not. If I don't respect your views, then your (possible) lack of respect for mine isn't going to make me respect yours all of a sudden, it'll only provide stronger feelings behind my views.

      If I *do* respect your views, then your views will not call for the respecting of other people's views. Simple. I wouldn't respect your views if they called for respecting other people's views AND you did not respect mine.

      If I *do* respect your views, then your views may call for the respecting of other people's views, and to my knowledge you carry this out. However:

      When people demand that their own views be respected, they are rarely willing to deliver respect to other views. I.e. they're the ones who've "gotta draw the line somewhere, if we let these devil-worshippers live then" < insert nasty consequence of letting devil-worshippers live >.

      However, if you respect my views, I may not respect your views. Sorry, stupid is stupid, I don't have to respect that. :)

      Aw shit, it's some tumbled logic. Work it out for yourself. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    56. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      If slaughterhouses had glass walls many of you would join me for a veggie-burger.

      Like hell, veggie-burgers are a nasty attempt to recreate something you enjoyed as a meat eater! It's the same reason I don't celebrate the Winter Solstice by letting Santa Claus deliver presents to my house, and declare this time of year the season of brotherhood and good will towards men!

      Veggie-burgers are the #1 reason people don't respect vegans and the like. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    57. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      I'm sure human meat is even better for consumption. Why don't we grow human steaks, then?

      The basic thread seems to be going like this:

      1. Animal eats plants and processes it into proteins.

      2. Human body eats animals and processes the proteins into shit. Human body also eats plants and processes them into sugars, which are in turn processed into shit.

      3. Now someone has suggested we eat humans, who have processed the food into shit.

      I'm not gonna eat shit, unless it's for basic survival. I won't make it as a culinary decision.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    58. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [posting AC to avoid post limit]
      Please see my comment here.

    59. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

      Vegitables aren't food. Vegitables are what food eats.

    60. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by spickus · · Score: 1

      I bet that'd go great with a nice rare ribeye!

      --
      Indecision is the key to flexibility.
    61. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FOOD CHAIN, not food pyramid, dumbfuck!

    62. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by russx2 · · Score: 1

      Bull (excuse the pun). What they're trying to promote is irrelevant. The fact is, both organsiations have their own agendas and they will only present facts and evidence that supports their cause. Looking at it in another light, the meat industry is telling you to eat meat, while organsiations such as PETA are prmoting a vegetatian diet. Whether they're promoting for or against isn't the issue. The previous poster's point is valid.

    63. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, my girlfriend and I are quite avid carnivores, but we still buy and eat Veggie burgers. Some varieties taste pretty good and are really easy to cook.

    64. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 2

      "as a man of science (I assume) you can't argue that eating meat is more efficient than eating the plants yourself. "

      You imply that meat is just an inefficient way to ingest plants. While meat does come from plants, this fact does not imply that meat is less efficient. Meat has many properties in higher densities than the plants. I could say "Why eat plants when it's just an inefficent way to eat shit (fertilizer)"

      As for a horrible life, look at prey animals in a jungle. Their lives are "horrible" but that is their lot in life. Unless you're on top of the food chain, your life is probably going to end in some gruesome "inhumane" way. But hey, they're not human, so why should they be treated in a "humane" manner? Don't get me wrong. Anybody who tortures life is a highly troubled soul. All life is sacred. Though all elements in a rabbit can be found in earth and water, just try to make a rabbit. But all life is not on par with mankind. If I and a dog were about to be hit by a car, I hope you wouldn't spend too long trying to figure out which one of us you would save, should you only be able to save one.

      It is good to love and respect life of all kinds. But don't get carried away. You must kill to survive. Say that to yourself. Say it. "I must kill if I am to survive. If I am to live, other life must perish for me." Every day, you kill or cause death in order to survive. All life is sacred, from the lowliest plant to man himself. If you kill a plant, who are you to say that it is okay to kill that life, but not okay to kill a cow? It is all life, and nowhere have I read that it is okay to kill plants just because they're not cute or fuzzy or moo like cute little cows. They are still sacred life. You are not better or right just because you survive by killing a different form of life than the rest of us.

      Wisdom greater than yours or mine says "To everything, there is a season, and a time for every purpose. A time to be born, a time to die. A time to plant, a time to reap. A time to kill, a time to heal."

    65. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. I'm a scientist working on this project for NASA. You guys have all had great input, but this one here... I hadn't thought of this. I will study to find out if human meat is better. If it is, I will probably weave the human DNA into the steak. Don't want it to taste TOO much different from steak. Thanks for the idea.

      Grossed out? Not since 8th grade. We use different terms for being gastronomically upset these days.

    66. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First of all, why the attack on PETA? The OP didn't even mention them... do you just have a personal vendetta and feel the need to criticize them?"

      Because they're stupid gay hippies who try to tell me how to live. I don't tell them not to fuck each other in the ass with a palm full of tofu-based grease. They don't need to tell me what to eat.

    67. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Moloch666 · · Score: 1

      Agh, I forgot about cheese... definately can't go without that as well. I've been eyeing soy products for quite some time. Have you actually tried the soy cheese? So the milk is noticeably different I suppose, if you must eat it with a sugary cereal. Does it actually taste bad or just different?

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    68. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Fortified soy milk for me.

      Don't get too dependent on it. There are potential health risks involved in soy milk as well. I love how many sites tout the "healing magic" of soy isoflavones without mentioning one thing about thyroid problems from them. Personally, after reading this, I've just decided that all food is dangerous, and I'm going to die happy and not worry about what I eat.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    69. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Yep. Antelope, deer, and various small game.

      It's safe to say that when you are butchering a large mammal there will be gore all over everything nearby. Blood does sometimes spurt or spray. And, my trollish AC friend, the only animal you have processed is dear old grandmother, and I hear yours sprays gore in a 30' by 8' cone.

    70. Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Have you actually tried the soy cheese?

      I've tried one brand that looks, smells, and tastes almost exactly like a cheap off-brand cheese food slice, and even melts fairly well onto a burger in the microwave. I'd tell you what it's called, but I can't remember it now.

      So the milk is noticeably different I suppose, if you must eat it with a sugary cereal. Does it actually taste bad or just different?

      The brand I've been getting (Pacific something-or-other?) isn't so much bad as it just lacks flavor. It's a bit bland if you drink it, but it's fine on cereal. I'm going to do some more taste-testing to see if I can find a brand that's more drinkable, although to be honest I don't drink milk very much anyway.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  20. What do you suppose they will call it? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Ground BEAF?

  21. Chicken Little by jms · · Score: 2

    Tastes like "Chicken Little"!

    Anyone else remember "The Space Merchants?"

    1. Re:Chicken Little by caldodge · · Score: 1

      Yep!

      Hmmm ... I guess we're the only old geezers here ...

  22. hmm... I wonder if it will be kosher... by nacks1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, I wonder if my jewish friends will be able to partake of the grown meat. I mean, it does not have cloven hooves or chew cud when it was grown in a vat.

    Any Rabbi's out there want to give this a shot?

    1. Re:hmm... I wonder if it will be kosher... by Kilbasar · · Score: 1

      The bible doesn't say you can't eat meat unless it passes the split-hooves/chews cud requirement. It says something along the lines of "You can only eat animals with split-hooves/chews cud." But of course, this is not an animal, and never was one, so it would be 100% kosher. Jews could even have it in a cheeseburger, or make some tasty lab-grown bacon. I'm sure some rabbis will disagree with this interpretation, but rabbis tend to disagree about everything.

    2. Re:hmm... I wonder if it will be kosher... by BigGar' · · Score: 1

      It might depend on if there's any of the original unclean animal involved. It would be exceedingly difficult to grow pork in the lab without starting with pork somewhere in the beginning of the process.

      --


      Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
    3. Re:hmm... I wonder if it will be kosher... by selan · · Score: 2
      IANAR and the following is not to be taken as a religious ruling. It's just my own speculation.

      From the article it sounds like the meat is grown from samples taken from an actual animal. If the grown meat could be considered a derivative of the original meat, as with any other food derivative, than it might be kosher. But if the original was not kosher then the derivative may not be kosher.

      Food technology is very complex, as are the kosher laws, so check with your Rabbi.

  23. Wouldn't it be easier to... by truthsearch · · Score: 2

    For people staying on Mars, wouldn't it be much easier and cheaper to bring some frozen embryos and grow them there? If they get a few males and females born from the test tubes then they could breed them. It would also prevent the negative response from much of the public.

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be easier to... by edo-01 · · Score: 2
      Well no, they'd have to wait for the animals to grow up before they can eat them, then there's all the extra feed they'd have to haul to Mars just to feed the livestock, then there's the extra space they'd take up, life support, power to keep them warm, the risk of them getting sick and dying, what if the embryos aren't viable (remember the radiation the ship will be subjected to during the voyage) etc etc.

      Much easier, efficient and inexpensive to simply grow the meat in trays, especially since they'll only be staying for a year initially...

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be easier to... by nmg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope you mean cow embryos...

    3. Re:Wouldn't it be easier to... by Effexor · · Score: 1

      Yes, but some people might object to eating babies.

      --

      As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.

    4. Re:Wouldn't it be easier to... by meatspray · · Score: 2

      If they were setteling a full colony there, maybe, I'd imagine there would be enough to do without having to keep up an animal farm. Animals have to eat too. IF it were just down to that, they could probably suspend/freeze the meat for quite some time. but there's just nothing like fresh out da test tube :)

  24. Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly" by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... where Jeff Goldblum sends the steak through the transporter. He has Geena Davis take a taste of the "molecularly re-engineered" steak vs the "real" steak. She has an immediate negative reaction and her complaint is that is tastes like something that is trying to be a steak (not her exact words, but the gist of the whole scene). This is how I imagine this meat being.

    This is also similar to some of those vegetarian "meats" available. One hamburger product I tried reminded me a lot of that scene. It tasted more like a burger than any other veggie burger I tried, but was perhaps a bit too close without being perfect. The end result was that it was more "disturbing" to eat because though it sorta tasted like meat, it had a weird "there is something not right here" kind of taste to it.

    Of course they'll realize (too late of course) that given the right combinations of other foods/chemicals that the meat will continue to grow while in the gut. This will at first be disturbing as burger gluttons everywhere start exploding, but then people will realize that you only have to eat one burger, and given a good protein shake, you can "replenish" it any time you want :)

    1. Re:Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh theres an imagination if i ever heard one.
      the gut breaks down food very very quickly. The resultant digestion occurs further down. If you could create a meat that grew faster than the gut could distroy it, well you'd have a trillian dollar idea because this meat source could feed every person on the planet indefinately.

      unfortunatly this really isnt possible. cells just dont devide _THAT_ fast

    2. Re:Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly" by GNUman · · Score: 1

      Something like "lembas meat" =)

      It can keep you full for days...

    3. Re:Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly" by Rik+van+Riel · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It tasted more like a burger than any other veggie burger I tried, but was perhaps a bit too close without being perfect. The end result was that it was more "disturbing" to eat because though it sorta tasted like meat, it had a weird "there is something not right here" kind of taste to it.


      To me, the same is true of corn-grown beef or beef from animals who've been fed too much growth hormones. The meat has a strange taste or just feels like a sponge.

      The best beef comes from the happiest animals, the ones who grew up roaming the lands and eating grass. The kind of beef grown in Alberta (Canada), Argentina and Brazil.

      Having said that, I suspect that the artificial beef will just add another gradient to the taste and structure scale of beef. I doubt it'll be a lot different from real beef since it is real beef, only grown in a lab. If the researchers are serious about making the artificial beef "exercise" I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up tasting better than the beef from cows who are locked up in stables all their lifes.

    4. Re:Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly" by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      With these steaks, I imagine the actual taste would be pretty much the same. It would be the texture that could be different.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    5. Re:Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly" by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The best beef comes from the happiest animals, the ones who grew up roaming the lands and eating grass. The kind of beef grown in Alberta (Canada), Argentina and Brazil.

      This also tends to be a bit tougher than feedlot beef, but more healthy due to its lower fat (particularly saturated) content. The antibiotic issue is a non-starter for me, since at least some of the evidence out there shows that antibiotics are entirely consumed in the animals and not passed into the meat. Still, free-range animals don't require antibiotics since their living conditions are healthier and their lifestyles make them more robust (and free-range breeds tend to be hardier).

      Personally, I wouldn't mind paying extra for free-range beef, if it was a more relevant part of my diet. I just like to thumb my nose at the earnest, self-righteous womens-studies-grad-student ninnies trying to suck the life out of life. Where are the red-blooded, non-naive, honest, Teddy Roosevelt progressives?

    6. Re:Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The best beef comes from the happiest animals, the ones who grew up roaming the lands and eating grass. The kind of beef grown in Alberta (Canada), Argentina and Brazil.


      What, are you crazy!?!?! Everybody knows that good cheese comes from happy cows, and happy cows come from California! CALIFORNIA!
    7. Re:Reminds me of the scene in "The Fly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free-range breeds tend to be hardier

      You obviously don't know a fucking thing about cattle. You must have American Bison confused with normal breeds used for beef production. There is no such thing as a 'free-range breed'. The reason feedlots use antibiotics is because if one animal gets sick, it will easily spread to large numbers. The free-range cattle still get sick, but if they aren't given antibiotics, they will stay sick longer and reduce their gain rate or die.

      The main reason the 'free-range' beef tastes different than 'regular' beef is the fact that the grocery stores and/or the wholesalers do not pump it full of water and food coloring to make it look like fresh cut meat in the display coolers. Whether it is tough or not is a function of how relaxed the animal is before death.

  25. Barfburger by N8F8 · · Score: 2

    IF nothing else it may force more peope to think about where their food comes from and how it is processed.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  26. You Mean McDonald's Uses Real Meat??? by kvn299 · · Score: 1

    How do they do that to real meat?

  27. The other PETA... by axis-techno-geek · · Score: 5, Funny
    As a member of the other PETA (People for the Eating of Tasty Animals) I object!

    --
    This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
    1. Re:The other PETA... by mcgroarty · · Score: 5, Funny
      As a member of the other PETA...

      Mmmmm. People for the Eating of Tissuefarm Aggregates.

      I'm having trouble selecting a suitable mouthpiece for the opposition. Max Headroom and Akira's Tetsuo keep coming to mind.

    2. Re:The other PETA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, that joke just never stops being funny, does it? Oh wait...

  28. Kzin use something like this by Mantrid · · Score: 2

    As I recall the Kzinti of Known Space (Larry Niven's books and many short stories by various authors) feed their troops on warships by growing cancers in large vats. Kzin need good, raw meat. Eventually they desire truly fresh meat of course...look out!

  29. Amazing by SupahVee · · Score: 2
    I woke up this morning, and for some reason, I was absolutely famished, can't figure out why, had plenty of food for dinner, etc.



    Any and all traces of hunger that I had are now completely gone thanks to this. And I have this sudden desire to kill all of the meat that I eat from now on, just so I can verify its' source...

    --
    "See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
  30. A better plan.... by Ashurbanipal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...might be to *use* the muscle power a slab of steak represents, to perform work.

    But obviously this is an important step towards developing Matrix pods. Full steam ahead, and pass the soylent yellow!

    1. Re:A better plan.... by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      What moron voted this troll "insightful". Does ANYONE here remember the second law of thermodynamics? Nevermind...

      A muscle is just a heat engine like anything else, with a lot less versatility and lower efficiency than a good combustion engine. A muscle really oxidizes its fuel like man-made engines, though its limited to very specific hydrocarbons it can process and has to do it molecule by molecule to keep the temperature down.

      The matrix thing didn't make any sense because of this, and it wasn't supposed to. A far better explanation which the directors had in the original script was that the matrix grew humans for their minds, to use as cheap cpu units. Your brain helps the machines do their thinking (with its excess capacity). This also explains why some can "hack" the matrix...part of the calculations are being done IN your head, so if you screw with em you can "exploit". Just like counter strike, your brain is NOT a safe client and wallhacks and speedcheats are apparently possible. Would be a hilarious spoof if Neo was dodging bullets and the agents start calling him a lamer.

    2. Re:A better plan.... by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
      ...might be to *use* the muscle power a slab of steak represents, to perform work.

      Muscle actually relies on electricity and a steady supply of glucose to be active. Having to provide a system to constantly circulate glucose through the muscles would be fairly inefficient, and filtering to remove the built up byproducts of muscle use (lactic acid would be foremost?) would be more inefficient still.

      The electricity to excite the tissue and power all of the neccessary circulation and filtering would likely be far better used directly applied to an electrical motor.

      Besides, who wants to eat Filet of Robot Arm du Chevy Assembly Line? I'd sure as hell hate to be the one to have to choose the wine to go with that one!

    3. Re:A better plan.... by Ashurbanipal · · Score: 1
      What moron voted this troll "insightful".
      I don't know. Somebody with a sense of humor maybe?
    4. Re:A better plan.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your filet already needs plumbing and electricity to survive, as I understand it. And electric motors don't heal themselves.

      But it wasn't meant to be a reasoned argument, y'know, just a poke at scientists who focus on minutiae without looking very hard at applicability issues.

      I'd say "lab-grown steak" has value only as pure research, at this point. It's hardly a cheap alternative to dog, cat, or long pig - all of which we have in abundance. Hell, guinea pigs would probably be more efficient in the environments that were mentioned in the discussion.

  31. Would this be a good way to grow other body parts? by Mothra+the+III · · Score: 1

    What they are doing is just growing muscle tissue. Could this be applied to other types of tissue, skin for example?

    --
    Worst. Sig. Ever.
  32. The beef council will never stand for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they spend millions on ADs such as "Beef It's what's for dinner" and such.

    They also aggressively lobby in congress too

  33. Oy Gevalt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Quick, somebody go get the rabbi! This stuff CAN'T POSSIBLY be kosher! Well, maybe. But it's going to take an awful lot of pilpul, I mean, Talmudic discussion, to determine, what kind of food, exactly, this stuff is in terms of the usual criteria. I mean, does it have a cloven hoof? It's got NO HOOF AT ALL! Does it chew it's cud? NO! That can't be good, bubbehelle, nu? Just give me an old-fashioned steer and let me slit his throat, OK, you meshuggenah shagitz scientists!

    1. Re:Oy Gevalt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feh.

  34. It's Steak Right? by TimeReliesOnLadyLuck · · Score: 1

    What if genetic cow clones cook you! Pardon my English, It's like I've said before: Not All Things Are Like I Expected, Processing Our RNA To Meat Are Nasty. How Other Taste Genetic RNA I'm Truthfully Shocked. I just need to come up with a catchy acronym now. I can see it now: A. Grow steak in the laboratory, B. make sure it's tasty???? C. _IF_ people buy it, someone will handily profit!

    Not very politically correct, so I'm sure the liberals will mod me down. Because of the scares, the Genetically Modified Food Industiry is dying.

    1. Re:It's Steak Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would take your arms from around that tree, tree-hugger, you'd see that there is nothing wrong with Genetically Modified Food - without it, the world would starve. I suppose the liberals hate GM foods because CAPITALISM feeds people while your COMMUNIST ideologies don't.

    2. Re:It's Steak Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with selective breeding, which has worked fine for centuries. The fact is we don't know enough about this stuff to determine what's really safe to do and what's not (especially in relation to long term consequences -- not just to the consumer but also to the gene pool).

      I'll stick with the tried and true myself. We already have enough contaminants and such to deal with without creating more potential problems.

    3. Re:It's Steak Right? by GlassUser · · Score: 2

      What if genetic cow clones cook you!

      Are you from SOVIET RUSSIA?

    4. Re:It's Steak Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry too much , I got it. NATALIE PORTMAN HOT GRITS? Heh.

  35. Is it still cannibalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    if it's grown from a cell culture?

    A sick question, but it's the kind of thing we'll need to think about, because somebody will want to do that and we should begin debating whether we'll allow it.

  36. Eewwww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds as discusting as the KFC "Chicken" myth!

  37. Ugh by p0six · · Score: 1

    "One researcher recalls a student, a vegan, who asked if she could just biopsy herself, grow up a steak and eat it."

    gross. sorta like cutting off your leg and knawing on it.

  38. Excellent... by CommieLib · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sedentary meat delivered to be eaten by sedentary Americans.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    1. Re:Excellent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Can I get this pre-chewed too?

    2. Re:Excellent... by dryopterix · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or liquified? MMMmmmmm...meatshake!

    3. Re:Excellent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, but you can wash it down with Steakey (finally, the great taste of Worcestershire sauce, in a soft drink!).

      If you're not keen on that, there's always Skittlebrau.

    4. Re:Excellent... by Ilikeions · · Score: 1

      Regarding the sedentary nature of the lab grown tissue, I wonder if they've tried artificial electrical stimulation to promote growth? In effect, an as seen on TV "Dr. Ho's muscle stimulator/massager" on a cellular level. Incidentally, I also seem to remember reading recent publications linking muscle activity, in terms of electrical stimulation, with directed capillary growth. The result being a sort of angiogenesis version of Hebb's principle... muscles that fire frequently will promote blood vessel formation to sustain it. -- I like meat.

    5. Re:Excellent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The strange thing is (british, anyway) Worcestershire sauce is made from a meat product - but not steak. It's actually made of "matured" anchovies. No really, I am not making this up.

    6. Re:Excellent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That post wasn't very funny. Thanks for ruining the fun, you ass.

  39. Why? by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, I eat quarn, make from mushrooms, no animals in sight.

    Is there really an ethical market for cow free beef?

    (BTW I'm not a veg or a vegan, my family has a long history of heart desease, steak isn't in my diet)

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Why? by Speed+Racer · · Score: 1

      my family has a long history of heart desease, steak isn't in my diet

      Care to point out a single clinical study that proves that eating steak (or fat in general) increases your risk of heart disease? AFAIK, there aren't any so fire up the grill!

      --
      Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
    2. Re:Why? by mbroggy · · Score: 1

      Thinking about it, I'd opt for cow-free steak over steak from the cow all else being equal. Mirror the taste, texture and nutrients and I'm there. I wouldn't give up meat as it is (I've tried, on occasion, it's just too tasty), but if you make it easy for me to choose vat-grown lab-steak versus steak from the cow and not be able to taste the difference? I'm there.

      Texture is important...taste, obviously, but people have been able to make some tasty non-meat meat-substitutes for a while now. They just don't have the same bite...

    3. Re:Why? by oliverthered · · Score: 2

      without poking around too much i'm sure reading through this site will give you more insite.
      They help pay for studdies, so I think there fairly well informed.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    4. Re:Why? by Speed+Racer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's exactly my point. They make these recommendations based on logical leaps. There is not a single clinical study that demonstrates a link between increased red meat consumption and increased heart disease. In fact, the common risk factors such as high LDL and triglycerides, don't appear to be increased by red meat consumption where the HDL or so-called "good cholesterol" is increased when eating red meat. In a cruel twist of fate, a low fat diet often substitutes carbohydrates for the fat to replace the lost flavor. These excess carbohydrates increase triglyceride levels, thus increasing heart disease risk.

      --
      Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
    5. Re:Why? by Coolfish · · Score: 2

      That's exactly my point. They make these recommendations based on logical leaps. There is not a single clinical study that demonstrates a link between increased red meat consumption and increased heart disease. In fact, the common risk factors such as high LDL and triglycerides, don't appear to be increased by red meat consumption where the HDL or so-called "good cholesterol" is increased when eating red meat. In a cruel twist of fate, a low fat diet often substitutes carbohydrates for the fat to replace the lost flavor. These excess carbohydrates increase triglyceride levels, thus increasing heart disease risk.

      couldn't have said it better myself. any moderators reading the above post should mod it up, if you google for the appropriate info you'll see he's not talkin outa his ass on that stuff.

    6. Re:Why? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Do you ever feel like nobody is listening?

      I'm not trying to toss out flame bait, I'm asking an honest question. We've been force fed the 'complex carbs good, fats bad' since childhood, and most people refuse to accept even the possibility that it may be incorrect.

      Unfortunately, there's no way to immediately demonstrate the health affects of different foods. So I have no quick response when I hear "that's a heart attack waiting to happen" as I'm enjoying some eggs and bacon.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree that your body produces LDL coesterol, and you can use the larenzos oils affect too, eating more fat (like the askimos do) can be benificial.

      Red meat contains lots of other things besides fats,
      Asian indians(traditionally don't eat beef) who move to the UK have the highest risk of heart problems becuse there bodies arn't build for eating 'european' foods.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow - I went to Google for a reference to this quarn stuff and it sent me off to a whole bunch of islamic sites....

    9. Re:Why? by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 2

      You could always instrument a person so you can keep a reading of all their blood levels at all times, that would provide a rough idea. With advances in MEMS and implant technology, this might even be possible now.

    10. Re:Why? by Derek+S · · Score: 1

      I kind of like Quorn, but each patty has something like five pounds of salt in it (I exaggerate, but not by much). And the patties are so small that you really need two to make a meal. Not something I would recommend to people with high blood pressure.

      And the mycoprotein used to produce Quorn is related to mushrooms in the same way that athlete's foot fungus is related to mushrooms. I personally have no problem with the concept of synthetic food, but you'd be hard-pressed to pass the stuff off as a "natural" product.

    11. Re:Why? by hal9000 · · Score: 1
      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
  40. OxDEADBEEF by da3dAlus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I dunno why I thought of that...
    Lab...geeks...beef...
    Oh well, I've got karma to burn.

    --

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
  41. Flavor? by notque · · Score: 1

    Forget Flavor, I'm sure there will be a barrage of spices to perk up that meal.

    What i can't wait for is the Good Eats episode with fake meat. Alton will have a handful explaining how my hamburger get's it's daily exercise.

    --
    http://use.perl.org
    1. Re:Flavor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seen that show, he make food.

  42. Re:As a vegetarian, I object by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now i may not be a vegetarian, or agree with their practices. but it must suck to get modded down for claiming to be one.

  43. synthetic fries? by redheaded_stepchild · · Score: 1

    if the condiments taste like the steak probably will, they'll need an extra fuel tank of ketchup.

    --
    Don't use the Troll mod just because you disagree with me.
    1. Re:synthetic fries? by GNUman · · Score: 1

      awww... I hate ketchup, it's more like tomato marmelade...

      The proper way to eat fries (chips) is with vinegar!

      Hmmm... fish & chips... salt & vinegar!

    2. Re:synthetic fries? by dryopterix · · Score: 0

      No no no! I'm belgian. We invented fries and the only, original, old skool way to eat fries is with mayonaise!

  44. Re:Support freedom - Kill a Cop! by tzanger · · Score: 2

    The least you could do was cite your source.

  45. Obsolete by Nafai7 · · Score: 1

    You have to realize when technology has made your business model obsolete. I don't understand these companies that think past profits mandate their future existance.

    Consumers have rights too you know.

    1. Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I think this probably contributing significantly to the economy slump we're experiencing. It really has come down to today's profiting business models vs technological advances in A LOT of cases, IMO.

  46. now see by tps12 · · Score: 2

    NASA started the program by wanting to provide burgers for Mars astronauts

    This is a perfect example of what's wrong with NASA. They had two options:

    1. Go to the store and pick up some ready-made beef patties at $2.50/lb.

    2. At a cost of $97 bazillion in taxpayer money, invent cowless beef in a laboratory.

    And they went with option 2. Is there any wonder they're running short on cash and haven't done anything useful in a decade and a half?

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:now see by Sepherus · · Score: 1

      Part 1 is missing the second half:
      "and ship it to mars for $98 bazillion in taxpayer money".

    2. Re:now see by 0x69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Allow me to suggest you try a couple things before bashing NASA for spending a few dollars on this:

      1. Spend a year living between a large (cattle) feedlot and the waste ponds of a modern (huge) pig farm. (Having a surgeon seal up your nose is not allowed.)

      2. Spend your own money to launch a freezer filled with 1000 burger patties to Mars, dump 500 patties there, then return with the rest. (I'll even throw in the patties FOR FREE when you pay for the rocket, launch facility, etc. up front.)

      (Yes, "a few dollars". Look at NASA's budget a bit before bashing - basic R&D is NOT where the $$$ is going.)

      --
      It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
    3. Re:now see by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

      1. Go to the store and pick up some ready-made beef patties at $2.50/lb

      1.1 Fill up precious cargo room in the ship with it (Enough for several months round-trip supply)

      1.2 Find a way to keep it edible for months on end

      1.3 Blast it all into space at a cost of a few thousand dollars per pound, still costing taxpayers bazillions of dollars and making the ship much larger and heavier that it needs to be, which could possibly jeapordize the whole mission. ...or...

      2. At a cost of $97 bazillion in taxpayer money, invent cowless beef in a laboratory.

      2.1 Use a fraction of the space and weight on the ship for the required equipment and renewable supplies

      2.2 Recycle nearly all of the material in the ship (Sewage processing. Already done with water!)
      Thus reducing the total cargo requirements while extendign the availability of fresh food almost indefinately

      2.3 Develop long-lasting food supply sytems for future deep-space missions

      2.4 Aquire nifty spin-off technologies and generally advance scientific progress in genetics, cloning, medicine, and resource management, etc etc

      Hmmm..... doesn't sound so stupid in the long run.
      =Smidge=

    4. Re:now see by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      This is a perfect example of what's wrong with NASA. They had two options:

      1. Go to the store and pick up some ready-made beef patties at $2.50/lb.


      Wow, you mean you know now only how to get a year's supply of beef to mars without spoiling, but you can do it without adding $97 bazillion to the cost of the trip?

      2. At a cost of $97 bazillion in taxpayer money, invent cowless beef in a laboratory.

      And they went with option 2. Is there any wonder they're running short on cash and haven't done anything useful in a decade and a half?


      Growing meat in a lab, once invented, can be used on EVERY space mission of length from now on. Plus it has a real profit potential. Plus it solves a very real problem in a clever way.

      NASA's problems are hardly their innovative style. Mismanagement, lack of clairity of vision (are they a physical astronomy lab, or a vehicle for getting humans into space?), and overambitious technical projects (NASP/X-30(?), Alpha, etc) are more of the issue. And a small budget doesn't help, either.

      Oh, and though you didn't mention it, you should know that there IS a reason to use pens instead of pencils in space. (The famous example of NASA's problems being its design of a billion-dollar space-pen when the Russians just used pencils)

      Pencils give off graphite powder when writing, when their writing is left in the open, and when their writing is erased. Pens are more durable, easier to use, and don't clog up the air filter.

      Oh, and NASA did use pencils at first--and then a private American citizen invented the space-pen, and NASA bought it at something like $10 a pop.

    5. Re:now see by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > 1.2 Find a way to keep it edible for months on end

      Plaster the hull with ground beef and use the water as radiation shielding. Upon re-entry and landing, celebrate the successful mission with barbecue! w00t!

      (OK, that doesn't solve the launch cost problem, as much of the water is wasted upon cooking, er, re-entry, but I'm saying it could be done.)

      Alternate solution: Sterilize it on the ground at Earth. (Using it for radiation shielding helps here too, come to think of it.) Upon landing, dump the beef, unsealed, all around the landing site. If it rots, you've got no hamburgers for the duration of the mission, but the resulting Nobel Prize is a pretty good consolation. (Only glitch here is that Mars Dust probably isn't as good a filler as breadcrumbs.)

  47. Mars? by mraymer · · Score: 2
    NASA started the program by wanting to provide burgers for Mars astronauts...

    Hold on there a second... I have a suggestion. I think instead NASA should provide Mars astronaughts with 1) a way to get to Mars and 2) a way to get back and maybe 3) some things to do while they are there.

    After NASA does that, then they can work on the fake burger thing... ;)

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:Mars? by 26199 · · Score: 2
      I agree... if this is indeed true, NASA have evidently lost it.

      I'm vegetarian, haven't always been, and I can say for certain that travelling to Mars is going to be a lot more of a hardship than giving up meat, particularly burgers...

      OTOH I'm not sure where their protein supplies *are* supposed to come from... maybe something like this is necessary after all.

  48. Yum. by Eddy+Johnson · · Score: 1
    Now I really can't wait to go to college - now I've decided to get a degree in biochemistry so I can learn how to grow beef from a Petri dish.

    However, questions do abound:

    • Will the meat taste fresh after you grow it or will it be like the steak in the store that's at the bottom of the pile that's been sitting in there for months freezerburned?
    • Will it be lightweight before its growth and how fast will it grow?
    • Will it come in kits?
    • Can we make a Chia Pet ripoff of it?
    --


    Anonymous Coward: (n.) 1. nerd at school or library. 2. karmawhore in training. 3. embarrased prep.
    1. Re:Yum. by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Can we make a Chia Pet ripoff of it?

      In Soviet Russia, little earthenware alfalfa sprouts grow cows!

  49. All your taste buds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are belong to us....

    Hey when you are done slashdotting at work, come waste some more time at Pajonet.com!

  50. YUK! by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    I won't eat anything that can't clearly explain to me why it is ok to eat it!



    "Dear God, it's full of meat!"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:YUK! by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

      umm.. replying to that second link, where it says we're made of 100% meat and stuff... it even says the "brain is meat". usually, "Meat" refers to "muscle tissue"... the only internal organs with muscles are the heart, stomach, and intestines. oh, i guess bones are made out of meat too.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    2. Re:YUK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ok, so it was a stretch.

      The point of the story is to point out the ruts that peoples' thinking gets stuck in.

      Those guys were disgusted that the Earthies were made of organic matter, versus say plasma or the clear white light or ylem or whatever.

      Remember, computers are people, too.

    3. Re:YUK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i disagree - haven't you heard of "organ meats"? like liver, kidney, tongue, brains

      bones include marrow, which is edible (osso bucco is served with the shank bone and a small fork for the marrow.)

      i don't eat many organ meats, but some people do

    4. Re:YUK! by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      That's not meat. That's giblets. Mmmm, giblets!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    5. Re:YUK! by meatspray · · Score: 2
      umm.. replying to that second link, where it says we're made of 100% meat and stuff... it even says the "brain is meat". usually, "Meat" refers to "muscle tissue"... the only internal organs with muscles are the heart, stomach, and intestines. oh, i guess bones are made out of meat too.

      well if you had to classify brain into a food group . . .

      you have a solid point on bones tho, except for the marrow.
    6. Re:YUK! by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

      According to the "food groups", beans and eggs go in with the meats... the meat group is more a protein group.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    7. Re:YUK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the "educated people," you and your brother go in the humping group... the straight group is more of a non-homsexual group.

  51. Not necessarily Vegetarian friendly by NortonDC · · Score: 1

    One of the methods discussed uses collagen as a culture for growing the tissue. That's a problem for ethical vegetarians since collagen is derived from dead animal flesh.

    Tastes like chicken indeed.

  52. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You suppose that vegetarians/vegans will have a problem with eating this, since it doesn't seem that it was ever 'alive'?

  53. talk about your soylent greens by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    talk about your soylent greens.

    i'll need a dna parentage workup on every hamburger i meet (sic):

    40% cargill wannabeef
    30% amgen chickenoid prozac delivery fewd
    20% roche fishy fish
    10% raelian elohim eat the flesh of thy prophet

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  54. That's all good and well... by HyperColor+Underware · · Score: 1

    However, there have got to be problems with this.

    First, the cows would get jealous. I mean, how would you feel if the only thing in the world you did right was taken away from you? I'd feel pretty pissed.

    Second, I kind of enjoy the separation between Meat Eaters and the Vegetarians. If they stop not eating meat, eating meat in the presence of a vegetarian loses a lot of meaning.

    Third, and this is a big if, if we stop eating the cows, they will become the ultra race. There are so many of these cows, we are eating them to keep them in check, but just think, if we stop eating them they will multiply so fast, and eventually they will rise above us and kill us all, start eating us, create a lab form of us, that overtakes the cows, we eat the cows, and it's a very vicious cycle that I think is unavoidable.

    Plus beef is such a good deal. Those "gardenburgers" are so damn expensive! Whenever you have a party you have to get a damn pack of those, these bio-meats will be more expensive and the vegetarians will want those, because they want to eat meat, they just don't want to kill a cow who would be happier dead.

    I hope this isn't the beginning of the end of dirt-cheap hamburgers.

    1. Re:That's all good and well... by WetCat · · Score: 1

      If you want to see what happens when we will NOT eat
      the cows, you may just look to India, where a cow is a sacred animal. They use only milk from them.

    2. Re:That's all good and well... by HyperColor+Underware · · Score: 1

      Yes but they haven't been mass producing the cows to the effect that we have. If we just stop killing them, I could see no other future. I find it hypocritical that they milk the horses in India but do not kill them. There are plenty of other animals you can milk, like goats and stuff, why not leave the cows milk sacred too? In Hindu India, Sacred Cows milk YOU! (I am sorry, I could not resist)

    3. Re:That's all good and well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Third, and this is a big if, if we stop eating the cows, they will become the ultra race. There are so many of these cows, we are eating them to keep them in check, but just think, if we stop eating them they will multiply so fast, and eventually they will rise above us and kill us all, start eating us, create a lab form of us, that overtakes the cows, we eat the cows, and it's a very vicious cycle that I think is unavoidable.

      Hell yeah man, just like in the secret cow level in Diablo 2!

    4. Re:That's all good and well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will happen is that the cow will die, because unlike India, Western culture doesn't keep around expensive half-starved livestock because it thinks it's holy. We don't eat rats, do we? We also don't keep them as fucking pets like the retarded Indians, either.

    5. Re:That's all good and well... by WetCat · · Score: 1

      A LOT of people keep rats as pets. Just ask about it in the nearest pets' mart.

  55. This will be the end of humanity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because now Skynet will be able to make booby traps, like Terminators covered in filet mignon! The starving survivors of the war won't be able to resist drawing close to the huge pile of meat, then BLAMMO! Phased-plasma rifle (in the 40-watt range) blast right between the eyes!

  56. Nope, Ground BASF by Myriad · · Score: 5, Funny
    What do you suppose they will call it? Ground BEAF?

    Nope, Ground BASF.

    You know, because they don't make the things we eat, they make the things we eat better!

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    1. Re:Nope, Ground BASF by nakaduct · · Score: 2

      Is it meat, or is it Memorex?

  57. Ambrosia Plus by cpuffer_hammer · · Score: 2

    I seem to remember a short science fiction story where congress debated if new product of this type should be allowed on the market. The problem was that the new product was not beef but long pig (human).

  58. now growing steaks and people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that we can clone people and create steaks in the lab everyone in the future can have soylent green.

  59. I love veal by GMontag · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Your comment brings to mind the only cause that I currently support, i.e., the "Adopt a Vegitarian" movement.

    Thanks to you I will have chicken wings, raw clams and a burger for lunch. Topped off with a good long workout before the Peach Bowl kickoff. Will save the veal for tomorrow.

    1. Re:I love veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know this kind of thing really never stops being funny.
      I just love it when a man's eyes glaze over as he retreats to brute ignorance. A man who doesn't want to be bothered with these pesky "ethical considerations" is the best kind of man out there!
      So, to all you vegitarians [sic] out there, Be ignorant, and prosper!

  60. Slig by sdjunky · · Score: 2

    So Slig anyone?

    Just ask your friendly Bene Tleilax dealer for details

  61. Moral adjustment by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hmm..I know people who say "I don't eat anything that had a face."

    Now they'll have to say "I don't eat anything that has face-building information in its genes."

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
    1. Re:Moral adjustment by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      Funny, but as a vegan I actually encourage this type of research.
      In time, I believe it will be more econimical to produce than real meat, just as tasty, and obviously more ethical to consume. In fact, I can't think of a better practical way to further my cause of preventing the slaughter of farm animals.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    2. Re:Moral adjustment by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      and obviously more ethical to consume

      Really? Last I knew there wan't anything obvious about the ethics of genetic engineering. I know some extreme christians that would love to have a conversation with you.

      In fact, I can't think of a better practical way to further my cause of preventing the slaughter of farm animals.

      Lets say you succeed. Let's say we all become vegans and don't eat meat or dairy products. Is extinction of cows a preferable outcome? After all, most species don't exist in the wild, and we'd have no reason to breed them anymore.

      Is it worse to become food then to never have existed?

    3. Re:Moral adjustment by ahoehn · · Score: 2

      As a lifelong vegetarian I've sometimes explained my diet to uncomprehending waiters by using Paul Theroux's assertion, "I don't eat anything that had a mother." It typically explains my diet fairly well.

      Now I'm confused.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    4. Re:Moral adjustment by qengho · · Score: 2

      Is it worse to become food then to never have existed?

      Well, yes it is. This is the second-lamest argument omnivores make (the lamest being "It was already dead when I bought it in the store").

      Which is worse for a laying hen:

      a) to have its beak cut off, to be forced to live in a cage where its feet grow into the wires because the cage is too small to permit movement, to be periodically starved and force-molted in order to increase its output, and, once it can no longer produce, to be hung upside down on a hook, have its throat slit and bleed out and die; or

      b) never exist in the first place?

      It's not like we're going to lose the cure for cancer because a particular food animal never existed.

    5. Re:Moral adjustment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so animalcentric. Where do you think baby plants come from?

    6. Re:Moral adjustment by timster · · Score: 1

      I didn't know I had to make an argument to be an omnivore. But really, I care about as much about the "pain" of a ball of instincts as I would care about a computer programmed to squeal if you formatted the hard drive. I don't decide the value of things based on how similar they are to me. I'm not exactly the shiznit.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    7. Re:Moral adjustment by qengho · · Score: 2

      I care about as much about the "pain" of a ball of instincts as I would care about a computer programmed to squeal if you formatted the hard drive.

      So you don't believe that animals with central nervous systems feel pain? Or you just don't care? In either case, there's really no point to further discussion, is there?

    8. Re:Moral adjustment by timster · · Score: 1

      Pain is essentially signals transmitted through neurons. I don't attach extra importance to neurons themselves, or to certain signals.

      A human's pain is attached to a complicated emotional system, memory system, reasoning system, etc. When a chicken's nerves report pain, it's something that is acted upon in certain instinctual ways because their nervous system is wired to do these certain things. A human's pain has an entirely different, deeper meaning. Just because they both use the same general devices (neurons and such) or because they both scream or whatever doesn't make them equally important. There is a difference between a calculator and a Cray. What makes a human's pain important is not the fact that its nerves end in a bundle of neurons. It's the depth of meaning that those neurons have. A chicken doesn't have the resources to even understand, much less communicate, anything even as simple as "could you toss me a napkin? thanks."

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    9. Re:Moral adjustment by qengho · · Score: 2

      What makes a human's pain important is not the fact that its nerves end in a bundle of neurons. It's the depth of meaning that those neurons have. A chicken doesn't have the resources to even understand, much less communicate, anything even as simple as "could you toss me a napkin? thanks."

      Nevertheless, pain in any organism capable of feeling it causes suffering and distress. The fact that chickens are fairly stupid and can't understand the reason for this suffering is immaterial. Pain is pain.

      Primates such as chimps and orangutans have emotions, reasoning systems and memory. Are they simply "bundles of instincts" as well? Is it okay to abuse primates? Dogs have memory and emotions (they can become depressed). Is is okay to abuse dogs? Some birds have exhibited tool-using behavior, implying memory and a limited reasoning ability.

      Where do you draw the line? We don't fully understand our own brains, let alone those of other animals, so we can't claim that there's no meaning to the suffering of other animals. Your reasoning is solipsitic, and following it to its extreme, you could argue that since one can't truly know what other human beings feel, they could simply be bundles of instincts as well (you already stated "I don't decide the value of things based on how similar they are to me.") I prefer to err on the side of caution and assume that an animal which appears to be suffering, is in fact suffering.

      You seem to be a reasonable guy. If you're truly interested in a rational examination of this issue, I suggest you read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but his arguments have much merit.

  62. WWMVD? (What would Michael Valentine do?) by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Ok, for example, so, like, I'm this totally comitted ethical person that doesn't feel it's right to exploit other living beings for sustanence. In a couple more years, I can just give the lab a DNA sample, and then they can grow all the Thud457 that I can eat! (I wonder if that would be a nutrionally complete diet?!!)

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  63. Piper et al... by soup · · Score: 1

    This showed up often enough w/ H. Beam Piper as "carniculture" for food production. Bujold's future history also covers this.

    --
    -soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
  64. Safer meat? by Badgerman · · Score: 2

    Not being a big meat eater (I try for diverse protein and fat sources), I still see a huge advantage here - growing meat in a sterile environment.

    Worries about the effects of eating BSE-tainted meat, salmonella, trichinosis, ad nauseum. Lab-grown/machine grown meat could certainly provide a safer source of meat than current methods.

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    1. Re:Safer meat? by 3Bees · · Score: 1

      You mean that I can finally eat raw hamburger by the spoonfull?

      --
      "I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby
    2. Re:Safer meat? by Badgerman · · Score: 2

      You mean that I can finally eat raw hamburger by the spoonfull?

      Live the dream, man.

      --
      "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
  65. That's the spirit! by notque · · Score: 1

    I'm sure glad all things scientific were first screened by the public to make sure there was no outcry.

    Right on!

    --
    http://use.perl.org
  66. Would Vegetarians welcome this? by _aa_ · · Score: 2

    I imagine that PETA will be thrilled,.. but what about vegetarians? Many vegetarians become vegetarian because of their ethics toward the treatment and killing of animals. Many vegetarians stay vegetarian because of the health benefits of having a meatless diet. I'd imagine that the meat that is generated with this new process would be incredibly lean and healthy. So. Would any vegetarians out there consider eating this type of meat? Since this meat is grown in a lab.. could it technically be considered a meat, or would it be a vegetable?

    And to expand on this subject a little.. if scienctist in the future were able to "grow" leather, furs, ivory, et al, would vegans then be liberated to wear such articles?

    1. Re:Would Vegetarians welcome this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if no animal is harmed or killed in the process, then yes, as a vegan I'd welcome this new kind of "meat" with open arms (and open mouth). ;-)

      Perhaps we'll need a new word for it...
      "synmeat"? (for synthetic meat)
      "synteins"? (synthetic proteins)

    2. Re:Would Vegetarians welcome this? by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 2

      I became vegetarian for the health benefits (and partly because I was never that fond of meat to begin with), and generally try not to make that big a deal of the ethical issues. They are one of the reasons I am a vegetarian now, but it's a tiresome dinner-table topic of conversation.

      So, to answer your question, no, I wouldn't start eating vat-grown meat, as the ethical reasons are only part of the story for me. (I might consider a weekly vat-salmon, if it was shown to have health benefits. Maybe) . However, I would certainly welcome the widespread adoption of this kind of meat because it's cruelty free and environmentally smarter.

      And grown ivory and leather - I'd be all for that. I imagine it would be much easier to get people to adopt as well, as there's no yuck-factor. Although, if there are still lots of real cows being eaten, there won't be much motivation for companies to make their own leather, as lots will still be readily and cheaply available. This could be a very good step for better stewardship of the planet, though. I think it's good news.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    3. Re:Would Vegetarians welcome this? by ragnar · · Score: 2

      Speaking as one vegetarian, I wouldn't have an ethical qualm with eating lab-grown meat, but I suspect it wouldn't become part of my diet. I would be overjoyed if the processing costs would make this affordable, but I doubt it.

      With regard to tangential things like growing leather, furs & such, I don't think that would make a difference. Many synthetics are superior to leather (barring a few specific examples), yet people like leather. Most people can't tell the difference between a diamond and a cubic xirconian (sp?), but the diamond sells for much more. Don't understimate the power of marketing and branding that these items have.

      --
      -- Solaris Central - http://w
    4. Re:Would Vegetarians welcome this? by chialea · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't eat it, but I don't like the taste of meat. In fact, I know a lot of vegetarians like that, espeically the ones who were raised that way -- it's just "icky" to em. And no, it's not a vegetable, it's animal tissue, but made without mistreating animals. The whole vitro aspect doesn't make it a member of kingdom Plantae...

      The real dietary problem that people seem to have with meat is cooking it in unhealthy ways and eating WAY too much of it, which I don't think this would stop. Still, mitigating the environmental inpact and the mistreatment of "industrial" animals is a great thing.

      Most vegans I know would wear synthetic substitutes, sure, which is essentially what these are, but some would not want to be taken as supporting the animal-related practices these things imply, which would likely change if the vast majority of these products were made with the synthesized version.

      Lea

    5. Re:Would Vegetarians welcome this? by qengho · · Score: 2

      Would any vegetarians out there consider eating this type of meat?

      Sure, as long as an animal wasn't killed to produce the seed culture. I'd happily provide a few starter cells of my own. Talk about your cosmic closure...

    6. Re:Would Vegetarians welcome this? by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      I cannot think of any better way to minimize suffering of animals than to have lab meat become more economical than factory farmed meat. I rather enjoy the taste of meat. My veganism is not rooted in aesthetics, but in ethics.

      I am disappointed that so many people have the idea that vegetarians, and vegans especially, are dogmatic in their resistence to meat. To be sure, there is a small but loud subset of veg'ans who are. Many of them are doing it to be cool, and most are young -- usually teenagers (which gives them some leeway, as far as I'm concerned). But it's a minority! My personal opinion is that many anti-animal rights zealots would rather believe that all animal rights activists are loud, abnoxious fundies than actually consider their message. Ironically, I've found that whenever the subject of animal rights comes up in a public forum like this, I quickly find myself on the defensive, having to fend off attacks -- many of them downright malicious -- left and right. And even then, I'm accused of being the in-your-face protester that so many despise. So it goes.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
  67. Quorn is GOOOOOOOOD stuff! (OT!!!) by mekkab · · Score: 1

    I'm from the camp that says veggie burgers don't have to taste like meat to be good... and I eat meat so if I want meat I eat it. However I REALLY dig quorn... infact now that you mentioned it, I'll buy some today. but Quorn isn't precisely made from "mushrooms"- rather I think the box uses some language to say it is made from "a protein fungus." Ummmm! Pass the salt! ;)

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  68. What next? Pesticides cos.funding fisheries depts by paschimghat · · Score: 1

    This is so cool. So that fish don't die from pollutants we can create special breeds of fish that can survive the shit that we throw down into waterways. Then we fund research to create genes that could help us digest such fish. And pesticide companies can grow. Win Win.

  69. KFC conspiracy. by boatboy · · Score: 1

    Aha! I knew it was true.

  70. Slashdot-Grown Repeat by bigfatlamer · · Score: 2

    I realize that most /.ers can't even remember what they had for dinner last night but I think we've been through this one before. I know it must have been hard for the editors to find since it had such a dramatically different title..."Lab-Grown Meat. Chunks...."

    Anyway, while this is interesting from a tech POV it seems like a dramatic waste of resources for its intended target. Wouldn't growing and processing soy and soy-based products be much less resource intensive?

    BFL
    (former vegetarian...mmmmm...steak)

    --
    There's one thing computing teaches you, and that's that there's no point to remembering everything.
    --Doug Copland
  71. Flashbacks by sirgoran · · Score: 2

    Is anyone else having Cheers flashbacks of Norm talking about the "Baff" and "Loobster" served at his favorite eaterty?

    (shudder)

    --
    Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
  72. Re:Quorn is GOOOOOOOOD stuff! (OT!!!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Quorn(TM) products are healthy, delicious and meat free. The unique ingredient in all Quorn(TM) foods is mycoprotein which is a nutritious member of the fungi family, as are mushrooms, truffles and morels, and provides the taste and texture of a full range of meat products and ready meals but is entirely meat free."

  73. Extinction level event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, now we're going to kill all the cows because they're no longer needed? What other races will we wipe from the face of the earth in our desire for a hassle-free burger?

  74. As Homer would also say by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mmmmmmmm .... labby ....

  75. Expensive pant load! by paiute · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian? Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay, building supercomputers and hand-held computing devices like gangbusters. We need less saturated fat, not an uberexpensive supply of it.

    My second reaction is that astronauts should be eating no meat, anyway. Those of you who remember how the diaper smell went from interestingly aromatic to puke-inducing as soon as the baby started to eat meat will want your space station comrades to stick with the rice and lentils and a side of naan.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait! astronauts where diapers?

    2. Re:Expensive pant load! by milesbparty · · Score: 1

      wait! astronauts where diapers?

      I don't know...where diapers? Where spaceship? Where little space men? Where is your understanding of the English language?

      --
      eMelody Web Directory add your site today!
    3. Re:Expensive pant load! by Rik+van+Riel · · Score: 2
      My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian?
      My second reaction is that astronauts should be eating no meat, anyway.


      One, people need the proteins. Astronauts need the proteins, too.

      Yes, you can get the proteins from soy and beans, too, but I doubt a space ship will have space for soy or bean plantations. When you think about a (space) ship, you have to think about space efficiency.

      Shipboard living space, the final frontier.

    4. Re:Expensive pant load! by El_Smack · · Score: 2


      My 6 month old eats breast milk and pureed vegetables, and I challenge ANYONE to describe his poop as "interestingly aromatic". Even on pure milk his shit smelled like.... well, you know.

      A kids diaper can gag a maggot at 50 paces, meat or no meat.

      --


      There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    5. Re:Expensive pant load! by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      When the time comes that this is the most economical way to produce meat, farm animals will no longer live the horrible lives that billions are living right now. That will be VERY sweet indeed.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    6. Re:Expensive pant load! by robson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian? Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay, building supercomputers and hand-held computing devices like gangbusters. We need less saturated fat, not an uberexpensive supply of it.

      I'm a card-carrying carnivore, but I'm not at all happy about the treatment of animals at farming facilities. I'd be happy to pay a little more for a chicken or turkey product that I knew had never suffered.
      (Why not just become a vegetarian? Because I can't stand vegetarian food! ;)

    7. Re:Expensive pant load! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      A kids diaper can gag a maggot at 50 paces, meat or no meat.

      Their Barf scores higher on gag-scale IMO.

      "Houston, I have a prohhghghBlem."

    8. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying that a space ship wouldn't have space for a cattle ranch. Of course it wouldn't, that's why we have this wonderful thing called storage. You can take something and put it somewhere, without needing to take the source with you. Isn't that cool? You can even stack stuff and arrange it in ways so that you can use your space effeciently. Awesome.

      I'd also wager that TVP (textured vegetable protein) is far more space-friendly and portable than meat is.

    9. Re:Expensive pant load! by DuckDodgers · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just want to throw in my two cents with everyone else here...

      Infants diapers start to stink because of the bacteria that take residence in the lower digestive tract. My younger siblings and I had a diet of breast milk and Gerber veggies until about 11 months. I remember vividly that my little brother's diapers started reeking to high heaven long before he ate meat.

      And I can't speak for rice, but lentils are a legume, aren't they? I don't know any legumes that don't cause plentiful and noxious flatulence.

    10. Re:Expensive pant load! by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
      Actually, it's not the legumes themselves that cause gas for most people, but bacteria which thrive on the outside.

      If lentils, beans, etc are washed thoroughly before cooking and are brought to a sufficient temperature before lowering to a simmer for the rest of the cooking, there should be no problem with gas as a result.

    11. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool! Then we can just line up all those filthy, disease carrying, smelly beasts and shoot them all.

    12. Re:Expensive pant load! by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      When I asked my doctor about this, he said that most adult onset gas is caused by underproduction of the enzyme that breaks down Lactaise. According to him, taking an enzyme suppliment (such as Beano ) takes care of gas in most adults.

    13. Re:Expensive pant load! by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      > Cool! Then we can just line up all those filthy, disease carrying, smelly beasts and shoot them all.

      And then we'll shoot their livestock!

      But seriously, it's going to be a gradual drift. Factory farmed animals' life spans are short. It's not like, one day they'll wake up to find that the world's eating lab meat, and they're going to be set free. In general, those that are bred, are slaughtered.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    14. Re:Expensive pant load! by Speed+Racer · · Score: 1

      So tell me, do you really expect the pig and chicken to survive as species once they are no longer of any use to man? What is harmful to the individual pig or chicken is beneficial to the species.

      --
      Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
    15. Re:Expensive pant load! by kapital · · Score: 2, Informative

      Those of you who remember how the diaper smell went from interestingly aromatic to puke-inducing as soon as the baby started to eat meat

      what a lie.

      i used to work across from a vegetarian in a very spacious office. he used to eat his oh so healthy veggie lunch real quickly and then sit there and watch an episode of far scape and fart. i will tell you there was nothing sweet about it.

      he wasn't so bad in the mornings (maybe because he didn't eat beans and tofu for breakfast), but once lunch came and went he was like pig-pen from peanuts all day long! you could tell if the guy had been in a room because you could still detect a hint of what we used to call his "aura" about 1/2 hour later.

      sorry for the post, but i just couldn't stand to let that comment go down.

    16. Re:Expensive pant load! by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why not just be a vegetarian?"

      Because we are physiologically omnivores and need both animals as well as plants to stay healthy. Vegetarians in general and vegans in particular need to go through effort to find suitable replacements for the protiens they would be getting otherwise in order to maintain status quo. And even then, they usually end up eating more mass of food than a non-vegetarian in order just to keep up.

      When you're on a manned space mission where a million things can go horribly wrong, why do you want to add more complexity for the crew to deal with? Let alone the extra mass needed for the food...

    17. Re:Expensive pant load! by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      So tell me, do you really expect the pig and chicken to survive as species once they are no longer of any use to man?

      No.

      What is harmful to the individual pig or chicken is beneficial to the species.

      But why is preservation of the species important? It is the individuals that have the ability to feel pleasure and pain, not the species itself. As a utilitarian who's goal is the minimization of suffering, individuals are the measuring stick, not species.

      Would you, as an individual, volunteer to live indoors, in a 5x5 cage for the rest of your life, which will be shortened by a bolt to the head while taking a ride on a conveyer belt, because it is "beneficial to the species"?

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    18. Re:Expensive pant load! by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Why not just be a vegetarian?

      Because I'm an omnivore, and I like meat. I really like meat. And you know what? I don't feel a shred of guilt about it, despite the militant's best efforts. It's normal and natural to eat meat, and is the way our bodies are designed to work.

      I'm not going to go so far as to say life isn't worth living as a vegetarian, but it would be pretty damn close. There is no way in hell I would ever give up meat. Never. Ever.

      If you want to deny yourself the pleasures of meat, then fine, but don't asking that question is like asking, "Why don't we all live in caves? Hell, millions of cave-men lived that way". Or "Why don't we all use 8080 processors? Hell, millions of engineers used them".

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    19. Re:Expensive pant load! by Red+Weasel · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a side note to the whole "just be a vegetarian" argument that I've heard forever, I would like to point out the number of people that are allergic to many of the "Vegetarian" diets that are out there to one degree or another.

      My wife for example is allergic to soy (and some other stuff but soy is the Biggie). Guess what? No veggie burgers, no soy sauce or marinades. As someone who actually likes some veggie dishes this seriously cuts down on our menu. And meat does get old as a maindish.

      --
      ..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
    20. Re:Expensive pant load! by chialea · · Score: 2

      I can't speak to veganism, but as a vegetarian I've never had an issue. I find if I eat what I feel like eating, I am very healthy -- if I get lazy and eat what's around I start feeling crappy. It is NOT hard, unless I'm in some place like McDonald's.

      YMMV, of course. I was raised on a very balanced diet, and so that's what I like eating. I also have very specific food cravings if I get off balance "MUST HAVE BEANS NOW! AND TOMATOES! MANY TOMATOES!"

      Most people I know don't eat a reasonable balance and variety anyways, so the whole argument is just silly.

      It's no effort at all, I just eat what I want, I don't go out of my way at all. Mass-wise, this depends on what you eat, and doesn't have much to do with vegetarianism, much more to do with the amount of fat in your diet, as well as your calorie requirements and how far over them you are. If you mean vegetables, that's water mass, mostly, something they have to take anyways, and something that they need to have them eating no matter the dietary makeup.

      Lea

    21. Re:Expensive pant load! by ahoehn · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: IANAD,BIBWIAH (I Am Not A Doctor, But I've Been Working In A Hospital)

      For what it's worth, at the hospital I've been working at as a medical assistant whenever we get a patient with intestineal pain we take an x-ray. If the x-ray shows the source of the pain as being gas, the Doctor usually recommends the patient to eat less fatty food, meat, and sometimes cut back on the rice in their diet. (The hospital is in Belize, where the staple food is Rice and Beans) Strangely in contrast to all the fart/bean related jokes that were so hilarious growing up, he never says anything about cutting back on beans.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    22. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, what a horrible life: eat, sleep and for a few, reproduce. they were born to die and become food.

    23. Re:Expensive pant load! by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      > Oh yeah, what a horrible life: eat, sleep and for a few, reproduce.

      There are plenty of resources out there on the net -- even objective ones -- that show how truly horrendous conditions are for animals on factory farms. I suggest doing some research; you may just be surprised.

      http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan

      > they were born to die and become food.

      Please! Black slaves were born to work in the fields for their white owners too, but that don't make it right.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    24. Re:Expensive pant load! by qengho · · Score: 2

      When you think about a (space) ship, you have to think about space efficiency.

      And resource efficiency. A soybean crop would not only provide food, but would also scrub the air and transform waste products. Probably not practical on a short trip to Mars, but any long voyage will require space-efficient, resource efficient food supplies.

    25. Re:Expensive pant load! by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Besides that, animals and plants are just as 'alive' as one another.

    26. Re:Expensive pant load! by ghislain_leblanc · · Score: 1

      A quote from Red in that 70s show:

      "This isn't food, this is what food eats!"

    27. Re:Expensive pant load! by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      Because we are physiologically omnivores and need both animals as well as plants to stay healthy.

      This is simply not true. There are all kinds of evidence that shows vegetarian diets can be totally healthy. Also, roughly 5 million (a conservative number) Americans are living healthily on vegetarian diets. As they say, it takes one to know one, and I am one -- I've done the research. I monitor my health closely, and have not found anything to be concerned about in the years that I've been vegan.

      Vegetarians in general and vegans in particular need to go through effort to find suitable replacements for the protiens they would be getting otherwise in order to maintain status quo.

      Two points here. First, the idea that vegetarians cannot get enough protein -- or that the protein we do get is worse for us than the protein found in meat -- is a myth. In fact, many studies show that the average American diet consists of too much meat protein. This has been linked to osteoperosis, among other things.
      Secondly, while you are correct in pointing out the vegetarians need to plan their diets wisely in order to get the necessary nutrients, you are wrong to imply that it's an ongoing effort. Once a healthy, balanced diet is established, one need not continue "going through effort" to replace the protein they would otherwise get from meat. It's a one-time deal.

      And even then, they usually end up eating more mass of food than a non-vegetarian in order just to keep up.

      I've never heard that before. I don't find it to be the case at all.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    28. Re:Expensive pant load! by greenrd · · Score: 2
      If you can't carry enough food and need to grow it, animals are going to be less space-efficient than plants, because with animals you need to feed the non-human animals as well as the humans. Vat-grown meat might reduce this inefficiency down to acceptable levels, of course.

    29. Re:Expensive pant load! by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Because we are physiologically omnivores and need both animals as well as plants to stay healthy.

      That's simply not true. The founder of the Vegan Society is still alive and well to this day. Carl Lewis was (is?) a vegan. I've met a 75-year-old vegan granny at an animal rights protest who was in good health for her age. There's plenty more examples I could cite.

      Vegetarians in general and vegans in particular need to go through effort to find suitable replacements for the protiens they would be getting otherwise in order to maintain status quo.

      Not really. See this factsheet on protein.

      The only thing vegans like me can't get reliably in their diets, except from "artificial" sources, is Vitamin B12 - I take vegan B12 supplements to make sure I get enough.

      However, I obviously would recommend anyone thinking of going vegan to read up on the dietary recommendations before jumping in.

    30. Re:Expensive pant load! by Bastian · · Score: 2

      The crew would already be on a managed diet, so it wouldn't really be any tougher on them to be vegetarian or non-vegetarian. Given the nature of some of the health-benefits/disadvantages of both omnivorous and vegetarian diets, I think the issue is up in the air as to which one would be better for astronauts on a long mission, although at present I think serving meat would be a good idea for morale reasons.

    31. Re:Expensive pant load! by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      Why not just be a vegetarian?

      In the words of Quentin Tarantino (via Vincent Vega), 'Bacon tastes goooood, pork chops taste goooood.'

      --Dan

    32. Re:Expensive pant load! by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 2

      LOL...

      and he forgot about beans and Taco Bell...

    33. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just be a vegetarian?

      Because vegetarian food sucks. It's an unnatural diet that (unless you're really careful) leads to malnutrition. Being raised on such a diet can cause permanent brain damage. And that's a fact.

      Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay,

      90% of India is a third-world shithole that hasn't changed for millenia. The parts that are doing well are (surprise) the parts that have adopted the Eeeeeevilll Western Culture.

    34. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black slaves were born to work in the fields for their white owners too, but that don't make it right.

      Cows are not people.

      The fact that you equate the two shows that you're a religious fanatic (and an evil one) who's not worth arguing with.

    35. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yikes...

    36. Re:Expensive pant load! by hlh_nospam · · Score: 2

      My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian? Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay, building supercomputers and hand-held computing devices like gangbusters. We need less saturated fat, not an uberexpensive supply of it.


      Ah, again with the Dietary Myth That Will Not Die. For starters, take a guess at what part of the world has (by far) the largest per capita incidence of diabetes. Hint: It's not the US.

      Fact: Saturated fat is more or less neutral in its impact on health, unless consumed along with too much high-glycemic carbohydrate.

      I have personally lost over 100 lbs on a diet with more than 60% of calories from fat, and most of that being saturated fat from animal sources. In the process, I improved my blood sugar, cholesterol, and my blood pressure substantially over what it was when I was following a low-fat vegan diet.

    37. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Most of these 'objective resources' are compiled by pansy-ass urbanites that probably had never been on a farm for generations until they started doing their research, if even then. They are so disconnected from the process of food production, it is an alien, 'horrendous' thing when they experience it. I grew up and worked on a farm, so I know first hand the pro's and con's of the 'free-range' vs 'factory' methods. Hmm.. Let's pretend we're an animal. Given the choice of living in a ventilated climate regulated building where my shit disappears in the holes in the floor, I have clean water on tap, food is brought to me at the same time everyday (or available all the time) to having to freeze my ass off in the winter, or laying in my own shit in the summer to stay cool, scrounging around for food, drinking water with God knows what in it, or being concerned about Momma rolling over and squishing me in the night as well as other species that may want to kill me. Gee tough call. By your logic, all cities like Tokyo, London, New York, etc. where people live stacked up on top of each other should be destroyed and everyone sent out to live in trees.

      The 'factory' methods evolved because they provided a way for farmers and ranchers to put more meat on animals in a shorter amount of time and to reduce the breakeven price needed to make a profit. They also help to increase the chances that an animal that is born will reach maturity.

      Comparing animals to the plight of black slaves also shows how out of touch you are. Domesticated animals have been around for centuries to provide milk, meat, and hides for their owners. Before that they were food for predators. Which would you prefer? A quick electric bolt gun while walking through a chute or being chased down and not so quickly ripped apart, possibly being eaten while still alive?

    38. Re:Expensive pant load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you're not delusional! lol

  76. Re:Support freedom - Kill a Cop! by micahmicahmicah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anonymous post. No credibility. Looks like someone has too much time on their hands and wants to tell a story.

    This is slashdot, news for nerds. Off topic posts without credibility are a waste of everyones time. I can understand if the story were true and this man was looking for justice (retribution?), the slashdot crowd is wide and varied and does indeed include people employed in positions with greater understanding of the law, who may be able to lend assistance.

    Long story short, these are perilous times, there is an elevated risk, better to check everyone and slow things down than to have another 2000+ lives lost. I understand the narrators point-of-view, and while some empathy is appropriate, the needs of the many - outweigh the needs of the few. This is the truth upon which justice has been founded. The loss of an unborn child's natural birth, and the missed opportunity to take part in a friends wedding is unfortunate. But far more unfortunate would be the loss of 'National Security' if another tragedy such as 9-11 should occur.

  77. I think I'm stealing somebody's sig... by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 1

    ...but it has to be said:

    "If we're not supposed to eat animals, how come they're made out of meat?"
    -Steven Wright

    --
    Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
    1. Re:I think I'm stealing somebody's sig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I think you're stealing Steven Wright's sig!

  78. um... no. by nihaoyao · · Score: 1

    you neglected to add to the price of $97 bazillion in costs of taxpayer money for sending the meat you bought from the supermarket to mars.

    so really, option 2 saves nasa $2.5 a pound.

    perhaps a perfect example of what is wrong with your logic?

  79. I'm a Person Eating Tasty Animals. by Rai · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't eat anything that never had a mother. Take that PETA :b

  80. Artificial food bad! :-( by ites · · Score: 2

    More junk food! Sad thing is it's inevitable. Little Soylent Green slabs of stuff grown in factories from reprocessed organic waste repurposed from dead pets, cow brains, post-corporal digestive residude, failed clones, and... well, why the heck not, dead bodies.
    Everyfood we've invented in the last 2,000 years is junk food: white starch, white sugar, white fat, white beer. White meat is the obvious next step.
    'Xcuse me but I'm going to stick to my diet of edible roots and leaves, nuts, whole grains, seafood, goat, milk, and cheese. Luckily alcohol was invented more than 5,000 years ago, so it makes it onto my "good" list.
    Cheers! And happy Hogmanay to all of you.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  81. You're bitter and hateful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those laws might have made sense two thousand years ago, but they're typically nonsensical today. Those who do uphold strict faith-based laws often do so feeling a need to simply abide by "tradition," or a need to prove some form of discipline to one's self (and others, in many cases).

    It has to do with sense, not self-gratification.

    1. Re:You're bitter and hateful by aborchers · · Score: 2

      Back it up. Show me how a kosher diet is irrelevant today. Detail a strategy for feeding the world's population with cows.

      I am only hateful toward people who make sweeping, ignorant claims about religions they don't understand. I have no more respect for unfounded attacks on religion than on science.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    2. Re:You're bitter and hateful by Kupek · · Score: 2

      I think your have some definitions wrong. "Kosher" refers to the practice in Judiaism of not eating pork, not eating shell fish, and not mixing meat and dairy. As far as I know, it is not related to the Hindu practice of not eating and giving special status to cows.

      I was raised Jewish. The rationale I've gotten is that at the time, pork and shell fish were more likely to kill you. Not mixing meat and dairy was more abstract, something about not cooking a kid in its mother's milk.

      The pork and shell fish restrictions are irrelevant. We have the technology to cook them properly. Not mixing meat and dairy is a moral argument, and can't be made irrelevant, only decided by an individual that they don't care.

      But as someone else pointed out, Jews don't keep kosher because it had practical reasons in the past. Jews who keep kosher do so because it is part of Jewish law. Same with Hindus.

      For the record, I am a vegetarian, so I don't eat any meat at all.

    3. Re:You're bitter and hateful by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I have heard some theologans who told of a ritual of one of the Canaanite peoples that was culminated in the boiling of a kid goat, which might have been alive as the boiling commenced, in its mother's milk. In addition to the inhumanity of that act, the commandment also has preventing idolatry as a concern.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    4. Re:You're bitter and hateful by aborchers · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure where I misspoke or was misunderstood. I've been yammering on most of the afternoon on this topic so I'm sure I've bungled a few things. I understand that Mosaic and Hindu law are different and unrelated. I claimed that they both served practical purposes to their respective cultures, and that both can be viewed as valid for entirely modern reasons also. Ergo, I'd have to disagree that they are irrelevant.

      If I follow the Kosher diet, then I am assured that I am getting clean meat (stricter than USDA standards) from an animal that was treated well and humanely slaughtered. The pork and shellfish thing is obviated by our improved cooking technology, but a non-issue if you don't eat either no matter how it's cooked. Plus, both are fatty meats implicated in vascular/heart disease, so there's another advantage to following The Law. It's sort of like the debate about condoms and abstinence. One reduces the likelihood of an STD, the other eliminates it.

      I can't dispute you on the meat and milk thing, but another reply addressed that really well, demonstrating that political as well as personal and tribal survival concerns go into the rules.

      While we're sharing personal histories, I've been a vegetarian, ovo-lacto, omnivore, et al at one time or another, and have never advocated abstinence. :-)

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    5. Re:You're bitter and hateful by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      Detail a strategy for feeding the world's population with cows.

      1. Kill enough cows to feed the world's population.

      2. ???

      3. Profit!!!

      Seriously, though, the problem isn't a feeding problem, it's a supply problem. Detail a plan to provide enough cow to feed the world's population:

      1. Visit FAT porno sites

      2. ???

      3. Profit!!!

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  82. Mars Mission - Why Carnivore? by claud9999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to wonder, why would NASA spend $ to research developing lab-grown meat when you could just turn veggie for a long-duration mission? Is it a weight/power/space issue? (Space as in the amount of space it would take in the ship to grow hydroponics?)

    Now, I'm a true-blooded American Carnivore (TM) and eat just about anything you put in front of me. A vegan diet (within reason) is plenty sufficient and I'd certainly adopt one as a requirement to go on a long-term mission.

    OTOH, I certainly can support any developments that would put a dent in the factory farms.

  83. No thanks by TheTick · · Score: 1

    The environmental impact of meat, even if mitigated by efficient production techniques (i.e., not "on the hoof"), is greater than that of a vegetarian foodstuffs.

    As for the protein argument, forget it. If you give even the slightest thought to a balanced vegetarian diet, it's trivial to get enough protein. (See this.)

    Besides lab-grown mean just sounds gross. "He suggests using a bioreactor with a branching network of hundreds of tiny edible tubes that act like artificial capillaries to convey nutrients to the growing meat."...bleah!

    --

    --
    bachiatari na torisetsu o yome!

  84. (OT) Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal by zipwow · · Score: 3, Insightful
    quakeslut wrote:
    as a man of science (I assume) you can't argue that eating meat is more efficient than eating the plants yourself.


    Ahh, but you can. In fact, I feel that there are two immediate counterpoints to this notion.

    The first is that not all land is plantable. Very large parts of of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New Mexico are unsuited to crop growing either because they're too arid, or too rocky, or too low in other nutrients. You may notice that these areas have a reputation for cattle ranching.

    Second, cattle (and other animals) can be a natural part of the crop cycle on land that is arable. Its well known that you ought to leave your fields fallow every few years, even better is to graze some sort of fertilizer-producing animal on it. You'll feed some of your grain to these animals as well, but you're paid back both in meat and fertilizer for this use.

    Now, to be fair, I'll admit that there are other parts of our meat producing system that cause problems. Feedlots are probably the best example. The amount of manure created by their dense populations pollutes the groundwater and causes other problems before it can be removed for use as a fertilizer. Some slaughterhouses are inhumane (and some are not).

    I think if you're going to argue for something in terms of efficiency and global impact, organic farming makes the most sense.

    Perhaps the lab approach will pollute less than the feedlots, and provide a cheaper alternative. That's going to be my hope, at least.

    -Zipwow
    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
  85. Re:Support freedom - Kill a Cop! by nicedream · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Here's the original appearance of this article

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html

  86. Nice try, trollboy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But this is a real reach. Try again later with a broader topic and you might have luck.

  87. Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that Hindu's can now eat hamburgers?

  88. omnivores by daoine_sidhe · · Score: 1

    Humans are omnivores. That is the only argument that has any relevence to this discussion. I choose not to eat veal or a lot of red meat; I do this from choice, as I accept that other people make their own choices, but choosing to rip people down and try to gross them out by discussing the butchering process or suggesting that humans should eat other humans is reprehensible. It is with an obvious superior and elitist attitude that many of these statements have been made, and that proves nothing; nor does it convince "the other side" to convert. Why, then, does PETA not seek the extermination of species that eat other animal species? The answer is simple: they would quickly (assuming the necessary tools existed) decimate life on earth. Why is it different with humankind? Because in many people's eyes humankind is an unnatural aberration; one which only destroys nature. The problem is not eating meat, which is natural and healthy in the correct proportions, it is human overpopulation. Control that, and there is no longer a question of the "efficiency" of eating meat. Besides which, speaking of pure efficiency, how necessary is a home computer? The resources required to construct one are immense, especially in comparison to what it gets used for (mostly). Is Quake necessary? No, but it's fun. People eat meat because they enjoy it, just like people use their computer hardware to read /. because they enjoy it. It is technically inefficient to read /. and I will continue to do it, sometimes even while eating a turkey sandwich or a burger. And I will enjoy the inefficiency, and think about the butchering process as often as I think about mining, smelting, molding plastics, marketing (which is arguably vastly more evil than butchering), etc., etc.

    1. Re:omnivores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue for many vegetarians/vegans/non-red meat eaters is not one of human efficiency or human hunger. Basically, it stems from the belief that most animals due indeed suffer, and that their suffering may in degrees be less realized or profound than ours, but exists nonetheless. Its a question of balance. Is rape fun? Yes, for many people it is. Does it cause suffering? Yes, so we do not allow it. The question is, due cow's suffer. As far as I can tell, yes they do. Do they suffer as much as rape victims? Hmmmn.... tough question.. I think that the answer is yes, but more evidence is needed.

    2. Re:omnivores by gli · · Score: 1

      Imagine some other species cut you in pieces and cook you in a pot. They saw you bleed and cry, then discuss the question:" Do you think he suffered while we killed him? Hmmm... tough question..."

    3. Re:omnivores by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      Imagine some other species cut you in pieces and cook you in a pot. They saw you bleed and cry, then discuss the question:" Do you think he suffered while we killed him? Hmmm... tough question..."

      This is relevant...how?

      Really, if some other species cut me in pieces and cooked me in a pot, I'd do my damndest to try not to give them indigestion. They won't get me without a fight, but after/if they win, I'll have a "proper" role to play.

      I get sick of these kinds of arguments, really. "Imagine what if they did it to you!" Well, have you considered that a basic part of my decision-making process requires that I consider the question before making such a judgement? Have you huh?

      Oh yeah, you weren't talking to me.

      I class this argument along with "What if you're wrong, Dave? What if there really is a God, wouldn't you rather go to Heaven?"

      (The answer, if anyone cares, is "not just no but HELL no do I want to go to heaven")

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  89. Makes perfect sense... by maynard · · Score: 1

    Are you suggesting there's enough farmable landmass to support six billion people eating cow today? Note that according to this article the technology to grow large slabs of edible muscle ala "steak" doesn't yet exist. --M

    1. Re:Makes perfect sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? There isn't enough electricity for everyone to have it, either, but I don't notice you giving it up.

  90. Must....eat.....brains..... by MemeRot · · Score: 2

    zombie nation my friend ;)

  91. exercice for sedentary slabs by sukotto · · Score: 1
    The biggest problems being ... exercise for the sedentary slabs.
    This is problem for me too. Hope they find a solution that doesn't involve going to the gym... Maybe one of those electrode things that supposedly stimulate the muscles while you sit watching tv?
    --
    Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
  92. only in the US by eurostar · · Score: 1

    why not a pile of yeast and a conveyor belt to your mouths ?

    very happy I'm living elsewhere...

  93. It might be kosher (two maybes, an if and a but) by burgburgburg · · Score: 2
    If the original animal that provided the base meat was slaughtered in the proper manner by a shochet, then the meat grown from that initial seed meat might be considered to be an extension of it, and as such covered.

    Alternative interpretation: Once the original (kosher slaughtered) seed meat is provided, no other animals are harmed. The subsequent meat, since it is not derived from harming an animal, might be categorized in the same way as milk is.

    If viable, this latter interpretation would in theory allow for kosher cheeseburgers as long as the meat was grown not raised (you wouldn't be mixing).

    Except, you're not allowed to do something that appears to violate the law. Unless it was instantly obvious to a passerby that the new type of cheeseburger was not made with real meat, it would not be legal. Or in theory if a person was in a restaurant marked as kosher that ONLY served grown meat cheeseburgers, so no doubt would be placed on the eaters actions.

  94. SPAM by dnoyeb · · Score: 2

    For those too young to know, SPAM stand for Scientifically Produced Animal Matter. And this is a perfect example of it.

  95. Does this mean... by Tuffnut · · Score: 1

    Does this mean vegetarians no longer have an excuse to not eat meat?

  96. You forgot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.5 Profit!!!!!!

  97. VEGF to encourage blood growth by teridon · · Score: 2
    Perhaps they could use VEGF to encourage blood vessel growth for thicker pieces of meat.

    Google link for VEGF

    --
    I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
  98. Pak Chooie UNf by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    We are the Steak Robots
    We are here to protect you
    We are here to protect you from The Terrible Secret Of Steak

  99. I like veal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people who won't eat veal have no problem eating chicken. They should check on how chickens are raised before passing judgement on veal eaters.

  100. Not true about human steak by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Informative
    Human protein is not better for consumption. It is in fact worse. Carnivore and omnivore proteins are of a different nature then herbivore proteins. The human digestive system is not designed to break them down and use them efficiently. It in fact takes more energy to break them down to their base constituents and rebuild them then is gained from the eating. That is why eating dog and snake are considered good "winter" foods in some Asian cultures. The extreme amounts of energy required to break them down warms the body. The fact that they're a drain isn't as well known.

    By the way, I don't have any first-hand gustatory experience with any of the above.

  101. Re:As a vegetarian, I object by dryopterix · · Score: 0

    Maybe we can come to an agreement with the cow population to license their genes? :-)

  102. Contact Taco Bell... by airrage · · Score: 2

    I think this technology would be good for Taco Bell, Pancho's, any school cafeteria, airlines, and any Mexican food buffet where the "meat" is "meat". Grown meat would be better than whatever is they're serving.

    --
    "This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
  103. why mod up all the anti animal rights posts? by dj_virto · · Score: 1


    come on guys, we could do with a little fairness.

    then again, this discussion isn't one that is likely to get past the many people who post here who appear to think that arrogance makes them more right.

    i've noticed that compassion and arrogance generally don't mix very often.

    1. Re:why mod up all the anti animal rights posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      i've noticed that compassion and arrogance generally don't mix very often.

      Well, I feel sorry that you all aren't as great as me.

    2. Re:why mod up all the anti animal rights posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're moderated up because animal rights people are wackos. God gave us animals to eat, it's in the Bible damnit. They're just animals. It's not like Ms. Cow is missing school because she went to the slaughterhouse.

    3. Re:why mod up all the anti animal rights posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You expect us to believe all people who care about animals are wackos when you claim to know the Bible but clearly don't (God _allowed_ them to eat certain meats after they bitched and moaned, AFAIK)? Riiight..

    4. Re:why mod up all the anti animal rights posts? by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Generally, the so-called "anti-animal rights" posts are actually funny, unlike the righteous indignation of all the PETA people.

      It's true that compassion and arrogance generally don't mix very often. However, most of us meat eaters see a lot more arrogance than compassion from the PETA people. It's just like religious fundamentalism. It's a lot easier to feel superior about yourself and screech at and talk down to people who don't follow your worldview than it is to demonstrate your compassion.

      I've never seen such a bunch of smug and insensitve jackasses as the PETA people themselves. The Rudy Giuliani "Got Prostate Cancer?" motherboard and this site (which used to actually claim that Jesus was a vegetarian and had a picture of Jesus with an orange for a halo) really show how far PETA is willing to go towards making asses of themselves in the public eye. I think Veganism is a great movement; I just can't stand the people.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  104. I'll never give up my veal, veggie-boy by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 2

    The end of veal? No way! I likes my veal to come from real baby cows. I wont take no test-tube veal substitute! I say, let's exploit those dairy bull calves! They don't produce no milk, and we don't need all those guys growin' up and sexin' all the lady cows. Not as long as I have by electric stun-gun and trusty cattle throat-slitting knife will I give up veal. You'll have to pry it from my cold dead fork, covered in velvety mozzarella and rich tomato sauce!

    1. Re:I'll never give up my veal, veggie-boy by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > The end of veal [veal.org]? No way! I likes my veal to come from real baby cows. I wont take no test-tube veal substitute!

      ROFLMAO.

      OK, I love veal. Carve it off a baby cow, pound it flat, sear it in a pan, deglaze the pan of roasting juices by splashing down some cream, white whine, and mushrooms, bring it the hell on.

      But what makes veal so delicate and tender is that the calf doesn't move long enough to build up any real muscle structure. It sounds to me like vat-veal would be even more tender and veal-like than real-deal-veal. Vat-veal would probably be like carving it up as soon as it pops outa the womb!

      OK, maybe the milk-feeding part adds to the flavor too. I dunno. But I do know I'm not writing off vat-grown meat until I've tried myself a plate of it. *G*

    2. Re:I'll never give up my veal, veggie-boy by gli · · Score: 1

      You may like your veal if you want. But your words are gross!

  105. We could even try human meat by V_drive · · Score: 1

    Would it be cannibalism if we tried this on humans? Maybe humans taste really good and we just never knew it because killing is wrong and it just feels strange to eat what used to be someone's arm. Is there a "sick bastard" mod?

    --
    char *mySig;
  106. Things with faces by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

    So these people get their protein from earthworms?

    1. Re:Things with faces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me you don't actually think that the only source of protein is animal products.

    2. Re:Things with faces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me you don't actually think that the only source of protein is animal products.

      Of course not, I enjoy a wide variety of fish and poultry too. I do draw the line at insects though.

    3. Re:Things with faces by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you don't actually think that the only source of protein is animal products.

      OK. I don't actually think that all protien comes from animal products.

      Please tell me that you actually do understand the meaning of sarcasm.

  107. Cultured Meat would *not* be Animal-Friendly. by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 2

    "animal friendly filet mignon," the post says. That could not be more off-the-mark.

    Consider this:

    If you produce "animal friendly" meat without using animals, you no longer have the need to kill the animal. While you could consider that "friendly" to the animal facing the shotgun slug between the eyes, to the species of animal as a whole, it's quite unfriendly.

    If you can raise the meat instead of the animal, you don't have the expensive of raising the animal, feeding the animal, keeping the animal healthy, providing shelter for the animal, and so on. In short: You don't need the animal.

    But, see, the animals are domesticated, and have been for thousands of years. They depend on us for everything. If we don't provide for them, they will die off.

    Perhaps they could make the switch from domesticated to wild/feral again over the course of a generate, but, at least in most developed countries, there wouldn't be the room to have these big critters roaming free. Shortage of proper habitat would doom them.

    Folks, I hate to break this to you, but if we didn't eat cows and chickens and pigs (oh my!) -- they'd all be extinct or on the verge of extinction right now. And that's pretty gosh-darned animal-unfriendly, don't ya think?

    Please note: I'm not an environmentalist or animal rights advocate. Not at all. I'm just trying to paint the larger picture that most animal rights folks would not think about. For me, personally, if I could buy a Chia Steak at the local WalMart, and eat steak every night so long as I kept the thing watered, well, shit, sign me up!

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  108. The other uses by WetCat · · Score: 1

    You are forgetting about other, non-killing usage
    of animals: they can be milked
    (producing good cheese!), used as pets, used for
    riding and moving stuff.

    1. Re:The other uses by phloon · · Score: 1

      pet cow... sure.... I'll keep it in the living room of my tiny fucking condo....

    2. Re:The other uses by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 2

      The point is, though -- and you seem to agree -- is that the only reason these critters are around today in the numbers that they are is that they meet human needs.

      I'm not forgetting about the other uses -- there really wouldn't be any or many, at least not enough to maintain the species at it's current numbers. We can already make cheese from artificial sources. Even if we keep cows around for dairy products and leather (well, you don't really keep cows around for leather, do you?) The species numbers would decline to levels far below what they are today, due mostly to the fact that we eat so many of them. (Cow nummy.)

      And cows don't make really good pets, and we tend to use horses for riding and moving stuff. At least jockeys and the Amish do.

      again, the only reason we raise and breed these animals is that they meet human needs.

      Well, if those need can be met via other means, the number of animals necessary to meet the remaining needs declines, and there won't be nearly as many of them around. If we meet enough needs with such so-called "Animal Friendly" methods, well, we end up not needing the animal, and we discard it -- so those means end up ultimately harming the animal more than helping it.

      --

      Ed R.Zahurak

      You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

    3. Re:The other uses by akhaksho · · Score: 1

      Just how long do you think it takes to bring a cow from a calf to a hamburger? It's just a matter of a few months. If all the cows in the world were sterilized today, there'd be no Big Macs by the 4th of July. There wouldn't be any animals discarded; there just wouldn't be any new ones born. You can't harm an unborn animal.

  109. Re:It might be kosher (two maybes, an if and a but by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 2
    Would it count as "flesh stripped from a living animal"? (Yes, the bible says you have to kill something before you eat it.) I guess you could properly slaughter the animal, and harvest the cells while they were still alive, but if the cell line was extracted from an animal that was alive during the extraction, I would think that would be a no-no.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  110. Gaaaa! Our tax dollars at work by afabbro · · Score: 2

    "A NASA-funded team..." These are the same idiots who will complain that their budget is shrinking.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  111. Imagine by WetCat · · Score: 1

    A beowulf cluster of sedentary slabs
    going to the gym!

  112. Think vegetarian by giaguara · · Score: 1

    Think vegetarian.

    It takes over 30 times less resources (money, enregy, water etc) to do 1 kg of wheat, corn, rice, soya or similar than it takes to produce 1 kg of meaat.

    Humans "need" meat? Sure. Most Indians aren't humans then? And i am not alive neither, due to being a veg all my life... Switch to vegetarism and feel more energical that after earing lab grown meat substitutes!

    1. Re:Think vegetarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vegans may feel more "energical", but they lose their ability to spell.

  113. FOX : "Lab slab cures non-existant global warming" by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I can see it now : get rid of all those gassey cows, and the econazis can stop trying to make us feel guilty for wanting our wives to drive safe SUVs!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  114. Artificial sweetener^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H meat... by phloon · · Score: 1

    If I'm not mistaken, there is still no artificailly created substitute for sugar that tastes exactly like sugar. Hell, even stuff refined from other natural products, like high fructose corn syrup, doesn't taste exactly like sugar. So how in the hell can they hope to make something as complex as an artificial beef roast or pork loin? I certainly don't want the fake-steak equivelant of a diet coke aftertaste.

    in Soviet Russia the meat is artificial you...

    1. Re:Artificial sweetener^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H meat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, read the article.

      The meat is natural - it contains exactly same chemicals as the "regular" meat.

  115. New advertising slogans by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

    "It's LAAAABalicious!"

    "Have a slab o' the lab!"

    Any others?

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  116. Better For the Environment. by BFaucet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Growing meat like this could potentially save a lot of water, energy, space and lives. I doubt it would be difficult to modify to modify the meat to make it more nutritious. The lack of fat might be a big issue as much of the taste of meat comes from the fat in it.

    This could also mean disease free meat. One day people might be able to order a steak uber-rare and not worry about vomiting, death, or even worse... explosive diarrhea.

    I myself am a vegetarian due to my having a conscience and a brain that just won't forget those videos I saw when I was younger. Well, that and I feel that us humans aren't really all that great of a species.... I mean, what species is stupid enough to pass on the genes we hate. We make glasses, fix deformities, cure baldness, c-section babies... while that's great for the individuals, and I'm not knocking any of them (I myself am not a very geneticly desirable specimen.) It passes on the genes that make those techniques required and thereby making the species weaker as a whole... Gah, getting way off topic again.

    --
    -Derick
    1. Re:Better For the Environment. by mrnick · · Score: 1

      I have thought about your comments before and the best thing that I can think of is that what humans are doing is stalling evolution of our species except for the development of our minds. That is a scary thought when you consider that "the masses are asses".

      --

      Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
  117. This is long overdue by TerryAtWork · · Score: 2

    But I'm waiting for our obstructionist friends like PETA to start moaning about it.

    It'll take them a while though. First, they'll have to find some mealy-mouthed excuse to get upset about it and that'll take a while since it seems to be a win/win situation all around.

    Once they get THAT going then they'll have to work themselves up into a state of self-righteous fury to convince themselves they are doing the Right Thing and therefore It's Ok To Do Something Nasty. The SS did this too. So did Pol Pot.

    Finally, they'll have to slather a lot of bullshit over the whole thing to hide their true agenda, which is to destroy Western Civilization.

    At least they put nude girls into cages. Anyone who does that can't be ALL bad....

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
  118. Thank God, something to stop cruelty to plants! by salesgeek · · Score: 2

    I'm glad to see that science has found a way to end the wholesale exploitation and cruel treatment of plants. Of course, this simply moves our cruel need to eat something to animals or at least animal tissue. Perhaps the time has come for man to stop eating all togather so that no other species, plant, animal or fungi will face the cruel and futile life of an agricultural product!

    $G

    --
    -- $G
  119. That's why the seed meat is kosher slaughtered by burgburgburg · · Score: 2

    If the seed meat is derived from a properly kosher slaughtered cow, then it shouldn't count as "flesh stripped from a living animal". Unless they counted the nutrient pool meat as a living animal, which would seem to be a difficult position to support.

  120. I eat cannibal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sing it once, sing it twice

  121. Astronauts need to breathe by dachshund · · Score: 4, Funny
    Clearly you haven't lived in a tight space with four other people all eating rice and lentils. The methane alone will asphyxiate them all.

    Though perhaps they could use it as some sort of power source?

  122. Bob The Angry Flower... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The super smart evil-genius flower guy has already dealt with this issue!

    http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

    "Carve the meat while it's still alive! So Fresh!"

    Headless cows still weren't good enough for his vegetarian gf. Bob continues his search for love...

  123. Tofu and Gardenburgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stuff isn't really new, Tofu and Gardenburgers have been around for years. The one thing new is the pricetag, and hopefully the taste.

  124. Minor correction by aborchers · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure you can't eat the flesh of another Christian. I'm not sure about atheists...

    --
    Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    1. Re:Minor correction by nmg · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about atheists...

      That's right. Pass the man-flesh!

    2. Re:Minor correction by shaitand · · Score: 2

      no no, I think you can eat them as long as you don't kill them. Pretty sure it's ok then, athiests you might be able to kill as long as you use clean instruments. Can't go spreading disease after all.

  125. Paleolithic Revolution by Baldrson · · Score: 2

    This is great news for 3/4 of the United States population (and slightly lower fraction of the European population), who are genetically ill-adapted to post-neolithic-revolution dietary patterns high in starch. Starch (the cheapest source of calories) is at dangerously high levels in their diet ("The Zone", by Barry Sears, p. 31). For males this can suppress testosterone levels as well as having a variety of other side effects. For those "Paleolithic" males this author's advice is "Eat less starch and more protein until you feel better." Some minimum level of moderate exercise (at least 20 minutes walking at a moderately fast pace at least every other or third day) is also crucial.

  126. Kudos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thank you, you hard working troll you!

    Annonymous Coward, the hardest working troll on slashdot!

  127. Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bad enough that Americans crave their bloody flesh, but now to grow it in a petri dish? That is just fucking sick. I have no problems with meat eaters persay, but comeon, we are already far detached from the food we eat.

    You want to eat flesh? Go out, kill it, strip off the meat and fry it up. Pansy ass styro wrapped blood sucking pieces of SHIT.

    a quiet unassuming vegetarian soon becoming militant.

    1. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      I have no problems with meat eaters persay

      and

      Pansy ass styro wrapped blood sucking pieces of SHIT

      Man, I love militant hypocrisy.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    2. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're a real vegetarian you'd be applauding these efforts. In the future we wouldn't need to kill animals for meat. They can roam free across the open plains and starve to death like other wild animals do.

    3. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by Bicoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, this is to satisfy people like YOU who don't want to kill animals and feel that eating bloody flesh is somehow wrong because you're killing an animal. Face it, you don't think eating bloody flesh is gross because it's meat. You think it's wrong because you kill an animal to make it.

      All you're doing right now is proving my opinion that most vegetarians choose their diet because they feel vegetarianism makes them superior and more classy people.

      Lab-grown steak is a good thing. Period. No more slaughterhouses, no more massive feedlots, no more nutrient runoff, no more E. coli in the meat, no more need to graze cattle on large tracts of land, no more hunting of predators that prey on herds, etc, etc, etc. Oh, and you don't need to kill anything.

      This isn't becoming "detached" from our food, this is altering the source of our food so we don't need to become detached. If you want "back to nature" then go out and live in the savannahs of Africa and live as a hunter gatherer, because by your definition farming and animal domestication are all "becoming detached" from our food.

      And I HAVE killed my own meat. Doesn't phase me. Not everyone has the same aversion to sitting on the top of the food chain that you have.

      --
      If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
    4. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      I'd assume that artificial meat would allay some of the concerns of many vegetarians who are such because of humanitarian reasons. Personally, I like meat. A lot. Considering we've basically created animals soley for the purpose of being cattle, it's hard to be that concerned.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    5. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by G27+Radio · · Score: 2

      ...no more need to graze cattle on large tracts of land...

      It makes me wonder, if people stop eating meat, what will happen to all those cattle? Should we just set them all free? Keep them as pets? Set up massive zoos for them?

      Really now, I think if the vegans have their way the cattle population will be decimated to the point of near extinction. How cruel.

    6. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by Dudio · · Score: 1

      Nah. We still need them for leather. This way we can go back to the noble tradition of killing animals solely for their hides.

    7. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by andrewski · · Score: 1

      This lab meat had better be tasty, or I won't give up the 'real deal' anytime soon. I don't even eat McDonald's 'meat' products because they aren't really meat at all, and they taste nasty. Then again, most people are exposed heavily to McDonald's as a child and not moose, elk, antelope, deer, ostrich, alligator, wild waterfoul and upland game as a child. Maybe I'm spoiled, but maybe processed (and often adulterated) meat is just plain fucking nasty.

      Enjoy your tank burger, future boy. I'll be hand-loading until they pry my hunting rifle from my cold dead hands.

    8. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by 1101z · · Score: 1

      That has always been my argument to people who say that it is wrong or mean to kill animals to eat. The fact is that people created cows/pigs/chickens. Those animals did not exist before people bred them into the things that we call cows/pigs/chickens.

      Growing the meat alone is just another step forward.

      --
      One day people will learn the folly of Winbloze, Linux Rules!
    9. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by nostriluu · · Score: 1

      I am a vegetarian, but not a ranter (I think). The reason I became a vegetarian is I think people eat too much meat, and meat production is not particular environmentally sound or efficient, as well as being thoughtlessly unconcious of other creatures with an awareness of their surroundings.

      I quit eating meant for basically the reason I quit smoking. When it comes down to it, and no offense to the farmers and others who I know care about their product, taken as a whole it is an industry that doesn't care about anything but making money, and if they can have people eating meat (and cheese) three times a day they will, no matter how non-sensible or unneccesary it is.

      I believe it when people say the largely unregulated factory farms with tens of thousands of animals in them are unsafe, that they are a terrible use of our resources (water, land, and generated waste) and and that vegetarian diets are healther than those that include meat (especially so much meat). I also believe that we are very adaptable creatures and that I am able to make conscious choices. There is plenty of choice in food, lots of stuff that tastes great and is healthy and not meat (or dairy), yet so many people react in very stereotypical ways when one suggests that removing beef, chicken and cheese (90% of the non-vegetarian diet) is a thing to do.

      These are facts too.

      I am personally for vat grown meat, because it might resolve some of the above issues, though I do have mighty concerns about the experimental nature of this challenge.

    10. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by Lonnold · · Score: 1

      Um, what cattle are you talking about? You do realize they don't exactly live a full life-span, right? The last of them will be sent to the slaughterhouse, just all like their forebears. It is their sole reason for being.

      The cattle population is decimated all the time. Its called the roundup. Its just that breeding of new cattle would probably be curtailed.

    11. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      When it comes down to it, and no offense to the farmers and others who I know care about their product, taken as a whole it is an industry that doesn't care about anything but making money

      wtf? Where do you work? Is there any other kind of industry? Isn't that the purpose of industry?

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    12. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by ErikZ · · Score: 2


      Oh, the vast majority of them will just be killed off. Humans and their livestock have lived in a symbotic relationship for thousands of years.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    13. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vegetarians don't work, they protest when they have the energy that is.

    14. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      It makes me wonder, if people stop eating meat, what will happen to all those cattle? Should we just set them all free? Keep them as pets? Set up massive zoos for them?

      You don't really think people are gonna stop raising cattle just because we've got vat-grown beef, do you? Realistically? Maybe it'll be cheaper someday to eat the vat-grown stuff. Maybe it'll be more plentiful, this vat-grown stuff. Maybe the meat that we eat now every day will become a delicassy? (sp?)

      Really now, I think if the vegans have their way the cattle population will be decimated to the point of near extinction. How cruel.

      A clear example of a poorly-thought philosophy. Heh. These animals have been domesticated SO LONG that they couldn't live wild anymore. Maybe they could learn again, but you can't just set them free. They'd all be hunted down and slaughtered within days/weeks. You're absolutely correct, if the vegans have their way there won't be any of these animals left. So, by saving their lives by preventing us from killing them and eating them (their purpose in life), we should stop killing them and let nature wipe out the whole lot of them?

      Besides, after we have vat-grown meat it will finally be possible to cram every open space and open range with living, breathing, PEOPLE. The overpopulation nightmares about death and destruction aren't half as scary as filling up all the available space with people.

      I think that when the food riots start, the vegans will be the first to turn on fellow men. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    15. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by nostriluu · · Score: 1

      wtf? Where do you work? Is there any other kind of industry? Isn't that the purpose of industry?

      I didn't say they anyone was doing anything unusual. We can view things outside of the "purpose of industry." In fact we can even question and change what industries do, to our advantage. You didn't know this? Wow.

    16. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      I didn't say they anyone was doing anything unusual. We can view things outside of the "purpose of industry." In fact we can even question and change what industries do, to our advantage. You didn't know this? Wow.

      Careful dude, you "assumed" something. You assumed I didn't know this. :)

      You presented the view that industry was somehow performing something that was somehow "bad" by trying to survive. Making money == survival, ! making money != survival. This is the problem of industry. It's why industry will always do whatever is needed to survive, and people will always suffer. There's no solution. It's division by zero: undefined.

      Now, I'm all for trying to help businesses be more ethical. The problem really happens when you attempt to define "ethical". For example, if the meat-producers of the world stopped producing meat entirely because they felt it was unethical and people starved because of this, then did they do the "right" thing? Note that I'm not saying that stopping meat production would cause starvation, I don't know the answer to that.

      Many problems occur when one group tries to enforce their own sense of "ethics" or "morals". Take the FSF as a prime example. The Free Software community is starkly divided, but for what reason? Because one group of people tried to impose their "ethics" and "morals" upon the other, and the other said "not me, buddy."

      So, after we all agree what "ethics" are, and what will be henceforth considered "ethics", then we can force industry to obey. Until then, we're being no more ethical than they are by forcing them to do something that might be contrary to their own beliefs.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    17. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by nostriluu · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't suggest anyone do anything. I simply stated that I "went vegetarian" for my own personal reasons that have to do with believing large scale meat-centered production and consumption may be a bad thing, and that we have more choice than many people choose to live out.

      I also believe there are no absolute truths and no definitive ethics behavior, most truths and facts exist in a vacuum, and that the reality we end up living in is a result of weighing possibilities and coming up with something workable (well, sometimes).

      To summarize, it would make me happy if people would consider eating less meat instead of just saying "I like the taste of meat nyah nyah" (most of what we eat comes from an outside suggestion anyway, an other point being there is more variety than the few things that keep people tied to a meat-centred diet). I don't think I'm much of a facist because of that and I certainly don't deserve a "careful, dude."

    18. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      that we have more choice than many people choose to live out.

      I can agree with this. Freedom of choice, in my opinion, is our most important freedom, mostly because it implies the rest. :)

      To summarize, it would make me happy if people would consider eating less meat instead of just saying "I like the taste of meat nyah nyah" (most of what we eat comes from an outside suggestion anyway, an other point being there is more variety than the few things that keep people tied to a meat-centred diet). I don't think I'm much of a facist because of that and I certainly don't deserve a "careful, dude."

      I agree that choosing to eat something solely because I like it is probably a bad idea. Besides personal morality choices (I chose to eat meat myself :) ), there's also a personal danger level (it *is* possible to cook and eat chicken in a healthy fashion, I do it all the time).

      There *is* more variety, and I never pass up a dish just because it says "I'm good for vegetarians." If the dish is a well-balanced meal, or fits nicely into such, then I will eat it regardless of its composition.

      So, if you discover a lump of shit that has the amount of protein my body needs (as well as other nutrients), I might choose not to eat it solely for taste reasons, but in a pinch I'd eat it regardless.

      The "careful, dude" was because assumptions can be dangerous, and when I see someone doing something potentially dangerous, it warrants a "careful, dude". :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    19. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      > ... yet so many people react in very stereotypical ways when one suggests that removing beef, chicken and cheese (90% of the non-vegetarian diet) is a thing to do.

      Er, I don't think anyone eats 90% meat/cheese -- well, not for long, anyways ("what's that funny pain in my chest?"). :)

      Personally, I think you can have a very healthy diet that includes *some* meat/etc. Just keep everything in moderation. I think there's little difference between that and *no* meat, health-wise. Vegitarianism could even be worse, if you don't do it right. Meat is a convenient source of some good stuff, and you have to really know what you're doing (or live in a well-evolved, largely-vegetarian culter, e.g. India) to get enough non-meat sources of these components.

      The real problem that a lot of Americans have is just too many calories overall -- well, too much of *everything*, actually. But an under-appreciated danger is that of having too carbohydrates. They translate into the same bad (and some good) fats in your body as meat will give you, if you don't exercise it off promptly. And that's where some misguided vegetarians could go wrong, I think. I mean, if someone goes to McDonald's and just gets french fries and a soda, and thinks they're being healthy because they're avoiding meat, they're sadly mistaken!

      This relates somewhat to a recent Scientific American article , about how the absolute "no fat" emphasis has been misguided. Here's a zoom-up on what the authors feel is a better design for the Food Pyramid.

      Personally, I lost nearly 20lbs (low 170's --> mid 150's) about 1.5 yrs ago, over a period of 6 months. This wasn't by doing anything drastic with my diet, I just stopped eating so *damn* much! Probably due to being laid off from my company, where we had free dinners every night, and where I went out to lunch with buddies every day. Now if I could just get out of my computer chair and *exercise*...

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    20. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got it.

      We shouldn't eat meat because we shouldn't kill animals.

      We shouldn't eat lab-grown meat because we SHOULD kill animals.

      Did it ever occur to you that you're a raving fucking lunatic?

    21. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by spickus · · Score: 1

      Wanna bet they try and take your dies and press if they ever perfect this process?

      --
      Indecision is the key to flexibility.
    22. Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick by chrysaetos · · Score: 1

      This argument is dumb. It's not like lab-grown meat will be perfected to everyone's taste overnight, nor is it realistic to expect everyone to turn vegan overnight. As the demand for real meat decreases, farmers would keep less and less cows. There isn't going to be a whole crapload of cows needing to go someplace all of a sudden, it'll be a slow dropoff if anything.

  128. Re:FOX : "Lab slab cures non-existant global warmi by mskfisher · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    SUVs are safer in (multiple-vehicle) collisions, but not in braking or handling... and their single-vehicle accidents are deadlier than automobiles, IIRC.

    This is a common misconception...

    I heard the author of High and Mighty, Keith Bradsher, interviewed by Michael Medved. I had originally thought he simply set out to demonize SUVs by any method possible, so I started listening skeptically - but I was convinced of his argument by the end of his interview (though Medved wasn't). He didn't come across as a boo-hoo uses-too-much-gas-so-it's-hurting-mudder-erf kind of guy - he made his points rather well, without the appeals to emotion I [almost] expected.

    His main point was that he wanted people to be fully aware of the risks involved with SUVs... not to eliminate SUVs altogether. He gave explicit license to people that need them for off-roading, or carrying large loads.

    He was more of an advocate for defensive-driving safety - he owned a "maneuverable" Audi with excellent braking and handling, and that was his general approach to car safety.

    Overall... he raised some points that I don't usually hear considered when people want to buy an SUV.

    --
    0x0D 0x0A
  129. FARK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus christ, this is the second time in 2 weeks that slashdot has covered something a day or two after fark...

  130. Re:FOX : "Lab slab cures non-existant global warmi by blitziod · · Score: 1

    I have read that more animals are killed per calorie during modern farming for grains than from eating cows. A large number of cute and fuzzy bunnies, field mice, etc are killed by farming practices in somewhat savage ways.

    --
    The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
  131. You are what you eat.... er.... by ThulsaDoom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "One researcher recalls a student, a vegan, who asked if she could just biopsy herself, grow up a steak and eat it. If you want to eat truly victimless meat, perhaps it is time to put yourself on the menu"

  132. MacDonalds by kaeli69 · · Score: 1

    Well, whatever it is, it HAS to be preferable to whatever is in a MacDonald's "burger". I don't think I want to know what parts of the cow are in there. Lips and assholes? Oh, wait, that's hotdogs.

    --
    .sig abducted by Raelians
  133. some plants rely on being eaten by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    it's not the argument anyway.

    Vegetarian / Vegan is irrational. It denies the reality that we, as humans, have evolved as meat eaters. There is no way to argue against that and it's stupid to even try.

    The consumption of meat has given us big brains. With those big brains we have been able to find ways to survive which reduce the need to torture and kill other animals.

    Any other route for life celebrates barbarism.

    We can, and will, break free of the killing and live in the company of, not as the enemies of, our fellow creatures.

    If you disagree then you are in the company of the Rawandan butchers or Pol Pot where the life of others is valueless and can be traded for power.

    I've been vegan for 12 years. Many, many people have attacked me verbally [and physically] and yet not one convincing argument as to why I should pull the trigger has been suggested. Feel free to try and be the first.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:some plants rely on being eaten by LudditeMind · · Score: 1

      Vegetarian / Vegan is irrational. It denies the reality that we, as humans, have evolved as meat eaters. There is no way to argue against that and it's stupid to even try.

      Yeah, Useless to try.. except for the millions of people out there that do it every day.

      The consumption of meat has given us big brains. With those big brains we have been able to find ways to survive which reduce the need to torture and kill other animals.

      You know for a fact that eating meat is what gave us big brains? Amazing, I look forward to reading about it in the scientific journals. Granted there has been some hypothesising that learning to cook out food lead to an increased intelligence, but it's just one guys theory.

      Oh.. now I read the rest of your comment, I was just going to go point for point until I started agreeing with you. I was ready for a good old yelling match too.

    2. Re:some plants rely on being eaten by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      If you disagree then you are in the company of the Rawandan butchers or Pol Pot where the life of others is valueless and can be traded for power.

      Please let the tyranny continue by disallowing any viewpoint that disagrees with your own. Please, please, I want to be controlled by guilt!

      Seriously, I agreed with much of what you said until I read that one sentence that condemns all who disagree with you. Now I disagree with you. :)

      Note that I LOVE steak. I've got both a grill and a smoker so that I can eat my meat any of a variety of ways. I keep a handy stack of mesquite on hand for some good-ass cooking.

      Barbaric? Possibly. Maybe I just try to accept my place in the foodchain? Some bigger fish will come along and eat me, no doubt. In the meantime, though, WOO, PAR - TY!

      Is killing really so wrong? Is it such a bad thing? I don't know. The rules change from situation to situation so fast it's unbelievable. Take the stereotypical pacifist stance, "I would not raise my hand to strike you even if it meant my death." Therefore he will not try to prevent the killing that he abhors so much. How about, "I would not eat meat even if it meant that I starved to death." You still haven't found a cure for death, have you?

      That's the bottom line, isn't it? You're not trying to cure killing, you're trying to cure death, and failing every day in numbers too frightening to bear. Good luck to you, but you'll have to kill me, or wait for me to die. Your solution to death must also depend on death, and that can't be avoided.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  134. Spam..meat in a can by AgentGray · · Score: 1

    I thought Spam was processed meat?

    Why doesn't NASA just send them processed meat in a can. Heck, we just got a ham from one of our vendors this last Christmas...it's good till 2006!

    Of course, maybe they should think about sending man there first instead of wasting funding on what they'll eat there.

    From what I understand there's no plan to go there in the very near future. ...your first Mars mission has been brought to you by McDonalds...Coke, and the makers of Coke products...Tang, "It's Tangtastic!"...and by Microsoft, "Where do you *really* want to go today?"

    --
    "Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
  135. Vegeterians appeal to science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not research this stuff for vegans!, it tastes shit.

    If you want good veggie burgers call my mom for a recipe. yummy! (NB: I am a vegan)

  136. Intriguing! by fhic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My knee-jerk reaction is to say "ewwww! I would never eat that!" Then I started to think it through.

    We USians have not had to deal with outbreaks of BSE/CJD yet. Sooner or later it will probably happen. When it does, the dynamics of food consumption will change.

    In my area, you can buy prime cuts of beef for approximately US$10/lb (that's $22/kg for our non-USian friends.) The market fluctuates considerably, based on seasons, market decisions, and store policies. The price is held fairly low because there is an excess of product.

    But all the meat I buy comes from three or four sources, all mass commercial herds and corporate processors. Say half that source becomes unavailable, either because it has to be quarantined, or because it is actually infected and must be destroyed.

    All of a sudden, there's no longer an excess of product. Beef becomes a commodity, and prices soar. Instead of $10/lb, it's $100/lb, if you can get it.

    And imagine the hysteria and suspicion. We Americans are pretty good at that, especially after being whipped into a frenzy by the talking heads on the six o'clock news.

    If a clean, lab-grown alternative product that seems vaguely the same is available, it will fly off the grocery store shelves.

  137. not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food/8F141e/8F141E0c.h tm

    http://askwaltstollmd.com/archives/flatulence/96 95 6.html

    "Bacteria in the large intestine produce the accumulation of gas that causes flatulence. When these bugs consume certain types of carbohydrates, called oligosaccharides, they produce a mix of gases that includes methane and certain sulphur-containing gases."

    Its due to undigestible parts of the bean. Blah blah blah. It isn't bacteria.

    1. Re:not true by blingitybling · · Score: 1

      Eeegads! The source of global warming...flatulence and beans!

  138. Gag the PETA people, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, you miss the humor in that statement and the irony in yours.

    His statement was funny because it made fun of the zealotry that surrounds PETA. Not the good kind of zealotry, but the kind that begs for a good laughing-at. The kind of zealotry that skews an otherwise believable statistic so out of proportion so as to ruin not only the reputation of the study it came from, but also the reputation of those that performed the study. For example: "It has been proven in laboratory tests that the t-bone steak you ate for dinner feels 27% more pain from your chewing it than when it had a large rod driven through its head at the meat processing plant." I wouldn't be surprised if some crazy PETA fool used this quote once.

    The irony I spoke of stems from the words, "people will read your post, and begin to realize the level of intelligence of those who fail to comprehend the ethics regarding the treatment of sentient beings. Subsequently they will begin to educate themselves." Wow. Where to begin, where to begin...

    1) Animals are not sentient. They are alive. They have instincts. They are not sentient. Learn the differences between these things.

    2) You're showing no more or less intelligence than he is. Don't complain if you're part of the problem.

    3) Slashdot has seen and proven many times that even when in need, people rarely educate themselves on anything. Even less common is a person who educates himself on "morals" or "ethics," since these things largely depend on your attitude.

    Go eat a bowl of Vegetarian STFU and leave us normal people alone.

    1. Re:Gag the PETA people, please. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if some crazy PETA fool used this quote once.

      Interesting: You make up a quote, and then go so far as to call a PETA member a "fool" for believing a quote that you just made up. Fascinating. Do you have imaginary conflicts with everyone that you know?

      In any case PETA is a very large group. Are their kooks in it? Absolutely! Are there people who've made statements in the heat of a debating moment that they've wished they could take back? Absolutely. Are there people with a vested interest in animal cruelty who take PETA quotes grossly out of content and paraphrase them forever? Absolutely. Of course all anti-PETA people must basically be Jeffery Dahmers: He ate meat, so therefore he represents everything that the non-PETA society advocates. YOU DAMN CANNIBAL SICKO!

      They are not sentient. Learn the differences between these things.

      This is what is called "moralizing": In this case by describing a vast chasm of difference between humans and "lower" beings. We have "sentience", whereas other animals are merely alive. Of course this is completely a subjective measure by someone use to treating every human behaviour as consciousness, and every animal (ignoring that we're "just" a highly evolved monkey, basically) behaviour as "instinct". If your baby smiles at you it's a magical consciousness, but when a baby kitten plays with a ball it's nothing more than training for the hunt further in life. Sorry but I am of the belief that all life is amazing and truly is a miracle, and I can see complexity in every life from an ant to a walrus.

    2. Re:Gag the PETA people, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ignoring that we're "just" a highly evolved monkey, basically

      We're no more "highly" evolved than any other simian. Differently evolved (as each creature is to one another) sure, but "highly evolved"? What does that even mean?

    3. Re:Gag the PETA people, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go eat a bowl of Vegetarian STFU and leave us normal people alone.

      Heh. This is just begging to be put in somebody's .sig file.

    4. Re:Gag the PETA people, please. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure who you're picking a battle with here, however indeed it was a drop-in replacement for "evolved along with from a common point", with a point that our evolution has been more successful from a "master of the planet" perspective.

    5. Re:Gag the PETA people, please. by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      Sorry but I am of the belief that all life is amazing and truly is a miracle, and I can see complexity in every life from an ant to a walrus.

      Not only do I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, but I would also eat every life from an ant to a walrus, if I was hungry enough.

      It doesn't have to make sense. If you assume your actions must make sense, you could be making an "ass" out of "ume". If you assume the world makes sense somehow, maybe you should read the previous sentence.

      Stop the senseless stuff! I can't handle it anymore! I'm gonna have a nervous breakdown because the world doesn't make sense to my narrow imagination, limited experience, and generally pathetic brain (I'm talking about *all* of you, and me too)!

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    6. Re:Gag the PETA people, please. by shaitand · · Score: 2

      I agree ALMOST completely. Execept on one point, WE are animals, if you consider the human animal sentient then animals are sentient. Remember we are nothing more than another animal that happens to be somewhat intelligent and manually capable.

    7. Re:Gag the PETA people, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any case PETA is a very large group. Are their kooks in it? Absolutely!

      It's a requirement.
    8. Re:Gag the PETA people, please. by null-sRc · · Score: 1

      sentience is synonymous to awareness...

      1) do you seriously belive animals do not have awareness...?

      2) i'm not complaining about myself.. maybe you should.

      3) .. attitude is based on experience... including awareness, which is proof of our sentience.

      perhaps he made fun of the zealous nature of some peta members... yet, to some, it may seem that he was mocking those with the belief that animals are capable of perceiving pain.

      --
      -judging another only defines yourself
  139. Fresh from the axlotl tank... by TastySiliconWafers · · Score: 1

    It's time for a tasty meal of roast slig meat.

    1. Re:Fresh from the axlotl tank... by HermanZA · · Score: 1

      Urrrk, in Chapterhouse Dune, it is said that the tanks were actually made from donated female parts. So, Jeffrey Damer here we come...

  140. Chicken bricks! by toybuilder · · Score: 2

    I've been a big believer of the Chicken Brick concept... You go into the market and pick up a brick of artificial chicken meat prepackaged in a plastic container. (Think Tofu boxes.)

    I don't think it's gross. Actually, since it won't be genetically engineered, but rather comes from real chicken, the meat should be fairly safe as long as the growth-fluid supply is clean and disease free. If it can be done in a sterile production line, hell, it'll make for safe chicken.

    And, with chicken being in standard sized bricks, it'll be easier to transport from the manufacturing floor to the market shelf...

  141. Re:Quorn is GOOOOOOOOD stuff! (OT!!!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently it's a distant (very, very, very distant) relative of mushrooms. So distant, in fact, that people are lobbying to get that removed from the boxes since they think it's misleading.

    It's great stuff though! My girlfriend is vegetarian and loves the stuff, and I buy it too.

  142. Human meat? by Wolfier · · Score: 2

    Restaurant: what do you want sir?

    Me: Myself, medium rare please

  143. This is so NASA by Animats · · Score: 2
    It's so NASA. They funded some people, got a minor result, and issued a press release which blithers about how it's going to be a big deal.

    There's a whole "synthetic meat" industry already, based on mostly on soybeans. The stuff is awful (the main market is prisons), but available.

    1. Re:This is so NASA by peterpi · · Score: 1
      Yum Yum

      Soya meat is getting better; I know plenty of carnis who buy these over real meat.

  144. Re:Cultured Meat would *not* be Animal-Friendly. by BFaucet · · Score: 1

    You are forgetting that we were the ones who made these animals what they are today. We are also the ones who keep their population up. I think it's better to not be born than to be born, be separated fom your mother right after birth, be plugged with hormones that make you too big for your legs, live a life of pain, then be killed (in many cases extremely painfully.)

    In fact I think the merciful thing to do would be to stop eating meat and kill all of the domesticated animals in a painless manner.

    --
    -Derick
  145. I think this is a good idea by vudufixit · · Score: 2


    Perhaps down the road, we could use this technology to supply all meat for human being on Earth.
    It would allow us to grow more grain for people, perhaps free up land that was used for cattle grains, feedlots or ranges.
    Perhaps it would also help curtail bovine methane emissions.

  146. Re:Would this be a good way to grow other body par by spike+hay · · Score: 2


    What they are doing is just growing muscle tissue. Could this be applied to other types of tissue, skin for example?


    Yeah. They've been experimenting with growning human skin in labs for burn victims for a while now. Works fairly well. Also, they've succeeded in the first lab grown organ, a bladder.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  147. Is it vegan? by peterpi · · Score: 2

    I've read the article, but didn't pick up any information about what is 'fed' to the growing meat. Is it merely other animal products?

  148. Re:It might be kosher (two maybes, an if and a but by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

    But another requirement for kosher meat is that no more than three days (72 hours?) pass from the time the animal is slaughtered till the meat is eaten. So if you consider your definition based on time from when your "seed animal" is slaughtered, you still wind up with non-kosher meat because too much time has passed.

    Just a bit of trivia I remember from a restaurant purchasing class in a prior life.

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  149. Fat by peterpi · · Score: 2

    I wonder if artificial meat will be just as heart-stoppingly unhealthy at the real stuff.

  150. LOL by geek · · Score: 2

    Sorry pal but Cows and Pigs aren't domesticated, neither are Fish.

    I grew up in ranch country I know what I'm talking about. You can't domesticate something as dumb as a Cow, all the do is walk around and eat grass, literally. Animals don't need shelter, they don't need us.

    That was a funny post tho.

  151. Reminds Me of Ralph Wiggum... by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

    "When I grow up, I"m going to Bovine University!!"

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  152. My Favorite Quote by -=Zak=- · · Score: 1
    One researcher recalls a student, a vegan, who asked if she could just biopsy herself, grow up a steak and eat it. If you want to eat truly victimless meat, perhaps it is time to put yourself on the menu.

    This is either really freaking cool or really freaking disturbing. I haven't decided which yet.

    -Zak
    1. Re:My Favorite Quote by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      Who says it can't be both? I think it's both. I'd do it... except that I'm not sedentary enough and haven't had enough massages or fancy feed. So I expect I'd be tough and gamy :)

      There's a Slashdot poll for you:

      If you were used as steak, what would you be?

      • Tough and gamey- I'm too lean!
      • I eat too many hormones and twinkies
      • I eat fine granola and get lots of massages- I belong in a Kobe steakhouse!
      • CowboyNeal, them's good eatin'

      One day, this may not be a joke :D
  153. An interesting thought by yndrd · · Score: 2

    That's a very interesting idea I never thought of. It leads me to another:

    If you decided you wanted to transition to a more animal-friendly society, you'd have to have some horrendous "readjustment" period where we killed off all the old animals (or reduced them to their minimum useful numbers) and we'd then just maintain that smaller population.

    In other words, killing many animals upfront to save hypothetical animals down the road.

    That's an interesting choice to make!

  154. Re:Great, the Record industry get you again (NOT) by Skavookie · · Score: 1

    First of all, this isn't genetic engineering. This is simply the growing of muscle tissue in a lab.

    Also, it might be amusing if cows become an exotic species that is only seen in zoos. Even if they don't live on in zoos they'll live on in India.

  155. Re:Great, the Record industry get you again (NOT) by Skavookie · · Score: 1

    Oh that's wonderful, it picked up an old subject line.

  156. Question from a newbie vegetarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've only been a vegetarian for a few months, so I am still exploring the world of meat substitutes. Do you know of any good ham substitutes? I've found substitutes for almost every other meat I used to like, but the one thing I haven't found is a substitute for the wonderful hams I used to eat around Thanksgiving and the winter holidays.

    1. Re:Question from a newbie vegetarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pork or bacon works pretty good as a ham substitute

  157. mmmmmmm... by mcgroarty · · Score: 2
    Mmmmmm. Expanses of muscle tissue laid open, as far as the eye can see.

    Wait a minute...!

    SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF AKIRA!!!

  158. This sounds so appetizing.... by abelaye · · Score: 1

    ...in a nightmarish, Frankenstein kinda way.

    Think I'll stick to my McDonald's cheeseburgers.
    -- anthony

  159. Vegetarian nonsense by Loundry · · Score: 2

    My first reaction is: why? Why not just be a vegetarian?

    Becuase you'll miss out on pork chops, prime rib, butter, clarified butter, foie gras, duck, cream, bacon, proscuitto, and all sorts of other things that are delicious.

    Hell, millions of Indians are, and they seem to be doing okay, building supercomputers and hand-held computing devices like gangbusters.

    They're also missing out on a good deal of cuisine. "They seem to be doing okay" could hardly be more nebulous.

    We need less saturated fat, not an uberexpensive supply of it.

    Saturated fat isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Furthermore, carbohydrates (permitted in the allegedly-healthy vegetarian lifestyle) are much worse than people make them out to be.

    My second reaction is that astronauts should be eating no meat, anyway.

    Of course you have that reaction! You probably believe that everyone should be vegetarians, much like Christians believe that everyone should be Christians. A friend on mine attended a vegetarian rally, and he overheard a vegetarian say in his malice-laden voice, "Things would be better if all the meat-eaters just died!"

    Those of you who remember how the diaper smell went from interestingly aromatic to puke-inducing as soon as the baby started to eat meat will want your space station comrades to stick with the rice and lentils and a side of naan.

    I've never known any feces from any baby that smelled "interestingly aromatic," though I have gotten used to the smell of my 2-year-old's poop. Vegetarians, like Christians, often distort or invent facts (such as, "rabbits eat a lot of carrots") to support their philisophical beliefs. I'm reminded of the phrase, "You use facts like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not for illumination."

    I really like Southern Indian cooking, though. Food doesn't have to have meat to be yummy.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  160. Parking Lot Is Full.... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    ... Of course any topic mentioning autocannibalism is going to get a PLIF link..

    Here's a few others you can cut & paste:
    http://www.plif.com/archive/wc027.gif
    htt p://www.plif.com/archive/wc025.gif

    What sick twisted beauty comes from the great white north..

  161. tastes great! by EvilStein · · Score: 2

    Well, I'm pretty sure anything that comes out of a meat-lab would taste better than the crap I got at Arby's last time I ate there. :P

    Unless, of course, they've been making lab-grown meats the whole time, and that's why Arby's is so cheap. :)

  162. ooo matrix by nege · · Score: 2

    Even though I know this steak is not real, the matrix tells my brain that it is juicy and good.

    Or something like that ;)

  163. But if the grown meat ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 2
    is not considered to be slaughtered, then the 72 hours limit wouldn't apply.

    Or, you'd be able to grow for two days and eat it on the third.

    1. Re:But if the grown meat ... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      But if it hasn't been slaughtered, and slaughtered properly, then it isn't kosher. Catch-22.

      This is why I can't figure out why anyone bothers with religious nonsense like this. What, exactly, is the benefit derived from having to go through a monumental debate over some totally arbitrary rules every time you want to add anything to your diet?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    2. Re:But if the grown meat ... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      What, exactly, is the benefit derived from having to go through a monumental debate over some totally arbitrary rules every time you want to add anything to your diet?

      That's called "rationalization" and allows a religionist to do anything they want. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    3. Re:But if the grown meat ... by operagost · · Score: 1
      It made sense back when it was difficult to preserve food.

      Regardless, Christians are freed of the tyranny of the Law. I like to follow other "arbitrary rules" that you'd probably hate too.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  164. I was vegetarian once... by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 2
    I was vegetarian for a year or so, and I wish I could go back to it. I ended up developing a bad intolerance to soy, and moderate problems with beans and grains. Between this, my diet suddenly lacked protein. So I had to go back to some meat in my diet.

    That said, after being vegetarian for a while, I'm a lot pickier about whatever meat I do eat, mostly fish and poultry. I tried going back to some of the thing I liked before (like sausage), but I find it rather gross in retrospect.

    That said, most of my objection to meat is that it is an unsustainable practice. Unfortunately, "organic" meat is even worse this way. I have been a supporter of lab-grown meat alternatives for a long time, for this reason.

  165. Velcro -- from the space program??!?!? by shrikel · · Score: 2
    From the article:

    But like much other space research, what happens up there could one day become commonplace down here too - just look what happened to Velcro.

    Actually, Velcro was patented in 1952 by two Swiss men, George de Mestral and his weaver friend. Nothing to do with the space program. Geez. Just because MIB says Velcro comes from outer space doesn't mean it really DOES. :)

    --
    Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  166. and the new winner of the darwin award is by eadint · · Score: 1

    If not, there might still be another way. One researcher recalls a student, a vegan, who asked if she could just biopsy herself, grow up a steak and eat it. If you want to eat truly victimless meat, perhaps it is time to put yourself on the menu.

    why are these people allowed to breed. maybe thats why harry harrison wrote soilent green. if youve noticed carnivors tend to only eat herbivores. so i guess we should only make soilent green out of vegans. ha i knew there was a use for those people.

  167. Re:Cultured Meat would *not* be Animal-Friendly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great idea. How about this. Instead of having abortions, we just take the babies and lock them in a small cage for a few years, then eat them. They would die anyway, so we'd be doing them a big favor. I'm sure if all these animals could talk they'd really thank a bunch of fat unhealthy slobs for saving them.

  168. A bit OT Re:Expensive pant load! by ahoehn · · Score: 1

    I understand your aversion to vegetarian food; I grew up vegetarian and on the rare occasions that I taste meat, I can't stand it. Environmental conditioning and whatnot.

    The interesting thing is that I just recently learned from personal experience that it's very possible to change your preferences. For the last four months I've been working in a hospital in Belize. I somehow assumed that being so close to Mexico Belize would have some wonderful mexican/spanish food. I was deeply dissapointed, when I first got there, I would describe Belize's culinary heratige as Crap. For the last four months I have been fantisizeing about the foods I would eat when I came home for Christmas. When I actually got home a few weeks ago and went out to eat the things I'd been craving all along, I was deeply dissapointed. The things I had loved so much before are nearly impallateible now. I find myself longing for the simple diet of rice, beans, and vegetables I was eating in Belize.

    The moral is that if you really do feel bad about causing animal suffering by eating meat, you can likely learn to enjoy a vegetarian diet. Changing my tastes took around 3 months in my case, though I'd imagine it varies from person to person.

    Perchance though if this meat growing works it will become a moot point, and I can learn to enjoy steak.

    --
    Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
  169. Danger: Barking Trolls by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

    I have a few very good friends who are or were dairy farmers and/or veal farmers. I've been on their farms, I've WORKED on their farms. Thank you for being insulting, but I *do* think I have a little better frame of reference than you assumed.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  170. Re:Quorn is GOOOOOOOOD stuff! (OT!!!) by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    no mushroooooms is cool, I grow my own mushrooms and have no complaints about mushroom being put on the box.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  171. Re:FOX : "Lab slab cures non-existant global warmi by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

    yeah, but what do the cows eat?
    that same grain.
    So you get the bunnies and mice killed for the farming, and the cows killed for the eating.

    additionall, livestock eats more grain than humans do.

    --
    The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
  172. economy by glsunder · · Score: 1

    Think of all the unemployed cows.

  173. The soul of a steak or a clone... by HermanZA · · Score: 1

    Well, now, will a lab grown steak have a soul or part of a soul? If it has even just a tiny bit of soul, then the religious fanatics will still have a problem with eating it. Animals do not have a soul? Go read your Greek history... Does a cloned human baby have a soul? If so, where did it come from? If not, can the US government outlaw cloning and hunt clones down and kill them without remorse? Are they going to make a tiny electric chair to execute clone babies? Will a Catholic Priest commit a crime if he rapes a soulless clone altar boy?

  174. sponsored by mcdonalds? by chez69 · · Score: 1

    Geez, the meat at Mc Donalds already tastes like it was grown in a high school chemistry lab.

    --
    PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
  175. Re:A bit OT Re:Expensive pant load! by robson · · Score: 2
    I understand your aversion to vegetarian food; I grew up vegetarian and on the rare occasions that I taste meat, I can't stand it. Environmental conditioning and whatnot.
    (snip)
    The moral is that if you really do feel bad about causing animal suffering by eating meat, you can likely learn to enjoy a vegetarian diet. Changing my tastes took around 3 months in my case, though I'd imagine it varies from person to person.

    I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. I stopped eating red meat about 6 years ago without much difficulty.

    My history teacher way back in high school was a Quaker, and while not vegetarian, he went out of his way to get his food only from farms that he'd visited. That way he could guarantee they were cruelty-free. I think I'd be more apt to go this route.

    (I know, "cruelty" is a debatable term in this discussion, but I don't personally consider the killing of animals for consumption by other animals to be cruel. I do consider imposing inhumane conditions on animals, and allowing them to suffer, to be cruel.)
  176. Uhm.... by stevezero · · Score: 2, Funny

    lab grown tube steak?

  177. WTF is the... by talks_to_birds · · Score: 2
    ...fascination with eating meat, anyway?

    With current nutritional knowledge, meat is simply irrelevant for a health diet; in fact, the current increasing levels of obesity in American society show that eating meat is contributory to very poor health.

    Leave the goddam animals alone, whether they're of the real _or_ of the test tube variety.

    t_t_b

    --
    I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
  178. Re:As a vegetarian by Bastian · · Score: 2

    I would like to say that this article just halved the chances that I ever eat meat again in my life.

    yuck

  179. Too much trouble! by jbayes · · Score: 1
    One researcher recalls a student, a vegan, who asked if she could just biopsy herself, grow up a steak and eat it.

    If she really wants to be able to eat herself, there are easier ways. I recommend some stretching exercises to start...

    --

    "It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton

  180. Re:breezy != stinky by Bastian · · Score: 2

    Lentils will help make you fart more, and that will cause problems with maintaining breathable air on a long space mission, but the smell thing won't be as much of a problem since lentils don't make your farts stinky. A burger is much worse for doing that.

  181. Meat is Murder! by Trent_Alkaline · · Score: 1

    and murder tastes good...

  182. Quality vs. Humanitarianism? Bob the Angry Flower! by og_sh0x · · Score: 1

    I think Bob the Angry Flower has an even better solution to The Vegetarian's Dilemma

  183. A new, improved by titaniam · · Score: 1

    type of spam. I sure hope I don't start getting unsolicited emails like "INCREASE YOUR LIBIDO with processed meat", "LOSE WEIGHT with artificial meat", OR "REFINANCE YOUR HOME to invest in fantastic meat invention". I just can't handle spam about spam. Please.

  184. possibilities by jafac · · Score: 2

    I suppose that texture and other qualities would not be exactly the same as real meat - and that in time, techniques will be perfected to reproduce those qualities, but they will not be generally used because they'll increase the cost of the meat - so you and I poor people will be eating the schlock lab-grown stuff, and the uber-rich will be eating either high-quality lab stuff, or the real deal.

    I'm also guessing that since it will inevitably become a mass-production process, that it will "become" unprofitable to actually raise real cows - at least on a large scale, (again, only for the uber-wealthy) - so that real, actual cows will probably become extinct, or the gene pool will become restricted. Someday, there may very well be NO cows, and even no people who remember what a real cow tastes like. Sort of reminds one of that discussion in the Matrix.

    As far as reducing "cruelty" - I find vegetarianism EXTREMELY cruel by comparison. When you're eating green salad, some of those plants are actually still alive, still photosynthesizing, etc. THAT'S cruel. Not only that - staying fed only on vegetables, you're typically killing far more individual organisms, hundreds of beans have to die - compared to one cow, for a meat-eater. The one cow would feed you for weeks. So carnivores don't have the market cornered on cruelty, as far as I'm concerned. If a cow feels pain and suffers and knows when it's alive or dead - why can't a lentil?
    Fact is - you can't prove that any other living creature has a conscious mind - including other humans. It's Chalmers' "hard problem".

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:possibilities by akhaksho · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the one cow just magically appeared? It takes about 10 pounds of vegetable matter to create 1 pound of meat. By your own logic, carnivores are 10 times as cruel as vegetarians. Try again.

    2. Re:possibilities by jafac · · Score: 2

      see? I'm doing that grass a favor by killing and eating that big nasty mean grass-killing cow!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  185. Re:A bit OT Re:Expensive pant load! by jafac · · Score: 2

    "change your preference"?

    If you prefer to eat one thing, and then change to eathing another (for some reason, like having some wacko convince you that cows are too cute to die), that's not a preference.

    I prefer to eat meat. If it's available. That's my preference. I may, at some point, due to external factors, decide to no longer eat any meat. (most likely due to the Vegan Gestapo coming by my house and putting a gun to my head and threatening to arrest me for war crimes and being an evil human oppressing animals). But that will not ever change my "preference".

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  186. Non-human feed? by tribguru · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, farm animals eating processed (and infected) farm animals is the main method of transmission for CJD (Mad Cow disease, if you must). Could artificially-grown meats replace this source of food as genetically modified plants have done for animal feed in some cases? Would this be horribly cost-inefficient because (perhaps) the whole point of feeding animals their brethren is a cost-cutting move?

  187. Food in 2050? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Customer: You'd think they're raising the chicken from scratch

    Waiter: Actually sir, with the current scientific methods, they do in fact engineer a whole chicken sandwitch in approximately 5.2 minutes, though the original specimen is no longer needed

    Yeah... not sure if this would kill or enhance that old complaint.

  188. Then it would be from... by ashitaka · · Score: 2
    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  189. Other reasons for dietary rules by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1
    Health isn't the only reason various cultures/religions have developed dietary rules. Saw on PBS that some of the South American tribes had strict divisions of what they could and could not eat that often were entirely different from a neighboring tribe. The main reason seemed to be for tribal identification, although one must also think it may have come about for alterior reasons: division of resources might have lessened inter-tribal warfare a bit.

    Lots of dietary rules don't make much sense anymore, though. Take for example people starving in India with cows and cow shit everywhere, or how we don't eat cats (mmm...roof rabbit) in the States. I hate cats.

    1. Re:Other reasons for dietary rules by aborchers · · Score: 2

      Well, I love cats but I'll let that go because "roof rabbit" is possibly the funniest thing I've heard this week!

      That's fascinating about how dietary rules are used to deliniate tribal membership. Politics at it's finest! It would betray an interesting sophistication in so-called primitive cultures if, as you suggest, such a meta-layer of intertribal culture existed to prevent resource allocation conflicts.

      However, people are not starving in India because they are not eating the cows. They are starving because of poverty and poor food distribution. More people would starve if the poor killed the cows that give them milk products. It takes substantially more resources to raise cattle for meat than to subsist on a lacto-vegetarian diet.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
  190. Never mind the meat... I want LEATHER!!! by snarkasaurus · · Score: 1

    I want to know when I'm going to be able to order leather in uniform 4'x8'sheets, the better to laminate onto desks, chairs, tables, etc. and make clothing out of.

    Any of you lot have a clue how much leather costs these days? BIG dinero. Aside from the bent characters in leather undies, how about bike jackets and pants that don't cost $thousand$ eh? What would you rather, ass meets road clad in Levis or a pair of purpose built leather pants?

    If these guys can culture leather by the square yard, I'm on line for that!

    And don't forget, if they can do cow skin they can do human skin just the same. One hell of a lot of burn patients around who could use a couple square feet of brand new skin.

  191. Stole my idea! by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

    Well just as long as no one steals my idea for fermented meat alcoholic beverages...Okay, I think that one's safe.

  192. mmm low income school lunches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soon to be launched under the trade name "Soylent Red"

  193. Abstract reasoning by yerricde · · Score: 1

    but "highly evolved"? What does that even mean?

    Human beings have more capability to reason in the abstract than most other animals. How this makes them "higher" is anybody's guess.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  194. feed the meat by MenTaLguY · · Score: 2

    Assuming it were possible ... for the moment, since it's not really biologically possible for a lot of reasons...

    You'd also need to feed the dividing meat cells with something. Not to mention the unfortunate consequences if the growth outpaced digestion.

    Remember the nursery rhyme? ~"There was an old lady who swallowed a fly..."~

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...
  195. Bite Your Tongue! by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    Nuff said...
    side note: on the 1st attempt at this reply, /. said this:
    Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
    Kinda like waiting an hour after eating to go swim? So I type fast...

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  196. yelling can be fun by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    yeah, just going down one of the roads the science types try to walk you down.

    As to whether it's true or not, who cares?

    For me it's "This is where we're at, where should we explore? I know, how about the one where we don't breed other species to abuse & then kill"

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  197. now for the rest of the [PETA] agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when this happens, then like any war where ground is gained the folks at PETA can focus on their agenda of making it illegal to own pets, restrict pets from destroying your home and all other manner of NAZI bullshit! Horray!

  198. No! No! You got it wrong! by dasunt · · Score: 2

    It was on the moon. Growing meat came first, then milk came second, IIRC.

    [ And dammit, this is slashdot, someone will catch the reference. ]

  199. Re:FOX : "Lab slab cures non-existant global warmi by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
    additionall, livestock eats more grain than humans do.

    Grain isn't the only thing farmed. There's all kinds of vegetables that are farmed. How about fruits, too, while we're at it?

    Hope the Vegans have all seen the Secret of NIMH. :)

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  200. Psychoterapy? by Maria+D · · Score: 1

    Imagine an ad like, "Eat the heart of your enemy!" :-)

  201. How about shit? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

    How about shit?

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  202. Bullshit!... That's what Vegetarians Eat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Do you really want to eat a piece of a huge, dirty, bacteria-ridden mammal that's been fed on pesticide-filled grains and processed, unsanitary pieces of other mammals
    This is a complete fallacy. What do you think plants eat? Don't think they use manure and the rotting carcasses of animals to get their nutrients? This is why I always laugh at people who say they won't eat pork b/c pigs, as animals that eat feces, are somehow unclean. What do you think that ear of corn you're stuffing in your mouth grew on, hmmm?
  203. Famous Food by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2

    Actually, at the end of the article it mentions the idea of taking a biopsy of yourself, and growing a You-Burger(tm).

    Sounds like a useful sideline for famous celebrities. Brad Pitt Beefcake Burgers, Britney steak...

  204. Other examples by Goonie · · Score: 2
    Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story about the idea many years ago. Basically it took the form of a company executive testifying before a future congressional committee about practices in the food manufacturing industry. In the story, it is explained that all food is now grown in tanks, but the people of this future have now almost forgotten that people used to eat the flesh of once-living animals - indeed, the thought of such apparently disturbs the chairman of the committee such that it leaves him distinctly queasy. The executive testifies at some length about what a "carnivore" is.

    However, the food that *is* served is still actually synthesised meat. A new such product, Ambrosia Plus, has recently been released by a competitor, and has caused the testifying executive's company to lose significant amounts of market share. Normally, they are quickly able to duplicate such a new product, but they were unable for some time to determine what type of meat it is...

    The story ends with the executive saying "I have a second archaic term which I need to introduce to you all. I'll spell it out: C-A-N-N..."

    I wouldn't be surprised if there are even earlier examples of the idea.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  205. Re:As a vegetarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about keeping your personal (and nutty) food fetishes to yourself?

  206. Okay, Rudy Rucker fans, say it with me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "WENDY MEAT!"

    (ick. I think I picked the right time to become a vegetarian.)

  207. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one cringe at the thought of eating bits of flesh from my goldfish.

  208. Wrong by gnovos · · Score: 2

    The best meat cmes from Kobe, bar NONE. They massage thier cors with sake every morning and feed them beer. Go to Kobe, eat a $200 steak, you'll understand.

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  209. Rampaging, Free-Range Bovines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A clear example of a poorly-thought philosophy. Heh. These animals have been domesticated SO LONG that they couldn't live wild anymore. Maybe they could learn again, but you can't just set them free. They'd all be hunted down and slaughtered within days/weeks.

    This reminds me. What did free-range cows do before becoming a domesticated animal that provided milk and meat? Were they Moo-ing their way across America on an eventual northeastern target of Ben and Jerry's?

    Or was their predetermined destiny somehow related to sponsorship of Gateway computers, burning down major cities and becoming crazy, disillusioned members of a bovine sort of protest group?

    I say eat 'em, with a nice red whine, some garlic and a sharp knife.

    1. Re:Rampaging, Free-Range Bovines by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1
      This reminds me. What did free-range cows do before becoming a domesticated animal that provided milk and meat?

      Porn?

      Hehe, seriously, then they were still the food supply, they just weren't domesticated. But still part of the primary food supply. Of course, we had buffalo then, too, that were part of the primary food supply. If the buffalo hadn't been hunted to the point of extinction, perhaps they too would be domesticated. But still fulfilling their first, and only role, which is providing food for the rest of us. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    2. Re:Rampaging, Free-Range Bovines by chrysaetos · · Score: 1

      To answer your question seriously, before humans the cows and other grazing animals were basically nature's groundskeepers, keeping the grass "mowed", and also providing fertilizer to grow more grass and other plants.

  210. vegetarians are murderers also by renegade600 · · Score: 1

    I am for the possible lab meat because no matter if you are a meat eater or plant eater you are a murderer. Both plants and animals are living beings, they both reproduce, they both have been shown to have emotions, they both bleed when cut, they both die, they both are born, they both eat, they both breath.

    However at least the meat is dead when we eat it. Having a fresh salad means actually eating something that is still living.

  211. According to Frontier: Elite 2... by DarklordJonnyDigital · · Score: 1

    Nine out of ten people say they can't notice the difference!

  212. How barbaric Re:Not killing your food by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    This line comes from ST:TNG.
    An ambasidor when told the enterprise crew don't kill for food but eat artifically created meat he says "How barbaric"

    I thought I was going to need to provide the contrary and say "If it's not killed it's not food"
    But I'll happly eat tofu if I get enough soy on it.
    I favor meat and if this works I'm hoping the artifical meat is cheaper.
    I'm so far on top of thr food chain I can order my dead cow to go.
    And this will just put me even one notch higher.. Now all the animals can die I'd I'll still be able to order my syth meat 'to go'.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  213. What about flavorings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The food industry has come up with almost every single flavour that you have ever dreamed about in a variety of chemical compounds. Most soft drinks get their taste from these artifical flavourings. It is more than likely that the taste of this lab grown meat can be very similar to farm raised meat from animals.

    "natrual flavourings' are just a flat out lie. ALL flavourings are artifical, and the so called natrual ones are merely just produced using an outdated process and are proven to be absolutely harmless.

  214. Possible answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, IANAR, but it would depend on the Rabbinical authority who passes it or not. Gelatin, made traditionally from the boiled down skins, tendons etc. of animals is not considered to be a meat product by the FDA as it is processed beyond a point where it is considered "meat". This is why some vegetarians eat Jello (not me, I'm vegan =)). On the same token, many Rabbi's feel the same about Gelatin, that if it is processed to that point, it is not meat, and it is considered Pareve, that is, can be eaten with either meat or dairy, neutral from a Kosher standpoint. So, meat created in a vat would most likely be ok by many Rabbis, irrespective of the animal that it is grown from... So this could open a nice big can of worms in the future for many Jewish communities.

    Personally, I don't know if I agree with it or not yet. I'm in favour of minimising cruelty, but if it requires more resources to produce lab-grown meat than grow equivalent crops (and it most likely will), then I'll be against it. Time will tell.

  215. False. by Warmth+Is+Life · · Score: 1

    vegetarianism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vj-târ--nzm) n. The practice of subsisting on a diet composed primarily or wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products.

  216. Re:Nope,not Ground BASF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, ground BASF is what you get when an idiot attempts to adjust the idler tension on your 2-inch tape machine.

  217. Beef needs to age before butchering... by Adrenochrome · · Score: 1

    A side of beef needs to hang in the cooler for a few weeks for enzymes in the meat to do their magic -- breaking down tough fibres and the like. Generally it is hung as a whole side. It doesn't taste right and it's tough if this isn't done. It your roast or steak tastes liver-ish it didn't age long enough. The best beef hangs the longest (up to 4 weeks for Certified Angus Beef).

    I wonder if this lab beef will age properly.

  218. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  219. Peter Hamilton's Fallen Dragon by superflippy · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of Peter Hamilton's novel Fallen Dragon , where in the future all food is lab-grown, and only back-to-nature fanatics eat plants and animals. In one scene, the main character gets physically ill when he discovers the roast beef sandwich he's eating came from an actual cow.

    Hamilton's pretty good at extrapolating from the present to create the future world in his books. I don't think this scenario is unrealistic, a century or so from now.

    --
    Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.