Slashdot Mirror


Large Scale Production of Artificial Meat

Fraser Cain writes "Scientists at the University of Maryland think that large quantities of artificial meat could be produced to supply the world with animal-free meat products, like chickenless nuggets. This is based on experiments for NASA, that created small amounts of fish protein cultured from single cells. According to the researchers, larger quantities could be grown in thin sheets and then stacked up to create thickness. Of course, they need to figure out a way to exercise it to make it taste like regular meat."

201 comments

  1. Chickenless Nuggets?! by passthecrackpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I already get those at McDonalds today - who needs these acedemics to come up with this when you can just go out and buy it in the store?

    --
    People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
    1. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by dauthur · · Score: 1

      Nay! There IS chicken in those things! Remember the lady who found the head? Delicasy in my area. Chicken heads. Yum.

    2. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by FrontalLobe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kryten: You're that sure they're dead? Rimmer: You've only got to look at them, they've got less meat on them than a chicken mcnugget!

      --
      -FL
    3. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by vandon · · Score: 1

      A lot of people are worried about eating genetically modified grain and the antibiotics they use in animals because they may cause bad side effects.
      What do you think those people will say when you combine both of those into a lab-grown artificial food product?

    4. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by Mahou · · Score: 1

      you shouldn't need antibiotics in lab-grown food and i'm not sure if you can feed modified grain to a thin layer of cells

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    5. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by chrisbro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      McDonald's I don't know about. But Wendy's is surely something strange - I've been allergic to poultry my entire life. Every year or two I'll get brave and try something else to test the waters, and Wendy's chicken leaves me unscathed. Turkey I can't eat from anywhere, though.

    6. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you would have watched "Super Size Me", they listed what is "chicken nuggets" on a half A4 sized page.

      When i see advertisements like "the best part of the chicken" advertising those nuggets, i always get automatically reminded that they are made from the industrial byproducts of food processing, which essentially contains some waste from chickens aswell. That's the only connection with chickens. It's a way to sell waste to people.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    7. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by vandon · · Score: 1

      What was meant is that they're probably going to have to create genetically modified cells to grow quickly in the artificial environment and since there is no immune system available, antibiotics are(99% likely) going to be necessary.

    8. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by uncoveror · · Score: 3, Funny

      This should come as a surprise to no one. The Uncoveror reported what they had done to McNuggets a long time ago! And to think, people accuse us of making up Chick'n and Treemeat.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    9. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well, no immune system will be needed. They won't be growing these cells out in the open air. They will be under controlled conditions, and if a batch dies from contamination, irradiate the area and start again.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by bernfast · · Score: 1

      There are already chicken nuggets that taste much better than the orignial. The company that makes them is granovita They are called "Soya Steakli" and are made of texturized soy chunks. With a vegan breadcrumb coating they beat any meat product I have tried. Ethically they are obviously untainted, while chicken meat obviously is not.

    11. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Ok but F'sh I seriously doupt thats real. Man the none cow eating world would go apeshit if they were feed F'sh.

    12. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethically they are obviously untainted, while chicken meat obviously is not.

      So dumb fucking chickens are more important than silky Soybean plants? Fuck you, you anti-plantist animalist bigot!

    13. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Here is an article about the F'sh that is not from uncoveror.com. It doesn't use that name, but it is chunks of fish grown in a vat of fetal calf blood! Oooh yuk!

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    14. Re:Chickenless Nuggets?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  2. Oh boy oh boy by Winterblink · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't wait to head down to the local supermarket and buy some "I Can't Believe It's Not Steak".

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:Oh boy oh boy by syynnapse · · Score: 1

      too late. the number of soy and tofu alternative meats is impressive.

      --

      System.out.println(syynnapse.getSig());

    2. Re:Oh boy oh boy by highwindarea · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about some imitation Soylent Green. "I can't believe it's not made of people".

      --
      I think this internet thing sounds like a good idea
    3. Re:Oh boy oh boy by luna69 · · Score: 1

      And many of them are really pretty good.

      I've been a veggie for about ten years, and have tried most of these products at one time or another. Last night I had an excellent BLT for dinner, made using a bacon substitute called "Smart Bacon".

      To be honest, I think that even if I were eating meat, I'd prefer this stuff because it's healthier and still tastes fine.

      And there are so many burger substitutes out there that I don't miss eating cow at all.

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
  3. May I be the first to say... by Mr.G5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soylent Green is pppeeeooopppllleee!

    1. Re:May I be the first to say... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Soylent Green is PPPoE???

    2. Re:May I be the first to say... by ZSpade · · Score: 1

      "Soylent Green is pppeeeooopppllleee!"

      No you may not, Charlton Heston has it by a good 32 years.

      --
      Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
  4. Just not the same. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny
    If no animal had to die for the meat, what's the point? Meat just isn't the same without the murder. ^_^
    "Broccoli will always taste like broccoli. But meat tastes like murder, and murder tastes pretty damned good, doesn't it?"
    -Denis Leary
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Just not the same. by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      LOL

      Thanks for that quote. Gave me my daily Slashdot chuckle. :)

    2. Re:Just not the same. by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If no animal had to die for the meat, what's the point? Meat just isn't the same without the murder.

      A little more seriously...if no animal had to die for the meat, what will this mean for voluntary (PETA-style) vegetarianism or veganism? What will it mean for religious vegetarianism?

    3. Re:Just not the same. by hab136 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A little more seriously...if no animal had to die for the meat, what will this mean for voluntary (PETA-style) vegetarianism or veganism? What will it mean for religious vegetarianism?

      Religious? Probably nothing - it's still actually meat, just carved from one giant contiually cloned, ever-living, non-sentient beast.

      PETA? They should embrace this, since the artificial meat will be non-sentient. I'm sure they'll have a problem with it though.. protesters tend to wrap up their identity in the fact that they're a protester. If you fix the problem they care about, they'll find something else to protest about, because otherwise they have to stop protesting.

      There are people that genuinely care about an issue, and aren't protesting as a lifestyle, and to those people - rock on. But many in protest organizations basically protest for a living.

    4. Re:Just not the same. by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure they'll have a problem with it though.. protesters tend to wrap up their identity in the fact that they're a protester. If you fix the problem they care about, they'll find something else to protest about, because otherwise they have to stop protesting.

      In reality these type of people really don't care about the issue they're protesting. They care about changing people's lifestyles. They pick what to protest so that success is most likely to change people's lifestyle to what they think it should be. Once somebody comes up with a way to satisfy the curent lifestyle requirements of the general population and the protesters demands, they move on to some other strategically chosen thing to be opposed to.

      Someday somebody will come up with a way to generate energy that, for all practical purposes, produces an infinite supply and is polution free. People will be able to use all the power to synthesize matter... Anything they want, like, a steak for example. Then they'll be able to get in their overpowered, overindulgent vehicle and go wherever they want whenever they want and break down any cultural barriers that still remain. Then all those lifestyle protesters will be forced to preach their ethical ideals like religous nuts in some godless cult of minimalism.

    5. Re:Just not the same. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "What will it mean for religious vegetarianism?"
      That would depend on the religion and the reason for the vegetarianism.
      If it is "health" rule it might still be in effect.
      If it don't harm a life. Then it may or may not be in effect depending if the meat is considered to be alive enough or not. Some religions have a thing about touching much less eating any dead animal products.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Just not the same. by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > Someday somebody will come up with a way to generate energy that, for all practical purposes, produces an infinite supply and is polution free

      Yeah and I'd like a pony. Why don't you go arrange that too?

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    7. Re:Just not the same. by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Religious? Probably nothing - it's still actually meat, just carved from one giant contiually cloned, ever-living, non-sentient beast.

      Sounds like those canned trolls my D&D group used to use for emergency rations. Open the can, let it regenerate, and cut off a chunk.

    8. Re:Just not the same. by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Religious? Probably nothing - it's still actually meat, just carved from one giant contiually cloned, ever-living, non-sentient beast.

      What about vegetarianism in the spirit of ahimsa (do no harm) - not eating animals because you would be supporting killing them? Since it's not a living and sentient being, you're not harming it in any way.

      IANAB (I am not a Buddhist), though. Are there any here who'd like to respond?

    9. Re:Just not the same. by orn · · Score: 1

      I'm not a vegetarian, but I also eat very little meat.

      I don't care that you have to kill animals to eat meat, it isn't about that for me.

      For me, it's about stupid humans. Cases in point:

      1. It's stupid to feed a herbivorous animal meat or meat products, even if it makes them grow faster. They're still giving calves cow blood, they're still feeding cows meat. That's idiotic - no wonder we have prion diseases.

      2. Your average pig farm produces more industrial waste than your average power plant. The farms aren't considered closed systems, so the world's systems around them have to deal with the byproducts of this super-dense agriculture. And yet, those systems that have to deal with the byproduct are basically considered valueless.

      3. genetically engineered crops are fine, but monocultures are not. A single field, all cloned from the exact same stock, will also be susceptible to the exact same diseases. You don't loose one plant to the disease, you loose the entire fucking kit and caboodle.

      To me, petri-dish grown meat just sounds like another variation on the theme. On the positive side, presumably this wouldn't take up very much space which would mean less land would need to be devoted to growing meat. Overall, that might help traditional farming practices.

      Rudy

      --
      1. 2.
    10. Re:Just not the same. by linzeal · · Score: 1
      Magnetically confined fusion.

      One day I hope I will be lucky enough to be able to incorporate a MCF system in a martian habitat. I think it would be cool to have an observation room in the fusion area but shielding for health would be a nightmare. Calling materials science, is there a material scientist in the house?

    11. Re:Just not the same. by hab136 · · Score: 1
      What about vegetarianism in the spirit of ahimsa (do no harm) - not eating animals because you would be supporting killing them? Since it's not a living and sentient being, you're not harming it in any way.

      That's PETA-style vegetarianism, as far as I know, so I don't see why you couldn't eat the artificial meat.

      Specific religious things like "no pork" or "only fish on Fridays" probably won't allow you to eat artificial meat any more than you could eat regular.

    12. Re:Just not the same. by jmishka · · Score: 1

      Problem #1-Religion
      Can one giant continueously cloned meat slab be blessed "kosher?" If not there might be some mighty unhappy Rabbi folk...

      Problem #2-PETA
      They will likely side with the pro-lifers ideas and say that because the cells used "could" have resulted in a sentinet animal it is in effect killing the animal each time the cloning cycle is repeated.

      --
      I am quite witty inside my head.
    13. Re:Just not the same. by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      I'm voluntary vegan.

      I don't think I would eat this cultured fish cell.

      > This could save you having to slaughter animals for food.
      Er, but I *don't* slaughter animals for food already.

      > With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply.

      You could even do that if the world meat demand went to zero.

      > .. placed them in a vat of nutrient-rich liquid. Within a week, the fish nuggets had become 16 percent bigger.

      > ... the current concoction .. : fetal bovine serum, which is extracted from the blood of unborn calves.

      So in order to grow meat all we need is a huge supply of unborn calf fetal bovine serum !

      Delightful

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    14. Re:Just not the same. by Filmwatcher888 · · Score: 1
      [... ] I don't see why you couldn't eat the artificial meat.

      Because it's creepy?

      A lot of religions and ethicists don't eat meat because the proper respect for the animal's life wasn't done. Kosher foods require a blessing and specific methods and conditions for slaughter. Other's balk at the idea that an animal has to die for their nurishment, when there are plenty of other resouces could be used.

      For those two groups, I think the idea of a sterile growth of animal biomass being used as food would be even more disgraceful and insulting.

    15. Re:Just not the same. by jameskojiro · · Score: 0

      It's just cattle abortion and there is nothing wrong with that.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    16. Re:Just not the same. by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      Interesting question.

      First, kosher meat is not "blessed". The animal must be killed in a certain way, and only certain parts of the animal must be used, and the blood must be extracted. There are no magic words involved.

      I am certainly not knowledgable enough about jewish law to say anything with any authority, but it's slashdot, so I'll just jump in anyway. If the cells for cloning were taken from a living animal, that could consistute "flesh stripped from a living animal" - which is definitly not kosher, with the original commandment coming from Genesis.

      But more important is the idea that the appearance of keeping kosher is as important as keeping kosher itself - it's not OK to eat something other people might presume not to be kosher, even if it is. In this light, if this stuff is sufficiently close to meat, it might be prohibited on this basis. Given that medevial rabbis decided that chicken and beef were similar enough that confusion might result, this stuff wouldn't even have to be that close.

      Of course, IANAR.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    17. Re:Just not the same. by weeboo0104 · · Score: 0

      Vegitables are living things too, they're just easier to catch than animals.

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    18. Re:Just not the same. by jmishka · · Score: 1

      Sorry maybe "blessed" was too strong a word, but I thought that a Rabbi MUST be present when the animal is slaughtered via cutting through the esophagus and trachea with a very sharp knife (to avoid tearing the flesh in anyway). It is my understanding that it is forbidden to eat torn/stripped flesh from any source.

      Also I thought it was necessary for a Rabbi to be present at Kosher stores and restaurants to receive the Kosher goods in shipments, else they wouldnt be Kosher anymore...and also probably to check and make sure that the meats and the cheeses weren't hanging around together.

      My father just got done constructing a second kitchen for a Jewish man who is VERY strict. He actually has a dairy kitchen and a meat kitchen, each complete with everything so that his dairy kitchen items don't ever see anything that has ever been in or around his meat kitchen (except himself of course). Ah the joy of cooking to have two kitchens... :)

      --
      I am quite witty inside my head.
    19. Re:Just not the same. by Zarhan · · Score: 1

      Sounds like those canned trolls my D&D group used to use for emergency rations. Open the can, let it regenerate, and cut off a chunk.

      You just have to make sure that you can digest it with your stomach acids faster than it regenerates inside you...

      Actually, maybe you could build some sustenance by eating *just* the correct dose of troll..so that it would never die off, but never regenerate too much..

    20. Re:Just not the same. by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Actually only the largest chunk of the troll regenerates. So as long as you don't let the chunk outside the can get bigger than the one inside you have nothing to worry about.

    21. Re:Just not the same. by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      The person performing the slaughter must be jewish, and trained in the laws and techniques of slaughter - but does not need to be a Rabbi. Restaurants and businesses that are Kosher do need to be overseen (not 100% of the time, they are inspected ussually), by a person who knows about the applicable law. Again, this person does not need to be a Rabbi, just knowledgable in the appropriate jewish law.

      As for a dairy and meat kitchen boy would I love to have that much space in my house!

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  5. Flavoring... by Diakoneo · · Score: 1

    I wonder how they can get it to taste like different animal meats. I believe most flavor comes from the fat intertwined in the meat, not the meat itself. Meaning 100% lean ground beef would taste the same as 100% lean ground pork.

    --
    "Well..here I am..." - Jubal Early
    1. Re:Flavoring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh. Fat does not *have* flavor. It *carries* the flavors otherwise present in the food. Completely fat-free meat wouldn't all taste the same, it'd just be less tasteful than the normal varieties.

    2. Re:Flavoring... by Blackneto · · Score: 1

      flavoring also comes from what the animal was fed.
      If you ever had the chance take a taste test between corn-fed and grass-fed beef.

      --
      Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
    3. Re:Flavoring... by jmishka · · Score: 1

      It is likely that they could use proteins from the respective animal and clone that into sheets giving a flavor that might be closer to that particualr animal.

      Also I would guess the most likely of answers would be the media that is used to grow the cellsheets in could be "doped" with synthetic flavor to help the taste issue.

      Interestingly enough one of the hardest flavors to mimic is banana, it has over 800 different compounds (like esters etc.) that are difficult to reproduce exactly.

      See I knew organic would pay-off some day

      --
      I am quite witty inside my head.
    4. Re:Flavoring... by hplasm · · Score: 0

      Damn! I want my banana flavored meat!!

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    5. Re:Flavoring... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Damn right.

      Some time in the late eighties, farmers in Britain somehow got the idea that it was perfectly ok to feed chickens on some fish-based product, presumably because it was cheap. The result was that most chicken tasted, quite literally, fishy.

      In addition to presumably millions of others, I stopped eating it for the most part, until someone came up with the bright idea of marketing corn-fed chicken. The fish-fed chicken were sold more and more cheaply, and then disappeared off the shelves completely after that.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. The True Test by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

    The true test, will be if the stuff tastes good.

    I know that eating fake meat will be better for the world, but people won't bite (Pun Intended) if it doesn't taste comperable to real meat.

    1. Re:The True Test by erlenic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's more likely that people won't bite even if it does taste exactly the same as real meat. It's just not the same in most people's eyes. As for me, I'll eat it if it's cheaper or significantly better tasting. I also have to be able to grill it.

    2. Re:The True Test by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      Yes, other than people's taste buds, people's wallets are a large deciding factor.

    3. Re:The True Test by penguin121 · · Score: 1

      I know that eating fake meat will be better for the world, but people won't bite (Pun Intended) if it doesn't taste comperable to real meat.

      It might be, but then again it might be worse. What makes you so sure that fake meat will be better for the world? As this is a very recent breakthrough, there really isn't any evidence yet for making such a claim.

    4. Re:The True Test by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it'll be great. Instead of ending the lives of livestock so we can eat 'em we can just not bother to breed them in the first place.

      Wait...

      The animals aren't alive either way. What makes this 'better' again?

    5. Re:The True Test by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There won't be millions of animals living in filthy terrible conditions.

      I think them not living through that by not living, would be better. But that's just an opinion.

    6. Re:The True Test by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that when you look at them you think "other living being" and not "food". I bet you don't do the same about brocolli though.

      You're going to kill and eat them. What difference does the rest of it make? It's not like giving them a cushy lifestyle is going to justify the ends... Hell, the ends don't even need to be justified.

    7. Re:The True Test by hab136 · · Score: 4, Funny
      I think it's more likely that people won't bite even if it does taste exactly the same as real meat. It's just not the same in most people's eyes.

      Hot dogs sell pretty well, actually.

    8. Re:The True Test by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Yea and we can pack more people into thouse filthy terrible places with dense high rise houseing.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    9. Re:The True Test by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      Cows have intelligence and personality, tomatoes do not.

      And I'm not saying the ends need to be justified either. I'm just saying that the animals we eat are not treated very well.

    10. Re:The True Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Cows have intelligence and personality, tomatoes do not.

      In my experience, both have roughly about the same amount of intelligence and personality: somewhere right around the zero mark.

      Maybe it's just me. Maybe all the other cows in the world are really, really smart, and I was always stuck minding the dumb ones.

      Then again, perhaps tomatoes are really just super-intelligent beings that communicate via telepathy, and live out their short lives as hopeless pacifists, wringing their hands at our rutheless agression towards their innocent fellow vegtables. :-P
      --
      AC

    11. Re:The True Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that when you look at them you think "other living being" and not "food".

      aaah, so true. take my intern, for example. a "living being" brough to me to be used as i saw fit. well, the turnout for my 4th of july celebrations was far greater than i had anticipated. we required more meat for the barbque and suddenly i saw that my intern wasn't really a "living being" it was "food" hiding under hair and skin and a semblence of sentience. before we slaughtered him, we had him shit himself in an area too small for him to lie down. boy, before long he was covered in his own filth, fucking nasty animal! 'cause, what difference does it make, it's not like giving him a cushy lifestyle (or room to walk, breath or eat without shit being on everything and everywhere) is going to justify the ends. because it's not me and i don't give a fuck. as long as the sauce is tangy and sweet.

    12. Re:The True Test by Blackneto · · Score: 1

      Funny? hell this should be insightful.

      all sausage type meats are heavily spiced to hide the fact that they are made of mostly snouts and asses.

      with no snot or ass juice in you brat, would you like it better?

      --
      Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
    13. Re:The True Test by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      What makes this 'better' again?

      Less cow poop in the environment, less dying screaming animals (Ever been to a slaughter house?), No debeaking the chickens and forcing hormones down their throat, less cows wallowing in their own shit.

      Animals do experience pain & misery... I doubt that brocolli feel the same way.

      I'm curious how they will provide nutrients for the fake meat -- considering that most (subsidized) grain grown in the US is used to feed the (subsidized) cattle, I'm curious if we can get good meat for cheap and end the rediculous cattle subsidies once and for all.

    14. Re:The True Test by chl · · Score: 1
      Is that the old "each male ejaculation is mega-genocide of potential life" doctrine?

      chl

    15. Re:The True Test by Detritus · · Score: 1
      Mod parent up.

      All of the cows that i've encountered are dumb as doorknobs. They are probably smarter than sheep, but that's not saying much.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    16. Re:The True Test by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      I still don't get the whole "animals experience pain the same way we do, so their destruction is more sympathisable and therefore sadder than the ending of a plant's life" thing.

    17. Re:The True Test by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that plants are as aware and cognizant as animals?

      That's a pretty big logical leap, don't you think?

    18. Re:The True Test by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      No, I believe that the degree to which we care about the suffering of another living thing is measured by how easily we sympathize with it. I certainly claim that plants are not any less alive than animals and don't see what a human concept of awareness matters much to them when they're dead.

  7. not too important.. yet. by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    Artificial meat isn't too important yet. If there was a shortage of real meat it might be important. I doubt this will be widely adopted by vegetarians or other fetish groups that don't eat meat because it still resemble's meat and is made from fish proteins.

    1. Re:not too important.. yet. by mmarlett · · Score: 1

      For me, it's not about a shortage of meat, but rather the environmental impact of mass producing meat. I live in Kansas. I often ask, "Yes, meat's fine and all, but could you make it without dumping tons of poop in the water?"

      I've been a vegetarian for six years not because I care about the animals and not because I think it's more healthy not to eat it and not because I don't like meat. I've done it because it's incredibly hard on the environment, and I just choose not to participate in that.

      It would be interesting to know the full environmental impact of scaling this up. Questions of taste and quality can certainly be answered. One can only assume that this is better on the environment. But it may not be. It just depends on what goes in and what comes out -- besides pseudo meat.

    2. Re:not too important.. yet. by syynnapse · · Score: 1

      I'm personally very curious about how vegetarians will react to this because there are so many diffrent motivations behind not eating meat. I dont eat it because i object to the industry behind it and dont particularly like the idea of animals dying, even though i love the taste of meat. I'll be curious about the industry this may create and the health of this stuff. The non-pinko type veggies often do it because of health issues, so the vegetarian approval of this psuedo meat seems like it could go either way.

      --

      System.out.println(syynnapse.getSig());

    3. Re:not too important.. yet. by vertinox · · Score: 1

      I don't eat meat because it tends to give me the craps because of my intolerence to eColi bacteria. Of course I'm lactose interolerant as well (I can eat cheese, but I get ill if I drink milk), but I don't eat meat and don't drink milk because of moral reasons.

      However I still like the taste of meat and often cheat even though the results will often cause a massive punishment of the throne, but if they can make ecoli-less meat then I'm all for it.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:not too important.. yet. by tchuladdiass · · Score: 1

      There's also people who are vegitarians because of the "ick" factor (they think of any meat the same way you or I would think of dog or cat meat or eating worms, etc.) To them, I don't see this being any better.

    5. Re:not too important.. yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, those Vegetarians. I hardly know what they think. But I have heard some things. With enough research we'll know exactly how They are.

      Point in case you didn't get it: Don't fuckin' conceptualize a broadly defined class of people as a detailed, distinct, cohesive group. It's stupid.

      Me, I'm an individual, with a good amount of peculiarities. I might fit in some groups, but am I a Vegetarian? I'm thinking about vegetarianism. But I'm thinking about it because of a specific philosophical reason, not because I'm an unreasoned fetishist, you insensitive boob. (Apologies to all sensitive boobs.) I care about the welfare of sentient life. Do I want to promote an economy of killing animals because I love tasty meat? Do I want to promote a culture of devaluing non-human animals so that I can, mmmm, chow down on the kung pao chicken or the carne asada burritos, with the tasty sauces or the fullness of the meat's flavor playing sweetly off the contrasting sour cream? Or the savory steaks, dripping well-seasoned juices, so tender yet providing a complementingly firm and lasting backdrop for the heavily buttered mashed potatoes... ...

      Huh? Right. Well, so screw you, you are no supping fly. It's important to ME that this kind of experience be enabled without contributing to the grief of things that can feel. There is a shortage of meat that doesn't come with a pricetag of pain. If I were man enough, I'd be a vegetarian already.

    6. Re:not too important.. yet. by cecille · · Score: 1

      I'm basically your standard "ick" factor veg-head. I'm sure there were some other reasons back there somewhere too, but mostly just the "ick". I agree...I'm not sure I'd eat this stuff - I know it's not actually killing an animal and all that, but it sounds kinda creepy.

      --
      ...no two people are not on fire.
  8. Newsflash by alta · · Score: 1

    Outback announces a new addition to their menu, the semisteak. Half the price of normal steak, 0% fat, only comes well done.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  9. maybe they should just call it... by avi33 · · Score: 1

    virtual veal

  10. Get Your Wendy Burger Here by Madcapjack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Our Burgers are Made from fresh vat grown Wendy Meat. You won't get a better Wendy Meat burger any where else!

    1. Re:Get Your Wendy Burger Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like "Get your finger-in-the-chili", here at Wendy's!

  11. We have no right to enslave animals! by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Honestly people, it's barbaric to eat animals.

    But I'm still stuck doing it.

    I tried going vegetarian for a year once but it was boring to eat meals, and it ended up costing a lot more. At least that's what I found.

    I'm going to try again in a few years when I have more money and more time to learn new vegetarian recipes.

    And if you ever wanted a reason to quit: http://www.peta.org/

    1. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Funny

      Save an animal, eat a PETA member

    2. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've got another link for you: petakillsanimals.com. Interesting stuff.

    3. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is it barbaric?

      that is exactly why i wont be a vegan, im afraid the lack of meat will turn me into an obnoxious, uninteresting "friend" of the animal jackoff like those idiots at peta

    4. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Informative


      And if you ever wanted a reason to quit: http://www.peta.org/

      Please see http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=peta
      Peta are a bunch of lying fanatics.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by Bongo+Bill · · Score: 1

      If we're not supposed to eat animals, then how come they're made out of meat?

      --
      ...but is it art?
    6. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by evil-osm · · Score: 1

      And if you ever wanted a reason to quit: http://www.peta.org/

      and join these guys! http://mtd.com/tasty/ (They originally owned Peta.org)

      --


      E.

      Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
    7. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by mar1no · · Score: 1

      So at what level of intelligence does a carnivore become unbarbaric? I assume you consider lions eating gazelles non-barbaric.

      --
      "you sonofabitch i didn't know!"
    8. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by dtungsten · · Score: 1

      When I think of the PETA orginization, it makes me want to eat keep eating meat.

    9. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by Maxite · · Score: 1

      I'll start seeing PETA as having more credibility when they stop being hypocrites and quit supporting vandalists from destroying research facilities and killing humans. If an animal has more rights to live than a human, then PETA should convince its members to commit mass suicide. Otherwise, if animals have the same rights as humans, it shouldn't be supporting the murder of people.

      Another problem is that PETA is horribly stupid in its logic. Several years ago some animal rights activists released over a thousand minks from a farm. What happened to all of the minks? They all died because they had to either be killed to protect other animals, or because they couldn't survive in the wild.

      Sure, let us save the animals, only to have them die in massive numbers out in the wild.

      meh, not to mention that PETA also once pissed off MADD by trying to get college kids to drink beer instead of milk.

      --
      Ah, you found me!
    10. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by rookworm · · Score: 1

      I think this website has an agenda of their own. Consider the fact that they themselves do not actually condemn the killing PETA allegedly does

      --
      The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
    11. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the Poplars futurama episode.

      Lela: " But eatting meat is natural! Animals do it!"
      Hippy: "We taught this lion to eat tofu!"
      Sickly: Lion *cough wheeze*

      And of course, when one talks about cruelty, a bolt to the skull is more humane than watching starving lions eat open a live zebra's stomach before it's been suffocated. The fact they were young 'teenage' lions and inexperienced didn't help matters for the zebra.

    12. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by trongey · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like being barbaric is a bad thing.

      Oh, and by the way, we have whatever rights are granted to us by our current ruling body. A lot of people have this fantasy that rights just magically arise out of nothingness. It's funny how many of those same people think religion is stupid.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    13. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by mink · · Score: 1

      Humans are made out of meat as well.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    14. Re:We have no right to enslave animals! by Bongo+Bill · · Score: 1

      And what's so bad about cannibalism?

      --
      ...but is it art?
  12. artificial meat by g0dsp33d · · Score: 1

    I doubt this will ever be as cheap as raising real animals. You need all sorts of scientific measures to ensure that the sample isn't tainted, that it is in the proper conditions to grow, and I'm guessing very expensive equipment to grow it in quantity.

    On an ideological note, do any vegitarians have any feelings on this? It's not completely artificial, because its made from cells of living animals. Is it far enough away to be ok though?

    And lastly, I bet 'chicken' nuggets have been made without meat for a long time now. Just like our hot dogs.

    --
    lol: You see no door there!
    1. Re:artificial meat by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      Vegitarians are not a monolithic group. There are many reasons why one becomes a vegitarian. If one is a vegitarian because one opposes killing animals, then this might be perfectly fine. If one is vegitarian for health reasons (avoid cholesterol, fat), it might not be OK.

      It will probably depend partly on how this stuff is implemented. Are the vats pumped full of antibiotics and hormones like feedlot animals?

      I guess the answer to your question is, "It depends".

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    2. Re:artificial meat by Intron · · Score: 1

      No brain, no pain. Should be just like a plant.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    3. Re:artificial meat by sithsasquatch · · Score: 1

      As a "half-assed vegitarian" (poultry and fish are cool, beef, pork and lamb not cool), I sure as hell don't speak for all vegitarians. However, I would say that eating this cloned meat would depend on one's personal opinions on cloning or genetically modified food, not based on vegitarianism. After all, people raised a huge stink with the genetically altered vegetables a few years back.

      If they really wanted to sell this artificial meat to the public, they need to label it "organic" and watch the cash roll in.

      --
      With so many ppl on /., how am I supposed to come up with a unique sig?
  13. Everything old is new again. by BridgeBum · · Score: 1

    Can I have some Coffiest with my Chicken Little?

    --
    My UID is the product of 2 primes.
  14. And here's the theme song: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Virtual veal!
    It's not real!
    Taste'll give you zeal!
    Has a good feel!

    It can be steak!
    But yet it's fake!
    It's quick to bake!
    No animals at stake!

    Virtual veal!
    It's a good deal!
    Has lots of appeal!
    Make it your meal!

  15. It's only natural... by penguin121 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Honestly people, it's barbaric to eat animals.

    Eating meat is natural for people, and a number of other animals as well. There is nothing barbaric about eating the foods that your body is meant to. Now if you were saying the modern treatment of livestock is often barbaric, I'd be inclined to agree, but these are two different matters entirely.

  16. tleilaxu meat corporation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pour me up a bowl of slig chowder!

  17. Why replace meat? by computersareevil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do those who are trying so hard to eliminate animal meat try so hard to make the replacements look, feel, and taste like meat? I've never understood that.

    1. Re:Why replace meat? by blincoln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do those who are trying so hard to eliminate animal meat try so hard to make the replacements look, feel, and taste like meat? I've never understood that.

      Uh... because meat generally tastes good? There are a lot of recipes that require it, or at least a reasonable facsimile? Barbecuing things is fun, and soy/wheat mock burgers and hotdogs work a lot better for that than a chunk of tofu?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    2. Re:Why replace meat? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      The reason is that they are trying to get us omnivores and carnivores to switch.

    3. Re:Why replace meat? by DougInthezoo · · Score: 1

      Because your body will crave that which it lacks? Don't drink for a day and you will get very thirsty. If you become iron deficient you will crave meat, even to the point of very rare meat.

      Deprive yourself of many vitamins and fats in meat, and guess what you want to taste on the end of your fork?

      Any vegetarian who uses soy based bacon bit substitues on their salad should seriously consider what is wrong with that...

    4. Re:Why replace meat? by computersareevil · · Score: 1

      Uh... because meat generally tastes good?
      I agree, and I eat meat, but it feels disingenous to me for those trying to eliminate animal meat to try and imitate it.

    5. Re:Why replace meat? by cephyn · · Score: 1

      That's just ridiculous. It just is. Or are cadbury eggs wrong because they resemble real eggs?

      The only way to eliminate something people like is to perfectly replace it (or make it better) -- for example, the "butter" at movie theaters, or the "cheese" on nachos.

      --
      Moo.
    6. Re:Why replace meat? by computersareevil · · Score: 1

      The only way to eliminate something people like is to perfectly replace it

      That I can understand, but it's the vegetarians (on moral grounds) I've met who are constantly seeking meat look- and taste-alikes. THAT's what I don't understand.

      It's like someone who hates cigarettes (and the people who smoke them) seeking out chewing gum that tastes like a cigarette.

    7. Re:Why replace meat? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      ..or someone who doesn't want the energy content of sugar but still want sweet drinks?

      Really, why is it so strange when it's about meat but not about other things? Vegetarians have all kinds of different reasons not to eat meat, but not liking the flavour is probably a pretty unusual one.

      Especially for moral reasons - how could it be immoral to make it easier not to do whatever you think is wrong?, and not to have to sacrifice anything for it?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    8. Re:Why replace meat? by gotih · · Score: 1

      there are all kinds of people. we do things for different reasons.

      i don't eat meat primarily because i don't like how it tastes (i never did) but the conditions that livestock are raised under would be as good a reason for me. i eat some fish a couple times a year 'cause i like it but i'm concerned about overfishing and i've got issues with farm raised (antibiotic filled, local ecosystem destroying) fish.

      i don't like fake meat that tastes like meat. but i love tofu "ribs", covered in delicious sauce or breaded deep fried "chicken" sticks. they're called chicken or ribs or burgers (and shaped likewise) for marketing purposes. not entirely because it's trying to emulate meat.

      btw, i read somewhere (maybe i can find a link later) that the buyers of veggie burgers are mostly not vegetarian. sure, lots of vegetarians eat them but most people who buy them eat meat AND veggie burgers. i don't consider veggie burgers meat-substitutes, i consider them delicious in their own right.

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    9. Re:Why replace meat? by computersareevil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ..or someone who doesn't want the energy content of sugar but still want sweet drinks?

      I don't think that's a good comparison because they probably don't think sugar is evil.

      I think the cigarette comparison works because people think cigarettes are evil. Remember when they tried to come out with the "safe" cigarette that didn't actually burn tobacco? Remember how people railed against it because it was emulating what they perceived as "evil"? Why do things that emulate "evil" meat get a pass? That's the crux of my question, and still unanswered.

      Especially for moral reasons - how could it be immoral to make it easier not to do whatever you think is wrong?, and not to have to sacrifice anything for it?

      If meat is immoral, isn't the promotion of meat immoral? Isn't trying to emulate meat in effect promoting is as OK? Just like candy cigarettes, "smokeless" cigarettes, toy guns, etc. that are all blamed for "promoting" a perceived evil?

    10. Re:Why replace meat? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      If meat is immoral, isn't the promotion of meat immoral? Isn't trying to emulate meat in effect promoting is as OK? Just like candy cigarettes, "smokeless" cigarettes, toy guns, etc. that are all blamed for "promoting" a perceived evil?

      You are tarring all vegetarians with the same brush. I know a number of vegetarians, and none of them refuse meat on the grounds that eating meat is immoral. I know those people exist; I just don't know of any personally.

      Some are vegetarians because they feel better (as in healthier), physically, on an all-vegetable diet (and they would not touch this, of course, no matter where it came from); others are so because they see keeping animals penned up and fed for slaughter as immoral, and especially so when done in the industrial manner we do today. The eating of animals is not what's bothering them; the keeping of animals for that purpose is. And before you ask - yes, some of them do eat fish that's been caught in the wild.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    11. Re:Why replace meat? by computersareevil · · Score: 1

      You are tarring all vegetarians with the same brush.

      Not at all. I pointed out in the first comment you responded to that I'm asking about people who don't eat meat on moral grounds. My subsequent comments are still only about those people, not vegetarians in general. I'm a landetarian because I don't like seafood. :-)

      The eating of animals is not what's bothering them; the keeping of animals for that purpose is.

      This is slightly tangent, but that's difficult to pinpoint too. How many animals per acre before they are considered "kept" and therefor immoral to eat? If they were kept on open range until the day of slaughter, then rounded up and killed, would that be moral? (And truth be told, I'd prefer this method because it results in leaner, tastier beef. The pen-fed fatty crap they pass of as "steak" these days *is* awful.

      The "industrial manner" is tough to pinpoint also. How would you slaughter large numbers of otherwise "unkept" animals in a non-industrial manner?

      The gray areas are always where the interesting discussion happens, no?

    12. Re:Why replace meat? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      The gray areas are certainly interesting. But the existence of gray areas does not preclude recognizing the black and the white at either end.

      I guess (I'm not vegetarian myself) that where to draw the line is up to each individual, but one fairly easy line is to not eat meat period. That way you don't have to decide on whether truly wild animals (such as moose) is fine, while free-ranging but tagged animals (such as reindeer) is not. You also don't have to worry endlessly every time you go to a restaurant, pestering the kitchen with questions about the origin that may or may not be truthfully answered.

      If this was a physical area, that gray area is a featureless rock desert, and the "no animal meat" line is a deep, easily found river. You know when you are on one side and you know when you are on the other.

      Growing meat protein this way is from this perspective no different than using Quorn or soybeans as a source of meatlike proteins. It doesn't matter that it's biologically identical to meat from an animal; no animal has been involved anymore than it is with a creatively cultivated fungus.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    13. Re:Why replace meat? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Forgot:

      Since being vegetarian is reasonably easy to define and is recognized and understood, many people become "vegetarians" as a convenient shortcut to avoid, say, meat that's been raised with growth hormones or antibiotics, that hasn't been tested for BSE, "meat" that is actually "meat by-products", meat from animals that haven't been well treated, or any other of a number of practices that tend to make some people uncomfortable. They'd ideally want to eat meat that conforms to the standards they like, but since it isn't available - or just too expensive, too difficult to ascertain, or too much of a hassle to find - it's easier to forgo meat altogether.

      I know I usually opt for a vegetarian alternative if I'm unsure what the meat actually is and where it comes from.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    14. Re:Why replace meat? by computersareevil · · Score: 1

      The gray areas are certainly interesting. But the existence of gray areas does not preclude recognizing the black and the white at either end.

      Interesting you say that, because that's where I started this whole thread: The folks who are "moral" vegetarians and yet seek simulated meat are *deep* into the gray, IMHO.

      I guess [...] that where to draw the line is up to each individual,

      Fortunately! For now! In the U.S.

      but one fairly easy line is to not eat meat period.

      Yes. Or simulated meat. Just like to to be morally against tobbacco smoking, I think it would be well past gray to use clove or any other substance to "simulate" smoking.

      Growing meat protein this way is from this perspective no different than using Quorn or soybeans as a source of meatlike proteins. It doesn't matter that it's biologically identical to meat from an animal; no animal has been involved anymore than it is with a creatively cultivated fungus.

      Ah, trying to bring us back on-topic, are you?! ;)

      I still get the distinct feeling that no self-respecting "moral" vegetarian would go near the stuff. It's like sythesizing heroin and saying "but it's not *real* heroin, it doesn't come from a poppy!" Maybe the drug analogy is overkill. But since the Smeat(TM) (let's call it ;) steak is indistinquishable from a slaughtered steak, it is still "meat". If people who don't have real meat get Smeat and like it, wouldn't that encourage them to eat real meat? Call it a "gateway food". ;-D

      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

      Uh-oh, now I see the problem... ;-)

      --
      computersareevil

    15. Re:Why replace meat? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      I still get the distinct feeling that no self-respecting "moral" vegetarian would go near the stuff. It's like sythesizing heroin and saying "but it's not *real* heroin, it doesn't come from a poppy!" Maybe the drug analogy is overkill. But since the Smeat(TM) (let's call it ;) steak is indistinquishable from a slaughtered steak, it is still "meat". If people who don't have real meat get Smeat and like it, wouldn't that encourage them to eat real meat? Call it a "gateway food". ;-D

      Hey, a sensible, balanced disagreement on issues - on slashdot no less! What is the world coming to...

      Again, I think you are confusing two different groups of people. Some moral vegetarians see the eating of animal flesh as the problem. They would not touch this. But those moral vegetarians I have met do not object to eating of flesh. They object to some aspect of animal keeping, whether conditions in large-scale farming or just that you have to kill a sentient being for it. Especially those objecting to the killing tend to be fine with eating milk and eggs, for instance - animal protein as much as the flesh, but it doesn't require taking an animals life for it.

      This would be very much like using milk or eggs, except you don't have to keep animals imprisoned either, making more people happy about it.

      Your argument about drugs is interesting, but it once again presupposes that the substance itself is the problem for all these people. Again, it isn't. If it was, they'd object to quorn as well - or anything containing sodium glutamate, really.

      Now, in practice I assume this won't ever come to commercial fruition. We do have pretty good alternatives already for those who want the taste but not the animal history, and those alternatives are as expensive as they are largely because they have little competition. I doubt this has the potential to beat them on price or taste. And I'm prepared to bet this has minimum the same multiplier of inefficiency that real slaughter animals incur, compared to eating the plant matter directly, so it's no real alternative for that reason either (no fake steak in space).

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    16. Re:Why replace meat? by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're not getting it. It's not the meat that's evil (your term not mine), it's the way it is produced that is perceived as evil. For many vegetarians ( veganists exempt ) if the way it was produced would be less evil, they would eat meat too. What 'evil production' exactly consists of is a very personal choice, for meat eaters and vegetarians alike. There's is no clear line either way; I consider myself vegetarian (kind of) but have no problem with eating fish, most non-vegetarians eat cows and chickens and stuff, some don't want pigs, and most won't eat other humans. The haziness of the line works both ways, it does.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    17. Re:Why replace meat? by itomato · · Score: 1

      Because you've got to deal with the people who want to put that fake meat into their mouth and not notice that it's faux flesh.

      Most people who drop meat from their diet get so used to eating everything else that they stop checking everything that goes in their mouth scanning for cooked starch or meat.

      It's sad, but your body becomes so accustomed to eating soggy, fatty, starchy, meaty foods that even when you know you should be eating broccoli & tomatoes, you just can't make yourself put down the sausage pizza & breadstix.

      Break free of that, and you break free of the need for meat, and simultaneously clear up receptors for things like cilantro, lime juice, apples, and fresh things.

      Until the rest of humanity gets to that point, the purveyors of fake meats have to save the carnies from themselves.

    18. Re:Why replace meat? by martinX · · Score: 1

      The folks who are "moral" vegetarians and yet seek simulated meat are *deep* into the gray, IMHO

      I suppose I might be seen as a "moral" vegetarian, and yet I seek out meat substitutes... And the gray area discussion is very relevant - at the end of the day, I said "f%#@ it, I'll draw the line here: don't eat anything that had aheartbeat/mother/etc." Less hassles with the gray area and also most people with half a brain can understand it (the others say things like "So you're a vegetarian. Would you like chicken instead?")

      The only two substitutes I eat regularly are a bacony-type thing. The artificial bacon flavour has been around for years and you'll find it in a lot of bacon-flavoured foods. I like it and I think I'd like it even if I hadn't tried bacon before. Come to think of it, I'm not really eating that much anymore.

      The other is a hot-dog thing. I really liked hot dogs with cheese, onion, tomato sauce (ketchup?) and mustard. After I gave up meat I realised that the actual "dog" was kind of irrelevant (does anyone think those things actually taste like meat anyway? God knows what they're made of.) so I substituted the fake ones for the sake of completion more than anything.

      If anything, i'd say "moral" vegetarians may seek out meat substitutes because we are still a product of our society, and ingrained habits run deep.

      BTW, has anyone asked why the cultured meat can't be of human origin?

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    19. Re:Why replace meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Especially those objecting to the killing tend to be fine with eating milk and eggs, for instance - animal protein as much as the flesh, but it doesn't require taking an animals life for it.

      Right. They can eat milk, and I'll eat the milk byproducts - veal, steak etc. Basic mammalian biology: cows lactate to feed the calf they just gave birth to. So you drink the milk and I'll eat that surplus calf who won't be getting the milk.

      And as for eggs: a clue. Hens are not parthenogenetic. Half of the chickens hatched are male, and will never lay eggs. Or live beyond the age where their sex can be determined.

      No killing, hah! Typical townie's self-delusion.

    20. Re:Why replace meat? by mink · · Score: 1

      "If you become iron deficient you will crave meat, even to the point of very rare meat."

      This is utter BS. Got any science to go with those good feelings?

      So if I suddenly crave salted peanuts, that means I have a salt deficiency? Then I get thirsty, so I obviously have a water deficiency, but then I crave a whole bag of chips, means I got stoned or am depressed.

      Here is what science has said about iron deficiency and cravings:
      "Some people with an iron deficiency also have an odd tendency to crave ice or dirt! This is known as pica (pronounced pie-ka) the craving of nonfoods like ice, clay or starch. ."

      Nothing in any of the pages on low iron about the body automatically craving meat. Using thirst to try to establish a correlation in other unrelated things is bad logic.

      I have been unable to find any study or research showing a 100% link between a craving for a particular food and a vitamin deficiency. Or are you saying that all people who crave chocolate are low in magnesium (a crave that sometimes does mean that)?

      All I can find is some less then reliable web sites that claim there may be an association between our craves and vitamin levels that we supposedly learn in childhood, but what if you never were significantly low in anything?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  18. Maybe more economical. by vertinox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure about the economics, but one would think eventually it would be cheaper to grow meat in a vat than raise a few million animals, pay for their feed, clean their waste, and then spend the time and money shipping them off to the slaughter house.

    At least it would take less energy and be more environmental friendly or don't stink up the local area...

    Ever drove by a pig farm? They have a ton by the coast in North Carolina and they don't call em pigs for nothing.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    1. Re:Maybe more economical. by pclminion · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure about the economics, but one would think eventually it would be cheaper to grow meat in a vat than raise a few million animals, pay for their feed, clean their waste, and then spend the time and money shipping them off to the slaughter house.

      If that were the case, I'd think the first uses of this technology would be in impoverished countries. But somehow I don't think that's going to happen. Cheaper? Maybe in a certain sense, but not the sense that really matters to starving people.

    2. Re:Maybe more economical. by radtea · · Score: 1


      It may be more economical, although modern industrial pig-farming is well-known for "using everything but the squeal". Very little of the pig goes to waste, although a good deal of it goes into non-food products.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  19. Synthetic Foods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personaly i have been looking for the zero fat, zero calories, zero carb, zero everything that can be used to fill my belly and stop hunger pangs, but not put any more meat on my fat ass.

  20. I hereby volunteer ... by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... to be the seed plasm for delicious roast haunch of human.

    That way, millions of people across the earth could finally eat my butt for real, instead of my just screaming for them to do it from street corners.

  21. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by DougInthezoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    OK, so if the whole point of a vegan or vegetarian's lifestyle is to preserve life, ponder this. Over 100,000 animals are killed every time 1 acre of land is plowed to plant those precious soybeans. And I'm not counting insects here, just mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Mice, gophers, groundhogs, snakes, frogs, salamanders, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    What makes a cow's life more important than the life of a frog, or a snake, or a little mouse?

    If saving life was the most important aspect of your culinary habits, then you would be eating blue whales and elephants, as one death would feed so many people.

    Yes, there is way more than a hint of sarcasm in my reply here, but I"m sick of hearing the rhetoric of vegetarians and vegans who claim that I am in some way inferior to them because I eat meat. Now, I'm far from the average. I raise, slaughter and butcher my own meat as much as I can on 5 acres. That way I know it lived an above average life, and was in optimum health at the time it died.

    Lastly, for anyone who wants to cut out all meat from their diet, please, please research B vitamins from a non-vegetarian source. B12 is something that can not be replicated by plants, and the various 'vegan' forms of B12 out there are incapable of being absorbed by the human digestive system. Side effects of B12 deficiency are: mental illness, paralysis, continual chronic pain syndromes, and virtually every other nervous disorder in the book.

    I've had friends go vegan, and can personally attest to the fact that it changes them mentally, they are plagued with depression, and physical disorders. One fried in particular keeps breaking ribs from caughing, because her bone mass dropped so quickly from malnutrition. And yet, she became so preachy about how superiour her lifestyle was.

  22. Cloning for food is good by J+Barnes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always said that the one universal application for cloning research is the development of vat-grown meat.

    Cruelty free, vegan-friendly. It could be engineered for the perfect protein, fat and mineral content while maintaining perfect flavor.

    Imagine a sea of perfectly marbled, gristle-free beef filets.... droooool....

  23. Schools and prisons by davidwr · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it's cheap, nutritious, and almost tasty expect to see it in public schools.

    If it's cheap, nutritious, and gross, expect to see it in prisons.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Schools and prisons by raydobbs · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between the two nowadays?

    2. Re:Schools and prisons by Dragon218 · · Score: 1

      Yeah,

      In one, you can be shot.

      --

      "It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
  24. I'll bite (pun intended) by DoctaWatson · · Score: 1

    100,000 non-insect animals in 1 acre? Maybe in cases where dense rainforest is being destroyed. I'm very skeptical of this claim and I'd like to see you back it up with some evidence. If anything, this is a larger indictment of the agri-business superfarms.

    B12 deficiency only occurs in vegan diets. Vegetarians get more than enough Vitamin B12 through dairy and eggs. I agree though, anyone making dramatic changes to their diet should be well informed before doing so.

    I congratulate you on caring for your livestock, but I ask: why kill them? You could just as easily use their eggs and milk, and probably have plenty of space and time left for a large garden. If you can live well on that sustenance, what reason remains to justify their death?

    1. Re:I'll bite (pun intended) by DougInthezoo · · Score: 1

      Damn, you caught me. I swear I was trying to say 10,000, not 100,000. (Will remember to proofread, will remember to proofread...)

      I actually suffer from a B12 deficiency as well as iron deficiency, both of which are genetic. The iron problem stabalized when I was fairly young, but the B12 requires me to get a shot weekly, as my body simply refuses to absorb it through my digestive track.

      On the livestock, killing them is more of a rarity. I've got about 25 chickens, and love all the eggs. I also have a herd of dairy goats which I milk twice daily, and use the milk, as well as making cheese. And then I also have geese, turkeys and ducks who all all for eggs only, and slug control.

      As for the butchering, I have raised a couple pigs specifically as food, and am getting two more this year for the same purpose. I do incubate and hatch my own chicken eggs to re-stock the chickens, and will butcher the roosters when they are large enough.

    2. Re:I'll bite (pun intended) by orn · · Score: 1

      To me, this kind of life-style makes sense. The problem is that most food in the world isn't grown this way.

      We are omnivores. Eating plants and animals is how we evolved and will always fit into our physical systems best.

      The problem is the way you produce meat for the entire world population. It requires tremendous resources and factory farms to do it on that scale. ...

      Rudy

      --
      1. 2.
  25. Natural and Barbaric by DoctaWatson · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's perfectly natural to go out and crap in my front yard. My body has no problem at all laying a big steaming turd on that nice green grass on a hot afternoon.

    But I think I'll stick to the toilet. Sometimes justifying acts on the basis of nature clashes with doing the right thing.

    1. Re:Natural and Barbaric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's perfectly natural to crap whenever you feel the need. The problem with your analogy is that back in the stone ages there were no front yards, no society telling you what is right.

      Nature is fact, society is the variable in "the right thing". Hence your opinion as to the right thing might differ with others(on the crapping in the front yard I agree with you, the meat issue I do not)

  26. What is the point, exactly? by iamstan · · Score: 1

    What have these people got against beans and tortillas?

  27. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

    > OK, so if the whole point of a vegan or vegetarian's lifestyle is to preserve life, ponder this. Over 100,000 animals are killed every time 1 acre of land is plowed to plant those precious soybeans.

    More of which is used to feed animals than humans.

    Pathetic. Try again. If you're sick of hearing the rhetoric, try not spreading it around.

    --
    I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
  28. McDonalds' hamburgers don't taste like meat... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure. McDonalds hamburgers are pretty popular, and they taste like shit.

    I grew up in cow country, I was friends with ranchers and ate plenty of beef growing up. McDonalds hamburgers taste nothing like beef...

  29. Efficiency? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    What is the energy efficiency of growing this artificial meat? The joules required to produce each 100 calories of the mmeat? Vs. the joules required to produce each 100 calories of natural meat, whichever is the "cheapest" meat to produce?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Efficiency? by raygundan · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to hear this, too. I'm a non-preaching "engineer vegitarian" by way of the reasoning that it's more efficient for me to eat the plants than it is to feed them to an animal who burns off most of the energy maintaining body temperature before it gets to us.

      Anything that improves the efficiency of our food chain is good news. Of course, if this is *more* energy-intensive than just raising a cow, it's silly.

    2. Re:Efficiency? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I can't see how raising a cow could be more energy efficient than cultivating this tissue. Cows are slaughtered after years of growth, while this mmeat is probably only days or weeks old when ready to eat. And all that "ecosystem", even when tightly controlled on a "factory farm", is very wasteful. I'd like to see numbers comparing each, to see just how many times (thousands or millions, possibly) more people could be fed with this stuff, rather than the natural way.

      Personally, I'm inclined to say that I'd never eat this stuff, when natural meat was available. But I like tofu, cheese, beer...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Efficiency? by leep80 · · Score: 1

      I would think that vat meat is more energy efficient because no energy would be consumed to make organs, bones, etc. On the other hand vat meat probably would need more refined pieces to make (processed charbohydrates, fat, & vitamines) as opposed to corn and water.

    4. Re:Efficiency? by raygundan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My gut instinct says the same thing, but I'm practical about things and won't call it "fact" until I've seen some numbers.

      Mmmm... beer.

  30. Guiltfree veal? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    What about cloning the stemcells of chicken (or whale, for that matter) that differentiate into muscle? That seems easier, faster, and more reliable. Without putting an animal consciousness into harm's way. Caviar from the endangered beluga sturgeon should be really easy.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Guiltfree veal? by zahl2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, why bother to exercise it? Veal eaters will be thrilled.

      p.s. I'm semi-vegetarian for ecological reasons. (Health reasons cause me to eat organic meat when I indulge.)

  31. Dildos ? by twilight30 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, how long before some smart-arse comes up with the idea for menless-dildos ?

    Getting them erect might be a problem.

    Christ, I think I've just grossed myself out.

    --
    ========================================
    Death will come, and will have your eyes
    -- Pavese
    1. Re:Dildos ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Finally, a post that really begs for a "WTF?!" mod to be added.

  32. McDonald's.... by SB5 · · Score: 1

    I could have sworn McDonald's already had this technology and has been using it for years now.

    --
    If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
    it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
  33. What happens if the world goes veggie? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

    I do have one *tiny* question for every veggie, vegan et al - what do you think will happen to all the domestic animals (especially young ones - milk could still be used afterall, but there's no use for a calf if we're not eating veal) if the whole world turned veggie? I'd guesstimate that you'd a) see the extinction of about 80% of the breeds of cow, 90%+ of the varieties of pig, not to mention the ecological impact of western society suddenly losing 2/3rds of it's natural wildlife (farmers, already poor, aren't going to keep animals alive that are losing them money)... Just curious as to how veggies view this... (resists adding disclaimers - there is *NOTHING* worse than an article that to 50% of the population is flamebait ending with some crappy get-out clause. Mod me up, mod me down - but hey, mod me on my questions not my skill at escaping negativity ;))

    --
    Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    1. Re:What happens if the world goes veggie? by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 1

      That's an excellent question. I've wondered this too. In my opinion continuing a species is not an end in itself. I don't think we would want the human race to continue if it meant immense suffering for all. Think the matrix but with lots of sharp needles instead of the enjoyable matrix shared world fantasy.

      But I'm not a "veggie" as it sounds like I got a B-12 deficiency when I tried it ;-)

    2. Re:What happens if the world goes veggie? by sumirain · · Score: 1

      I doubt very much that the world would ever turn strictly vegan, but many breeds of livestock would indeed die out - not all simultaneously drop dead, but be gradually consumed or killed for leather or other products. Yep, they'd probably be gone, but livestock are hardly 'natural wildlife'. It's up for debate whether the extinction of a an artificially created breed that's already totally dependent on human care is a long-term ecological loss. It would probably (further) upset local ecosystems for awhile, but they would then return to natural balances if former grazing land were abandoned. (Assuming that other human influences like waste dumping and chemical pollutants hadn't already rendered it unreclamable.) I'm a veggie. I would not see it as a moral problem to end the breeding of livestock and to use up the herds. But even if the world went vegetarian, some animal products would still be in demand, so the livestock market would become small and high-priced but not disappear entirely.

  34. Real Meat by salmonz · · Score: 1

    How long have humans been eating real meat? Why stop now? Animals have no compassion for killing other animals to eat so why should we? Some people have to realize a simple term, "Food Chain". We are at the top, everything else at the bottom. Let's use the term to our advantage because I bet the other millions of animals out there just envy us. Why not make artifical meat for Africa or hungry people? It would be a solution to end hunger in the world.

    1. Re:Real Meat by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1

      Are you sure we are at the top of the Food Chain? We evolved in a niche where being eaten by lions, crocodiles and other animals was the norm. Now we refuse to play by these rules, and stepped out of the Food Chain by refusing to die for feeding other creatures. We mainly breed our meat instead of hunting for it. It's a totally different set of rules that allowed us to grow a population of six billions, much more than any other big vertebrate. We already changed the rules and can change them again at any moment, if that is needed to perpetuate our species in the long term.

      --
      Nuffsaid
      ________

      Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    2. Re:Real Meat by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      We evolved in a niche where being eaten by lions, crocodiles and other animals was the norm.

      Tell that to the Masai! Ever since the invention of the pointy stick, humans - or rather, groups of humans appropriately trained/experiences - have been top of the food chain.

      Why agriculture started is still very much a subject for debate, although (no joking) it is suspicious that grain collection/cultivation and beer making crop up at the same time in the historical record. Of course, once you start agriculture, you cannot stop because the population grows.

    3. Re:Real Meat by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      IMO, massive agriculture began because cities became the way of life as opposed to tribes and small groups of people. Now that we have cities, you have an obscenely dense area of pigs, for example. Now, thats all fine and dandy except that pigs cause a massive amount of air pollution around them. They also shit a lot. The inexperienced say "Great! Use all that shit as fertilizer for better crops!" Well, there is a problem with that. In many places, there is too much pig shit. So what happens? Pigs shit runs into the water table, and into streams, which go into rivers, and then into lakes. I live in Southern Ontario, and you used to be able to swim in the rivers and Great Lakes. Now, any time after it has rained, you can't go in the water for many days due to very high levels of E-Coli.

      This is the case with a lot of farms around the world. It's not so bad that we are eating all of these animals (im not sure how I feel about it actually), but we definitely aren't doing it in the "right" way (read: eco-friendly).

      As for the previous poster that was trying to make a claim for animals by mentioning that we have to kill a lot of animals in order to have a huge pasture full of soybeans.. well that's a pretty stupid post, IMO.

      We have to clear pastures for a LOT of crops, and the reason why we have these dense areas of clear-cut forests-turned-crops is because of the cities. Cities are completely unsustainable. They can't function on their own. Anyone in the country can grow their own food on their own land, and share with others. Also, you killed a bunch of animals clearing out those forests to make pasture for your cows. Now you are wasting a fucklot more land on cows than for fruits and veggies. Another downside is that animals don't help to filter out the air like plants/trees do, but they do cause a lot of pollution.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    4. Re:Real Meat by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      IMO, massive agriculture began because cities became the way of life as opposed to tribes and small groups of people.

      Well, the archeology suggests it was the other way around; farming begat larger populations, and things like surpluses that meant not everyone had to directly work for food; hence specialisation and eventually cities. This was a long lime before fully industrialised pig farming .

      You seem to be using a criteria for sustainability in which absolutely everyone has to be a smallholding farmer, since any deviation or division of labour would be unsustainable.

      The reason for clear cutting is population. Cities are typically population sinks; a general principal is that birth rates are much higher in farming communities where labour is required, and lower in cities where children are a disadvantage. Putting everyone back on the land would lead to higher population increases and greater demand for land.

      The reason for growing meat in vats would be that a great deal of land currently used for cattle feed crops would no longer be required.

  35. Speaking of cruelty by mnmn · · Score: 1

    I say we do NOT use fake meat to feed the third worlds population. Heres why:

    The idea is to reduce suffering. Right?
    If we cannot eliminate it completely overnight, we have to aim for say fewer people dying of starvation. Right?

    Now in many poor countries, people are like bacteria cultures. Add food, they'll increase in numbers. Reduce food, they'll starve in big numbers= starvation.

    Eventually the population reaches an equiliberium like it is now in Pakistan. People simply cannot afford to have more kids. Food becomes more expensive as the population grows. The amount of food also fluctuates between the years. During the bad years you'll see maximum suffering in an overpopulated country.

    The only break out of this is education and economy. People will realize their quality of life increases with fewer children if they have to pay for education rather than put them out to the fields. Empowerment of women also helps enormously, whereby a man will not be able to make puppy mills out of his family to spread his progeny at the cost of the quality of everyones lives. Empowerment of women further increases education and the economy thus the system becomes a positive-feedback system.

    But while the country is a 'third world' country with starving and overpopulated people, feeding them further will increase the population to the next point of saturation. Not feeding them now will get them to reach saturation with fewer people starving and suffering than if we feed them to the next point of saturation when fake meat production will not be able to sustain them.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Speaking of cruelty by jmishka · · Score: 1

      Thank the gods...there are other people out there who are of the same mind set as myself...and not afraid to say it. When I speak of this I am looked at like I am personally killing those poor starving children.

      I would also add that after feeding them the slop that we send over there, we, as civilized nations, then try to impose our own forms of birth control to curb the population growth. Why? Because we know that their land is probably better suited to nomadic peoples and not to large urban centers (like countries with more arable land to support large popluation centers) but that is what we/big business want...more consumers like us.

      And don't forget that the food-aid comes with a religious price tag as well, because if we can change their religious beliefs then we are even happier...well some of us that is, myself not included. We should be mourning for those people's lost folkways and religious identity rather than trying to make everyone conform to our mostly christian ways.

      --
      I am quite witty inside my head.
    2. Re:Speaking of cruelty by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      Now in many poor countries, people are like bacteria cultures. Add food, they'll increase in numbers. Reduce food, they'll starve in big numbers= starvation.

      Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support what would otherwise look like a fairly nasty bit of xenophobia?

    3. Re:Speaking of cruelty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called biology & religion. Biologically, a woman cannot bear a child (cannot even concieve) if her fat ratio is too small. Therefore, if a woman is starving, she cannot have another child.

      Now add in supplies of food and impose religion that says birth control is not allowed. It adds up to nothing except MORE mouths to feed.

      Don't get me wrong - I feel desperately sorry for everyone in that situation. I can think of all those children and cry. HOWEVER, I also refuse to contribute to any 'aid' organization that doesn't offer birth control options (as education at the very least) in addition to food. Because the population needs to be reduced in these areas. Anything else is trying to stick a band-aid on a gaping, down-to-the-bone wound.

    4. Re:Speaking of cruelty by jmishka · · Score: 1

      Ok so I am for birth control, in fact I don't think people should just be able to have children carte blanche, esp if they can't feed or afford them (in any country)...

      But is it fair to offer food only with the catch that they must completely wipe out their, non-birth control ideas (if they hold them) regarding reproductive rights? I am also not religious but I believe that if they don't want to use birth control then they should have that reproductive right.

      To further that thought if they want to have such a high population/high birth rate that it causes them to not be able to feed themselves...well... that certainly looks like a "choice" to me.

      And don't give me the arguement that they don't understand or realize what they are doing with respect to population growth. Societies from the beginning of time have collectively known that too many mouths to feed equals starvation, so don't try to make these people seem stupid or dumb just becasue they don't have an "industrialized nation" education.

      And in defense of the bacteria culture thing...and I am a Molecular Biologist so I think I know what I am talking about here...ALL HUMANS/ANIMALS ARE WALKING BACTERIAL CULTURES...in fact the whole ecosystem of Earth is one big petri dish

      Additionally it is difficult for a human female (as stated previously) to reproduce when maintaining a starvation subsistence. So when she then begins to have access to better nutrition she then becomes suseptible to becoming pregnant although it is likely that she is not yet at optimum weight and nutrition to be carrying a pregnancy. She has another child, gives all her body can give to the growing baby and she is right back where she started, nutrition poor again. Meanwhile there is now another mouth to feed so the vicious cycle repeats itself.

      How to break the cycle?? If we knew that we could fix it but apparently we don't or can't control all the factors like civil war, AIDS, etc. Like it or not there is a biological reason for what is going on over there with respect to famine and disease.

      If this were happening a hundred years ago, the weakest part of their population would die off and then the population would naturally equilibrate itself. But that natural process cannot happen today because we interfere, be it right or wrong, we do interfere with this natural occurance. Nature and natual selection isn't kind folks.

      And just because a couple of us know/believe strongly these things to be true, and speak what most people don't want to hear, does not mean that we dont feel for those people and are cruel evil folks.

      --
      I am quite witty inside my head.
    5. Re:Speaking of cruelty by jmishka · · Score: 1

      I wrote: And in defense of the bacteria culture thing...and I am a Molecular Biologist so I think I know what I am talking about here...ALL HUMANS/ANIMALS ARE WALKING BACTERIAL CULTURES...in fact the whole ecosystem of Earth is one big petri dish.

      What I erroneously forgot to add was that bacteria, I hesitate to use the term strains for fear of exacerbating the xenophobia thing, reproduce at different rates and if one looks at the population explosions and reductions in certain developing countries a correlation could be drawn; not in the fact that they ARE bacteria but rather, given food/media both populations tend to increase by large numbers, then when the food/media is depleted you can observe a period of population reduction.

      In contrast the popultion of the US and the UK, for example, when given more food(media) does not show the same pattern of population growth. But we do show growing waistlines

      Rants & raves equally welcome. If one can't debate with a worthy opponent...how can one learn anything

      --
      I am quite witty inside my head.
    6. Re:Speaking of cruelty by mnmn · · Score: 1

      A hint: I'm from the poorest asian country.

      So wheres the xenophobia?

      I've personally seen the mindset whereby the person wants to further his genes as much as possible, indeed in rural areas Muslim mullahs preach producing as many 'muslims' as is economically possible (read: food available). You cant blame me for being antimuslim either because I am one.

      Like I said the two ways are education + womens sufferage. In combination that creates families which try to have few children and raise them the best they can. Actually another important ingredient is the healthcare. Where you have extremely high death rates before the child reaches reproductive-age, the society reacts by producing many children. Once they can be assured of the survival of their own children, believe me, they would rather educate the few kids the best they can and generally aim for a better quality of life.

      What I hate to imagine is the case where massive amounts of food is provided to poor countries for several decades, and during a major famine, food is withheld causing the maximum amount of starvation. The type we saw in Ethiopia.

      Most people would rather be forced to have few children than watch them die starving. Most of those would rather be forced by circumstances than the government. I'm all for creating such circumstances.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    7. Re:Speaking of cruelty by jmishka · · Score: 1

      I am not sure why fluffy666 (582573) brought up the "fairly nasty bit of xenophobia" thing...but I do hear that a lot when discussing this topic with people. I do agree on the medical front but we need to either "shit or get off the pot" so to speak...either we help and end the cycle once and for all or let nature take it course. But this yo-yoing of food, no food, famine, no famine REALLY needs to stop.

      I think there is a rising question in the minds of people living in the $$$ countries of the world. They "seem" to be getting sick of sending aid when they have their own poor and starving children (albeit in MUCH lower numbers) plus prices for the things they value, TVs, SUVs, etc are rising. Not to mention gas esp in the US where we are spoiled and used to cheap gasoline. More and more I hear that folks don't want money going over there or anywhere.

      I saw a recent poll (very unscientific I know) on the net regarding what are the most important things for the G8 summit, Africa and aid/debt relief to poor countries was at the bottom of the list getting the fewest votes for importance. With terror lurking in seemingly every corner it would seem that people are turning inward as well.

      It has been a while since the "Great Depression" in the US but my mom is from a southern state and they didn't have enough food to eat by a long shot...she used to get so hungry she would steal cattle grain from a neighbor's barn to eat and others in the area did die of starvation. Nothing like what we see now in the poorest countries but it happens everywhere at some point it seems. My mom now hoards canned food and hides it away but I guess someone with nothing would say "at least she can."

      There are no easy answers or solutions but I think it will only get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.

      --
      I am quite witty inside my head.
    8. Re:Speaking of cruelty by Dragon218 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to take a stab at this and say that you've just read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn.

      --

      "It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
    9. Re:Speaking of cruelty by yaweh · · Score: 1

      I would agree with the analogy. Population growth, whether it be bacteria, plant or animal will always grow exponetially when there is resource to support that growth. It's just easy to study in bacteria. I have always thought that over population is at the root of the world's most pressing issues. I have also always believed that people who live in the "civilized world" should be able to draw this conclusion as they are fortunate to be recipients of high levels of education, scientific and otherwise. Therefore I concluded a long time ago that it is morally irresponsible and selfish to mankind for a person, man or woman, to ever create more than one human being. The "perfect family" is the family of 4 that stays together.

      --
      "There was no sex." - hoggoth
    10. Re:Speaking of cruelty by yaweh · · Score: 1
      Oh man, believe me, it's not just the Moslems who are pressed by their religious leaders to procreate as much as possible.

      World will be a better place once the institutions of the worlds religions back the heck out of matters of science.

      --
      "There was no sex." - hoggoth
  36. The Space Merchants. by opencity · · Score: 1

    Pohl and Kornbluth 1953

    Really strange image of 'Chicken Little', an enormous everliving vat grown chicken tissue that the radical conservationists hold their meetings inside.

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
  37. does it have to be real meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "This gagh is barely moving!"

    1. Re:does it have to be real meat? by jmishka · · Score: 1

      Not to be overly geeky or anything but I rarely get to use my Klingon dictionary...so I am not so much picking on your post as trying to show off that I, like many other geeks, HAVE a Klingon Dictionary

      If I follow your thoughts I believe the word is "qagh," serpent worm (as food)(n) pg 183.

      (Lowly) Ensign Jenn

      --
      I am quite witty inside my head.
  38. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> OK, so if the whole point of a vegan or vegetarian's lifestyle is to preserve life, ponder this. Over 100,000 animals are killed every time 1 acre of land is plowed to plant those precious soybeans.

    >More of which is used to feed animals than humans.

    >Pathetic. Try again. If you're sick of hearing the rhetoric, try not spreading it around.

    So, killing less animals is better than killing more? To quote Maddox, "that's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to 'limit' the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering" ... "A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20 if the murder is avoidable." ... "Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to 'limit' the suffering."

    In short, your vegetarianism has absolutely nothing to do with preventing the suffering of animals, rather, it has everything to do with preventing the suffering of your conscience.

    (quotes from: http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html and http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi )

  39. Cheapness is not the only quality by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1

    Think quality. Think choice.

    Suppose that instead of someone else growing steak in a lab for you, and you having to guess whether this mystery meat was truly lab grown or not, that instead you are able to buy a tiny quantity of seed culture for 100 different things (e.g. the 100 finest varieties of steak, or the 100 finest kinds of gourmet coffee beans, the tastiest spice plant leaves, etc...) and suppose you can choose to grow these things yourself in your own grower, process them yourself, etc.

    Suddenly, it may be possible to eat much better food than before, and you choose to eat only what you like. Stuff that you would not have been able to afford before you can suddenly have every day. Further, you wouldn't have to drive a car to 50 places to get all of your food.

    Now, suppose (since we are already supposing) that a food grower were to go down in price and become affordable. Then, if oil prices keep going up, growing your own food eventually becomes cheaper than transporting it from somewhere else.

    1. Re:Cheapness is not the only quality by g0dsp33d · · Score: 1

      Or we could just suppose that computers will eventually be able to assemble matter into whatever food we desire and then beam it down to us.

      --
      lol: You see no door there!
  40. Actually, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linda McCartney felt Meat Was Murder. She thought that if we had to kill the animal before eating it, we'd be vegitarians. Generally, though, that would only be true if we were not brought up having to kill animals.

    So, some vegetarians *do* see meat as evil. These are the ones that the GP was talking about. Apart from Linda, I don't know that the substitute makers are targeting that market, though. Maybe even Linda was just caching in...

  41. Hu-mans and el-e-phants are tasty. by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 1
    by DougInthezoo (745880) [...] eating blue whales and elephants, as one death would feed so many people. [...] I raise, slaughter and butcher my own meat as much as I can on 5 acres
    Emphasis added. And here I thought zoos just kept elephants so kids can see them up close ;).
  42. Re:Long Pork by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

    Human meat is one of the obvious potentials of this technology. Tastes like pork. Growing it in a a vat solves many of the ethical problems.

    The idea of artificial meat is not new.
    Robert Heinlein may have invented it. Was it in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? His character built an artifical cow for milk, and beef was a byproduct.
    Pohl and Kornbluth also had the concept, in, I think, the Space Merchants, a giant chicken heart.

    Yay! I'm a slabber of beef! - beefsteak, http://filthylies.net/

  43. Mod parent "uninformative" by quinto2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh come on, this is absurd.

    Do you realize how many more resources -- land and fresh water -- are consumed in producing meat than in producing vegetable crops? Livestock are either fed other livestock or vegetable crops. There is no possible way to use fewer resources to produce a pound of animal protein vs a pound of soy protein.

    That ethical reason is what motivates me in limiting my meat intake to fish and chicken and limiting my intake of those as much as I can. The most resources are used in producing red meat, followed by pork, then fish and chicken, but a pure-vegetable diet uses the least.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post
    1. Re:Mod parent "uninformative" by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1

      "Do you realize how many more resources -- land and fresh water -- are consumed in producing meat than in producing vegetable crops? " This is an old myth. There is enourmous amounts of land that cannot be used for crops and edible plants and which can be used for animals.

    2. Re:Mod parent "uninformative" by quinto2000 · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. Animal protein's cost=vegetable cost + animal cost. It will never be less than the vegetable growing cost, and surely you're not claiming with any sincerity that no resources are consumed in raising animals. What's more, while there may be land that animals can be raised on that vegetables can't be grown on, fresh, clean water is a limited resource that is dwindling in modern times. See this post which links to a few concrete figures on resource consumption: http://sugarrocket.com/vegan/why-i-am-vegan.php

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un post
    3. Re:Mod parent "uninformative" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Animal protein's cost=vegetable cost + animal cost.

      Not unless you can eat grass.

      And there is no "shortage of fresh water" in the United States, nor in most of the developed world.

    4. Re:Mod parent "uninformative" by quinto2000 · · Score: 1

      most animals are fed grain and other animals, not grass. I'm not sure what century you live in :)

      And there is indeed a crisis in global clean, fresh water resources. If you use google you will see several journal articles discussing this. http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/dec99/Feature2.h tm

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un post
  44. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1

    On the health side it would seem that plant based foods are associated with all sorts of problems : allergies, auto-immune diseases, gut problems, asthma, etc. Carbs are heavily implicated in syndome X (a clutch of symptoms going towards diabetes) and other ills, such as PCOS, thyroid problems, water-retention, abcesses and many many more. And carbs don't come from meat (except a little from liver).

    Perhaps reflecting out near-carnivore hunter-gatherer origins (according to anthropologists) its very rare for people to have problems with unprocessed meat. One might point at saturated fat as a cause of heart disease but current research indicates that it is contributory at most, and that the actual cause of heart disease is much more likely to be either sugar, vegetable oils, a type of chlamydia infection and one or two other things. As for meat and cancer : the most authoratitive study (WHO in 2000) found no relation between unprocessed meat and cancer; you can discount the recent nonsense about meat and cancer since that recent study is no where near the WHO study in terms of integrity and reliability, and in anycase the emphasis was on processed meat.

    Who ever heard of a meat allergy (other than related to added nitrates)? It exists, AFAIK, but is very very rare, perhaps reflecting that meat is totally natural to us.

    The irony is that western nutritionists have everyone believing that muesli is nature's way, when it is anthroplogically the opposite of an original and natural human diet. Sure evolution will have compensated in the last 10,000 years, but it takes time to adapt to a 180 degree change in dietary direction from 2 million years+ of meat; I've read one source claim that we need 20,000 years to see a significant adaption, and we are only half-way through.

    Worse still while we may have had 10,000 years adapting to farmer foods, we've only had 100 years to adapt to industrial foods such as margarine, vegetable oils, sugar and other forms of unnatural foods (at the very least unnatural to us, even if technically natural which margarine totally isn't).

  45. Re:Long Pork by Alsee · · Score: 1

    So if I take one of my skin cells and grow it in a vat, then I get to eat myself?

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  46. Re:Oh boy oh boy..TV Funhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was an episode of TV Funhouse where Foggey was trying to give up eating his own poop and was seen eating from a tub of "I can't believe it's not poop"

  47. Johnny Carson: McDonald's on their 2nd horse by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    I heard that Carson told the joke some while ago "McDonalds now says they sold a BILLION hamburgers . . . I guess they are now on their second horse.

    He came back the next day to say "McDonald's is threatening to sue me if I don't take back what I said. OK, McDonald's is NOT on their second horse . . ."

  48. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by jeblucas · · Score: 1
    Who can resist an anti-vegetarian rant? Pile on! Here's my favorites...
    • I'm a meat eater. Tastes good, etc. Let's say, over the course of the year, I eat 52 lbs of meat. I'm only eating certain cuts, so let's say my eating habits contribute to the deaths of, say, 300 animals. Vegetarians eat plants. For some reason, the moral implications of killing and eating plant life is different from killing and eating animal life. Not only that, because plants are normally most nutritious as seeds (embryos) or sprouts (infants), and because you eat a CRAP-TON of them to keep from dying from malnutrition, a vegetarian could easily be responsible for the deaths of literally 100,000's of lives every year. And they eat a lot of them raw. And I'm the creep?
    • Plants have been living on the earth for at least a BILLION years longer than animals. Who's to say they don't have some conciousness or "thought" so beyond our puny understanding that we cannot hope to comprehend it. And there vegetarians go, chewing baby plants alive while they scream their silent horror.
    • Suppose the vegetarians win all their arguments! Liberate all the cows! Oh frabjous day! You know what happens the first winter? A lot of dead cows happen. That is an engineered organism. It's not designed to live in the wild. It's been bred to die and put its delicious muscular tissue in my digestive system. Mmm.
    • Every time I hear about great white sharks are the World's Greatest Predator or spiders are the World's Greatest Predator pound for pound I just chuckle. HUMANS are the World's Greatest Predator without a damn doubt. Yeah, sure, naked and so on we're wimpy. But how often are going around naked out there? We wear armor and carry howitzers. Just because we evolved the ability to make dirt and oil into howitzers instead of extra rows of teeth doesn't mean we don't kick great white shark ass. We are the top of pretty much every food chain (basically, excepting those at the bottom of the ocean and the ones we don't feel like eating--insect food chains, mostly). I feel humanity's ability to change the shape of cows to make them meatier and more docile coupled with our ability to make long sharp knives and casting pens lets us flex our predatory nature a little. Why do vegetarians have such a problem with our utter dominance?
    I realize not all vegetarians have irrational beliefs about this sort of thing. I also realize not all of them are the kind of folks that try to impose their moral decisions on me. But those of you that do? You're ranking only slightly higher than the Mormon boys that try to convert my family every other weekend.
    --
    blarg.
  49. Between "almost tasty" and "gross"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope.

  50. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who go vegan should really consult a doctor, as it's almost impossible to get all the vital micronutrients they need without taking supplements. Of course, most of the same people who are vegans are also opposed to supplements and the like, so you end up in a bit of a pickle.

    BTW, why do you think providing meat animals with a good life is important? I'm sure it improves flavor, but I'd think it'd be crueler to kill an animal which is enjoying its bucolic existence before you break out the chopper and terminate its promising life early. ;-)

  51. Obligatory Futurama quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bite my shiny metal ass.

  52. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by mink · · Score: 1

    Your rant kind of wanders all over the play without making any real straight foreward point. Can you maybe clear up exactly what you meant to say with this post?

    Get a book of food counts and look up all the plant based foods. Most vegetables (plant based foods) have little to no carbs. Grain do have high carb loads, but if we humans didn't strip all the fiber and germ from the grains they would be complex carbs instead of the refined simple carbs. Complex carbs have a slower release cycle and provide a longer lower more steady energy then the dangerous spiking you get from simple carbs.

    I am not saying not to eat meat. But advocating no plant based foods is stupid and really cuts down on variety/flavor. I doubt you or anyone could live on pure meat alone with no plat based anything, or be able to eat anywhere with that kind of dietary restriction. I say that not because I think you would die, just that it would gt awful boring and tasteless.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  53. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by mink · · Score: 1

    "Lastly, for anyone who wants to cut out all meat from their diet, please, please research B vitamins from a non-vegetarian source. B12 is something that can not be replicated by plants, and the various 'vegan' forms of B12 out there are incapable of being absorbed by the human digestive system. Side effects of B12 deficiency are: mental illness, paralysis, continual chronic pain syndromes, and virtually every other nervous disorder in the book."

    I'm sorry but you are so full of shit in this.
    I know hundreds of people who suffer no more or less health issues then meat eaters (some do suffer less because they avoid a lot of excess fats and cholesterol).

    Here is some truth about B12 and vegetarianism.

    "The requirement for vitamin B12 is very low. Non-animal sources include Red Star nutritional yeast T6635 also known as Vegetarian Support Formula (around 2 teaspoons supplies the adult RDA). It is especially important for pregnant and lactating women, infants, and children to have reliable sources of vitamin B12 in their diets. Numerous foods are fortified with B12, but sometimes companies change what they do. So always read labels carefully or write the companies.

    Tempeh, miso, and seaweed are often labeled as having large amounts of vitamin B12. However, these products are not reliable sources of the vitamin because the amount of vitamin B12 present depends on the type of processing the food undergoes. Other sources of vitamin B12 are fortified soy milk (check the label as this is rarely available in the U.S.), vitamin B12-fortified meat analogues, and vitamin B12 supplements. There are supplements which do not contain animal products. Vegetarians who are not vegan can also obtain vitamin B12 from dairy products and eggs."

    Note that hard core vegans who don't eat dairy (and obviously don't eat eggs or fish) have a much greater need to supplement diet. Just cutting meat, but leaving dairy (a lot of vegetarians are this type) will provide you with sufficient B12.

    A fact you are also missing is that B12 problems would arise in any anime that was never exposed to the bacteria that make it. Thats right B12 only exists in both plants or animals due to a bacteria. How do the animals get exposed to the bacteria? By eating plants. Then we eat them and the bacteria. So if the plant based B12 is incompatible with our systems, how do we get it from meat, dairy, and eggs?

    Before you spout off more about B12 deficiencies maybe you should read up how long it takes to develop it and it's symptoms as well as what can be done about it, because you above post is sadly lacking any indication of understanding.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  54. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by mink · · Score: 1

    I forgot to add these gems from the national institute of health:

    "The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences did not establish a Tolerable Upper Intake Level for this vitamin because Vitamin B12 has a very low potential for toxicity. The Institute of Medicine states that "no adverse effects have been associated with excess vitamin B12 intake from food and supplements in healthy individuals". In fact, the Institute recommends that adults over 50 years of age get most of their vitamin B12 from vitamin supplements or fortified food because of the high incidence of impaired absorption of B12 from animal foods in this age group.

    Gastric acid helps release vitamin B12 from the protein in food. This must occur before B12 binds with intrinsic factor and is absorbed in your intestines. Atrophic gastritis, which is an inflammation of the stomach, decreases gastric secretion. Less gastric acid decreases the amount of B12 separated from proteins in foods and can result in poor absorption of vitamin B12. Decreased gastric secretion also results in overgrowth of normal bacterial flora in the small intestines. The bacteria may take up vitamin B12 for their own use, further contributing to a vitamin B12 deficiency.

    Up to 30 percent of adults 50 years and older may have atrophic gastritis, an overgrowth of intestinal flora, and be unable to normally absorb vitamin B12 in food. They are, however, able to absorb the synthetic B12 added to fortified foods and dietary supplements. Vitamin supplements and fortified foods may be the best sources of vitamin B12 for adults over the age of 50.

    When adults adopt a strict vegetarian diet, deficiency symptoms can be slow to appear. It may take years to deplete normal body stores of B12."

    Strict means no fish, eggs, dairy, meat. Even avoiding all of that all a person (meat eater or not) has to do is eat a bowl of 100% fortified cereal each day. Or 4 cups yogurt, or 6 oz salmon (assuming farm raised). If you are avoiding all animal products eat that cereal with soy milk or whatever you want that fits with your diet.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  55. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by mink · · Score: 1

    "We wear armor and carry howitzers."

    You are either the Hulk or Henry Pym.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  56. It's all good until... by mink · · Score: 1

    There is an explosion due to terrorists at the Real Meat(TM) factory and your team is sent in to investigate.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  57. Re:We have right to enslave animals! by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1
    "Your rant kind of wanders all over the play without making any real straight foreward point. Can you maybe clear up exactly what you meant to say with this post? "

    Rant? You're kidding, right?

    If you read the post to which I replied perhaps you'll see why I wasn't trying to make a point; rather I adding to the parent post's point.

    As for only eating meat, I don't believe I was suggesting that. Perhaps you are having a bad day. My commiserations....