Slashdot Mirror
What If You Could Eat Chicken Without Killing a Chicken? (theoutline.com)
From a report on The Outline: San Francisco-based startup Memphis Meats announced this week that it had grown chicken in a lab -- chicken strips, to be precise. The strips, which were grown using self-reproducing cells, are technically "meat," but because the cells were not from an animal, the process by which this "meat" was "raised" is much cleaner, resulting in animal food that has the potential to sate both environmental groups as well as animal rights activists and vegetarians. Memphis Meats says it's hoping the product is ready for commercial sale by 2021. The company is part of an ever-increasing horde of Silicon Valley startups trying to solve the complicated problems of the meat industry, which range from cultural ideas about food to industrial and environmental issues to, increasingly, discussions about animal cruelty. [...] About 99 percent of animals raised for slaughter in the U.S. come from factory farms, and about a third of the land mass of the Earth is used in raising livestock. More so than chicken, livestock is incredibly inefficient to raise: It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce just a pound of beef.
Climate change is an issue, the fix does not involve making things cost more especially food and energy those pretty much not optional spending. Much like fixing spam if the solution costs more it's not a solution. If this stuff is so much less taxing on the environment it should be much cheaper to produce.
No sir I dont like it.
Am I the only reminded of Azimov's The Martian Way? I mean the part, where an Earth's politician is explaining to electorate, how much water (used as reaction mass) it takes for a spaceship to get into space. The book's main characters observe, that most of the water so used falls right back onto the planet. But at least, in that novel some amount of water, however minuscule compared to Earth's vast oceans, does leave...
Well, in case of meat production — or indeed any other Earth-bound activity — no water is lost. Zero. Nada. So, what is the quoted statement supposed to mean?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Their purpose in life is to reproduce and get eaten. In nature, that is exactly what happens to them. I really see no problem with doing it to them in industrial production. Of course, I do hope not to get reincarnated as a chicken next time, but we will see.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
And it does not matter we're talking about food not the latest iphone garbage. It's not an optional purchase. Raise the real prices and people starve. Any solution has to be at the grocery store cheaper than the real thing otherwise it's like a hybrid car just something to be smug about while paying far to much and/or having the government pick up the bill.
No sir I dont like it.
Did you know Chernobyl won't be clean for literally millions of years?
Apparently, w/o human intrusion for 30 years, the land around Chernobyl is thriving with life.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
An interesting quotable from this article...
Essentially, this means that human populations have a bigger negative impact than radiation.