Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Would You Eat Lab-Grown Meat? (dmarge.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via WIRED: Lab-grown meat appears to be coming to a supermarket near you whether you like it or not. Granted, you have some time before that becomes a reality. Scientists in Belgium and the United States are working on cultured meat substitutes that taste like real meat and cost less than real meat, but don't use as many environmental resources as meat from animals, nor does it involve the slaughtering of animals. They predict such meat substitutes will cost a lot less by the year 2020 when the efficiency of bulk production kicks in. According to a 2014 Pew poll, only 20 percent of Americans would be willing to try cultured meat, while a 2013 survey in Belgium revealed that just 13 percent of 180 subjects knew what cultured meat was. Also, vegetarians surveyed perceived man-made meat to be unhealthy and unfavorable. However, once respondents were told how the meat is grown, most said they might try it. When educated about the environmental benefits, the number of people who were willing to try it nearly doubled. A poll from The Vegan Scholar found that lab-grown meat was much more appealing to vegetarians than to vegans. Similar Reddit and SurveyMonkey polls have come to similar conclusions, but it's important to note that none of these polls were peer-reviewed. Researchers have suggested that the media greatly overestimates the importance of vegetarian and vegan opinions on lab-grown meat. Given the lack of large surveys determining the public's opinion on lab-grown meat, we thought we would pose the question to Slashdotters: Would you eat lab-grown meat?
You can buy real meat today that comes from animals treated humanely, if not downright well. Yes, they're still slaughtered at some point. If you're willing to pay a premium, you can do it now.
Some idiots decided it was a great idea to require corn alcohol to be used as a gasoline additive.
(well not really idiots. The people that were connected and built distileries made out like bandits)
So instead having cheap animal feed, you had expensive gasoline that had less energy content than before and your food prices went up.
Brilliant.
I don't trust them, but I do trust the many scientists saying it's not a problem. GMO crops are a good thing. The problem is what Monsanto specifically does with them. Facilitating the use of toxic pesticide and introducing DRM to the fucking food supply is comic book evil. Get rid of those assholes, not GMO in general.
I tried my first veggie burger about 20 years ago, and I remember wondering when the FDA started considering sawdust a vegetable...
Now, I eat Gardein teriyaki chick'n and a few others quite regularly. I'm still waiting for the whole "cheaper than meat" part to kick in though.
If you haven't had them yet, give them a try, you'll be surprised, and once they get costs down, it'll change the world.
So instead having cheap animal feed, you had expensive gasoline that had less energy content than before and your food prices went up.
An obvious solution would be to vote for someone who wants to fix the problem. Not Hillary. Not Donald. So you have a choice of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
See, during the Great Depression, the U.S. didn't produce enough food to feed everyone. People went hungry, or even starved. To prevent that from ever happening again, the government introduced agricultural subsidies to guarantee there's always an oversupply of food. That's why we pay farmers to not farm - so that they don't sell their farmland to a condo developer, so if a blight makes a field unusable in another part of the country, their farmland is ready to produce at a moment's notice.
Anyhow, this oversupply meant the price of food cratered (supply > demand does that), and farmers were losing their shirts. So the government instituted a program where it would buy up all the crop at a guaranteed price, then the buyers could buy it from the government. This worked at stabilizing prices so the farmers could stay in business, but it still left a huge oversupply - mostly corn. So the government had to figure out what to do with all that excess corn.
Some of it got shipped overseas as foreign aid. Some of it got turned into cheap meal for cattle, since Americans love beef. An enterprising scientists figured out how to convert it into high fructose syrup, which could substitute for sucrose since sugar cane only grows in Florida and Hawaii and we'd otherwise be importing most of it.
And during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, someone said, "hey, what if we converted it to alcohol and used it as a substitute for gasoline?"
It made sense then. This was a sunk cost - the money and energy to grow the corn had already been spent. We weren't getting it back. So anything we could do with the corn to recoup some of those sunk costs made more sense than letting it rot in grain silos allowing the rodent population to increase.
So converting excess corn into ethanol makes sense. But then the corn lobby got its hands on the program and now we grow corn for the explicit purpose of converting it to ethanol. Which makes no sense since corn is a lousy crop for converting into ethanol.
In 76 I had a Lincoln Continental Mark, in 78 I had a Corvette Anniversary edition.
I doubt I could buy any car made today that had the crashworthyness of the Lincoln.
Just go on to Youtube and look for any of the many old vs. new crash test videos. Sure, the older car tends to take less damage (though not always, some of those older chassis designs crumpled in horrific ways), but it clearly passes that damage on to the fleshy meatbags inside when that happens.
Here's a slightly later model Continental Sedan to demonstrate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uddZRY_WVw), those behaved pretty much like any other larger cars of the era in a crash.
If you only care about the car being cheap to fix, yeah the old cars win, but if you care about reducing injuries to the people in the car the new cars have it by miles.
To get the performance of the Vette would cost me 6 times what that car went for.
A '78 Corvette had a base price of $9351, and the optional L-82 motor added $525. If you actually mean the package with the silver special anniversary paint that's another $779 in mandatory options. To put it simply we're definitely talking about a $10-12k car in 1978 dollars. In 2016 dollars that'd be close to $37,000.
That car with its 220 HP pushing 3500ish pounds through a four speed stick, depending on source, took around 6.5 seconds to get to 60 MPH, ran the quarter mile in around 15.3 seconds at around 95 MPH, and topped out around 130 MPH, give or take margin of error.
My current car, a Mk7.5 Ford Fiesta ST (aka ST180 in some markets) with 200HP pulling 2700 lbs through a six speed stick, does 6.7 seconds to 60 MPH, quarter mile in 15.2 at 93 MPH, and tops out around 140 MPH. You can go to any Ford dealer and have one out the door for $21-23k, or a bit over half the inflation-adjusted value of your Corvette, and the performance is close enough at the drag strip that driver error with the stick shift is likely to be more of a factor than anything else for either vehicle. I'd be willing to bet anything that the Fiesta would run circles around the Corvette around a track with turns as well simply because '70s American cars were never exactly known for their handling.
If we instead take the comparison up to the equivalent price range, the upper $30k range will easily put you in to a Mustang GT Performance Pack or a Camaro SS, both of which offer mid-400 horsepower ratings pushing about 3600 lbs and both will get you in to the 4 second 0-60 range and low 13 (or even high 12) second quarter miles at over 110 MPH. If we bring used cars in to the equation that kind of money will easily get a C6 Corvette Z06 with a 500 horsepower LS7 engine, which is an absolute beast of a car that will hold its own with a lot of proper supercars.
So no, you wouldn't have to spend six times as much. You would barely even have to spend more than half as much. If you wanted to spend even the same amount you'd be in to an entirely different world of performance.
By modern standards pretty much nothing older than the late '80s is really fast.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.