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.

202 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Tell me if you heard this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's still no chicken in chicken nuggets.

    1. Re: Tell me if you heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well damn, too bad there's no way to stop companies from filing people full of pesticides, hormones, and lab chemicals. I guess you'll just have to live with everyone getting uglier, stupider, and more libtarded.

    2. Re: Tell me if you heard this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Well damn, too bad there's no way to stop companies from filing people full of pesticides, hormones, and lab chemicals.

      I don't think Trump has the FDA slated for elimination in the 2018 FY budget. Maybe next year.

      I guess you'll just have to live with everyone getting uglier, stupider, and more conservative.

      FTFY

    3. Re:Tell me if you heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where's my lobster strips?

    4. Re:Tell me if you heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Whale bacon! Oh, the mouth watering guilt free whale bacon!

    5. Re:Tell me if you heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So THAT'S how subway "chicken" is made.

    6. Re: Tell me if you heard this before... by MercTech · · Score: 1

      FDA is less pertinent to a discussion of food than is the USDA. FDA approves food additives but USDA is who actually tests the food supply and monitors compliance. i.e. Every chicken approved for human consumption is visually inspected and sniffed by a USDA certified veterinarian.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    7. Re: Tell me if you heard this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      FDA is less pertinent to a discussion of food than is the USDA

      The USDA doesn't look like it's on the chopping block for FY 2018.

    8. Re:Tell me if you heard this before... by n329619 · · Score: 1

      Wait! There's no chicken in chicken nuggets!?!?

  2. The real test is by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    ...can they cross the road?

    1. Re:The real test is by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      ...can they cross the road?

      In theory but nobody knows how to motivate them to do so.

      Though the question of how to motivate is indeed unsolved; Two to three meters of aproach and a kick should deliver acceptable results.

      In both cases of live and artificial chicken, I might add.

      Who needs motivation when you can have momentum.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    2. Re:The real test is by Rei · · Score: 2

      ...can they cross the road?

      Sure, after they finish seminary and are ordained.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
  3. Third of landmass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "about a third of the land mass of the Earth is used in raising livestock"

    1. Re:Third of landmass? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's more like a quarter of the landmass...
      https://www.learner.org/course...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:Third of landmass? by quenda · · Score: 1

      "about a third of the land mass of the Earth is used in raising livestock"

      I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but in Australia it would be less misleading to say that a third of the landmass is used for grazing because it is too dry and infertile to be used for any other sort of agriculture. So we let sheep or cattle wander around looking for grass.

      There is no point comparing it to grain or vegetables because you simply cannot grow that on grazing land without spending a fortune on irrigation and fertiliser.

  4. if it were cheaper, yes. by netsavior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't really care much about Peta's talking points. I would gladly eat cheaper meat, though.

    1. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by slashdice · · Score: 1

      how is that news for nerds? I live in my parent's basement and the only time I ever see the outside is when mom is working and I have to answer the door for the pizza guy.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    3. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      Most people would agree Climate Change is real. The biggest question is what percent is due to humans and what percent is due to natural cycles. The other big question is how much of the human contribution is from CO2 and how much is from other human causes like deforestation. Current science doesn't have a good answer for these questions. The pro-Climate Changers insist/assume that 100% of it comes from human caused increases in CO2. 100% of anything coming from one source is very unlikely. Just a few days ago a story came out that scientists found that 50% of the reduction in arctic ice is due to natural cycles.

    4. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      one of the greatest contributors to Climate Change

      According to this pie chart, agriculture (which includes meat, but also rice production) is only responsible for 9% of the greenhouse gases.

      https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...

    5. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      We need a Godwin's law for climate change.

    6. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Polluters do not pay the cost to clean up their mess. That's why some things are cheaper than they should be.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the paper industry. And step back.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by DogDude · · Score: 4, Informative

      If this stuff is so much less taxing on the environment it should be much cheaper to produce.

      Econ 101. Look up the word "externalities".

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    9. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The EPA graph also includes the other greenhouse gases, so there's not more to that story. Total methane only accounts for 4-9% of the total greenhouse effect, and according to your quote, livestock only produces 37% of that.

    10. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Most people would agree Climate Change is real. The biggest question is what percent is due to humans and what percent is due to natural cycles. The other big question is how much of the human contribution is from CO2 and how much is from other human causes like deforestation. Current science doesn't have a good answer for these questions.

      Bullshit. Here's a good answer for these questions from current science. It's not 100% human caused, but certainly over 90%:

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      The biggest question is what percent is due to humans and what percent is due to natural cycles

      It. Doesn't. Matter. We should be striving for zero impact regardless of anything else. We can't just keep fucking up the planet forever like a bunch of spoiled babies. We've killed 50% of the ocean life since the 1970s. We've broken the ozone layer. We've decimated the rainforests. We've polluted every single body of water in the world. We've fucked up the climate and the atmosphere. We've irradiated huge areas of land. Did you know Chernobyl won't be clean for literally millions of years? We've even polluted the shit out of outer-fucking-space. This shit needs to stop.

    12. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lefties are all about "externalities", unless they are related to their precious "renewable" technologies that use heavy metals, other toxic materials, kill wildlife, etc.

    13. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, there are plenty more sources of unnecessary pollution and gross inefficiency that could be reduced or eliminated without harming people's quality of life...

      Think of the amount of paper in the form of junkmail thats produced, delivered and subsequently discarded every year... I throw out several pieces a day, it serves no useful function.
      Think of all the wasted fuel because so many people travel long distances to work, at the same time into congested business districts with no affordable residential properties nearby... Imagine the savings of people worked from home, or were able to live close to where they worked.
      So many other stupid wastes of resources and energy.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    14. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      Don't necessarily disagree, but the problem is that often externalities (like pollution, cost of healthcare, etc.) are not paid for by incumbent technology/solution. Due to historical reasons, grandfathering, lax regulations and whatnot, the cost of the incumbent solution is artificially low which means any possible solution *looks* more expensive in comparison, even if it's cheaper overall.

    15. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      Lookup starving, 45m Americans (2015 number) at or below the poverty line, they would like to eat.

      You guys are all about externalities until it's something you want like solar because the mess is in china. Water and CO2 are not some magic thing, water recycles and the same for co2. The issue is pumping out co2 from sequestered sources. The issue is global population something you refuse to control.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    16. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.
    17. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? I've not heard a single remotely credible defender of anthropogenic climate change saying 100% anything. Obviously there's the groupies that don't really understand what they're talking about and just mangle the talking points they think they remember hearing, but *every* side has those, you can't use their mangled nonsense to judge anything but the general incompetence of humans outside their area of expertise.

      About the only thing I can even think of having an even remotely credible claim to 100% human responsibility is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere - the amount in the atmosphere is increasing more slowly than we're releasing it, suggesting that it would be decreasing if we stopped, so 100% human responsibility on that could be argued, but even there we've got forest fires, volcanoes, etc. all making their own small contributions - it's just that without us the carbon sinks would be capable of handling all that.

      The big problem is that pretty much all the talk about "other causes" by those who deny human responsibility is that almost all those other causescauses are transient. Yes, the sun gets hotter sometimes, and then it cools off again, that's been factored into the models for decades. Ditto El nino/La nina events, cosmic rays, etc,etc,etc. They're all factored into the models, they have to be to explain the actual measurements. But, what we consistently see is that without us, those factors would only cause the global climate to wobble in the bottom of it's current "rut", just as it's been doing for the last 1.8 million years.

      The problem is that we've also confirmed that atmospheric CO2 is every bit as strong a forcing factor as we feared - the predictions from 50 years ago when we first started really recognizing the problem are holding true, and those models tell us that amount of solar heating we're adding to the system with CO2, on top of the the fact that the planet is already in the midst of an interglacial period, is soon going to be enough to force the entire planet out of the current ice age "rut" and into a hothouse "rut" instead - the other of our planet's bistable climate states. It would only be the fifth time our planet has left an ice age in it's 4.5 billion year history, and we know very little about what to expect - except that things would be radically different - fossil evidence suggests that tropical forests in Antarctica and vast deserts extending from the tropics to the temperate regions are a real possibility.

      And, this is very important, almost all of that heating would not be directly due to human influence. Like a child throwing a pebble that starts an massive avalanche, we would only provide the small initial push that gets things moving - once the planet is knocked out of it's ice-age rut there are several natural feedback loops which then amplify the effects dramatically. For starters, thawing permafrost across all of Canada and Russia, and melting undersea methane hydrates will release methane reserves to dwarf all the greenhouse gasses humanity has released in our history. We can see how it's happened in the past, and every time there's some cataclysm - massive global volcanism, ecological disaster, something that pushes the climate just that much further than it moves during the normal oscillations, and the effect rapidly snowballs out of control until the opposite climate extreme is reached.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      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.

      I've no idea where you get that connection between environmentalism and cost from. Take something like a refrigerator, we want to keep something much cooler than environment. That's an uphill battle with thermodynamics, the less power we we want to use the more complex and exotic does the cooling solution have to be. Same with nearly everything else, cavemen with fire could make light, that is easy. Making LED lights where almost all the energy is converted to light, that is hard. A high efficiency engine is more difficult to make than a low efficiency engine. Energy use goes down means efficiency must go up and that usually means the costs rise exponentially.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    19. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by slew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    20. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Nevermind PETA's ridiculousness, if you had the choice, wouldn't you prefer not harming a living being? That's on top of the smaller environmental footprint, potential for more uniform distribution of fat, removal of undesirable parts (tendons, nerves, etc.), ability to shape the meat however you want (could have blocks of the thing!), etc.

    21. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      IDK 50+ years where they are literally looking to increases prices to help people conserve. Lowering our standard of living is not an option and we have 6 or so billion people who want to get to our existing standard of living.

      Make vat grown chicken cheaper than real chicken is today and you have a good product with less environmental impact. This is little different than mass transit when it's faster than driving people use it, when it's not it's a massive waste. You have to make the better thing more attractive than the current thing when talking about a must buy commodity that means cheaper.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    22. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      When talking about a non-optional commodity like food it does not matter. Raise the price and people die that's a really simple thing. So a solution has to be at the store cheaper preferably without any government subsidies.

      Sure todays chicken farming gets this or that tax break all the advantages of being the current market leaders in chicken flesh. Want to succeed against them in a fair way they need to be more attractive and need the government to ensure they don't leverage that dominance in an unfair way. External bits do not matter, stop whining about the playing field not being even it's not pull up your boot straps and get to winning anyways. If this tech is unable to do that it's not going to succeed.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    23. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Stop giving the wealthy so many tax breaks and you would be able toafford welfare systems that address the 45m Americansbelow the poverty line.

      Of course, many Americans believe on,y. The stupid and lazy are poor and so the poor deserve what they get.

    24. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by tsqr · · Score: 2

      Stop giving the wealthy so many tax breaks and you would be able toafford welfare systems that address the 45m Americansbelow the poverty line.

      The bottom 50% paid 2.8% of all US Income tax paid in 2015; the top 50% paid 97.2%. While it's commonplace to see stories of very rich individuals paying absurdly low marginal tax rates, those are by and large members of the fabled 0.01%, whose numbers are so few (138,000 tax returns in 2013) that raising their taxes wouldn't have much effect on the bottom line. The fact is that the average tax rate paid by the top 1% is over 27%. That's average, not marginal. Raising it back up to the 34% it was at in 1980 wouldn't solve the problems of the 45 million Americans below the poverty line.

      Source

    25. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be cheaper than live animal derived meat. Consider the price of soybean milk compared to cows' milk. I'm guessing that it must be cheaper to grow and milk ( ;-) ) soybeans than to raise and milk cows, but that doesn't show up in the price of the final product.

    26. Re: if it were cheaper, yes. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The poverty line in the US is actually quite high and until you make a significant percentage above that, you can get all sorts of aid from the government. There is no reason anyone in this country goes hungry besides due to participation in illegal activities or a history of living well beyond ones means.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    27. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. People take offense to things they disagree with politically no matter how nicely you put it.

      There have been decades of "Captain planet needs YOUR HELP you special snowflake!" Didn't work, people convinced themselves that climate change was a lie and anyone swayed by the evidence it was simply hated coal country.

      Here, for example, DogDude was not bashing you or anyone more than was absolutely necessary. GP was making a dumb argument.

    28. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It would be worth paying more for meat if it meant less contribution to antibiotic resistant pathogens. I don't know how these cultured meats are going to be kept sanitary in mass production, I suppose it's possible that some unethical meat growing labs could use a lot of medicinally important antibiotics and cause the same problems. But I suspect there are more options for sterilization once you don't have to grow a whole animal.

    29. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      do you also deny that Climate Change is a real and pressing issue?

      Yeah. It might be an issue for you but it isn't for me. By the time it completely fucks the human race I'll be dead anyway.

    30. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The bottom 50% paid 2.8% of all US Income tax paid in 2015; the top 50% paid 97.2%
      In most countries it is the opposite around.
      I would be shocked of the USA would be different.
      If the US are different: I would wonder why he bottom 50% have so low income that they pay so low taxes.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    31. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And it does not matter we're talking about food not the latest iphone garbage. It's not an optional purchase.

      "Food" is not an optional purchase, but beef is.
      When I was growing up, beef was a luxury, something you maybe had once a week.

    32. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The bottom 50% paid 2.8% of all US Income tax paid in 2015

      Yeah, when you have almost no money to pay taxes, it's no surprise when you don't pay very much. If they actually got paid good wages at their jobs, they might have something for income taxes.

    33. Re: if it were cheaper, yes. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      There is still a wide gap between "unhabitable planet" and "growing food costs 100 times as much as before".

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    34. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Chicken is a lot cheaper than beef general the cheapest per pound around me.

      In general more meat consumption is part of coming up as far as standard of living.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    35. Re:if it were cheaper, yes. by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      There's more animal life than there was before, but they're thriving only in that sense, not in the sense that the radiation environment is healthy for them.

      Because animals start reproducing as soon as they're able to (instead of waiting until they're 30), a high incidence of cancer and other radiation-induced illnesses is not incompatible with large population. The radiation damage isn't so severe they can't reproduce at all, but according to the same article:

      His research with biologist Timothy Mousseau has shown that voles have higher rates of cataracts, useful populations of bacteria on the wings of birds in the zone are lower, partial albinism among barn swallows, and that cuckoos have become less common, among other findings. Serious mutations, though, happened only right after the accident.

  5. Like, just eat one leg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And watch it scream as you tear it off and cook it? Yeah, I'm down for that!!!

    1. Re:Like, just eat one leg by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      And watch it scream as you tear it off and cook it? Yeah, I'm down for that!!!

      That's still not as cruel as the lives of all those boneless chickens they've been raising lately.

  6. Texture of the meat by Tempest451 · · Score: 2

    While technically chicken muscle cells, the texture of the meat comes from being attached to a skeleton. Once the texture of the muscle striations is solved, then it can be a proper replacement.

    1. Re:Texture of the meat by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Just need to exercise it while it's growing.
      Of course, then you have to worry about it escaping the factory.. ewwww, Bill Cosby.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:Texture of the meat by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Exactly... I don't think this counts as 'meat', it is more of a collection of certain cells at this point, and I think it's over-hyped and we're still quite a ways from having a lab-grown 'meat'. Sort of like giving someone a pile of lentils and saying 'here's your veggie burger'. Sure, lentils can be part of a veggie burger, but it's just one part of the whole..

    3. Re: Texture of the meat by slew · · Score: 1

      How about growing it on a mesh of a recycled toilet paper. Yummy

      Might want to wash that down with Beer made from recycled water...

  7. Problem solved by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just go to Subway!

    1. Re:Problem solved by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Think of the Yoga mats!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Problem solved by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Yea, but if that "Subway Diet" is the least bit true... think of the yoga pants!

    3. Re:Problem solved by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Dammit you beat me to it! :p

  8. Then chickens would die out by mccalli · · Score: 1

    Not many wild chickens in the world. If we could make artificial chicken meat, and I'd be all for eating it since it seems less cruel to me, then people would stop breeding chickens for food.

    Chicken isn't the most perfect example for this because we also eat eggs. Apply that logic to pigs though - yep, much more of a problem.

    1. Re:Then chickens would die out by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Visit Kauai, HI sometime -- there is no shortage of wild chickens there!

    2. Re:Then chickens would die out by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Pigs are extremely intelligent and make excellent pets, and when they die, you don't have to bury them and waste space like with a dog, you can have a BBQ.

      Yuck. Have you ever tasted what old boar tastes like? You have to over power it with BBQ sauce or I simply cannot get it down myself.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Then chickens would die out by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Wild, or feral? There's a rather dramatic difference.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re: Then chickens would die out by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Dude, he's talking about the livestock, not the women. Amirite?

    5. Re:Then chickens would die out by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could keep the chickens alive and just let regrow the parts we slice off? It would be more humane!

      Ok, that might depend on your definition of humane..

  9. I'd eat a fake chicken sandwich by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    and then go kill a chicken because i hate them and they're really dumb and eat my garden.

    1. Re:I'd eat a fake chicken sandwich by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      There is a device called a fence. You may have heard of it.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:I'd eat a fake chicken sandwich by sexconker · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a device called a fence. You may have heard of it.

      There is this thing called a bird. It flies. Wild chickens fly quite well. Even a stray domestic chicken would be able to get over any fence you're allowed to build on your property if it cared to.

    3. Re:I'd eat a fake chicken sandwich by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      Yes, but the chickens don't believe in it.

  10. Will it be made in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Chickity China the Chinese chicken
    You have a drumstick and your brain stops tickin'

  11. Would take a big PR strategy to take off by reginaldo · · Score: 2

    I think lab meat would have a hard time being marketed except to a select amount of people for a very long time. A large portion of people are against GMO food, regardless of it's benefit to the environment or society, regardless of the lack of scientific proof to negative claims. People will gladly, ignorantly, eat things that are "natural" even though they've been bred and scientifically modified over hundreds of years to be something that shouldn't exist naturally on earth. That's pretty much everything in the produce department. Put a labcoat on and make something though, and then you've become some mad scientist bent on ruining the world with your hubris. insert mad scientist laugh here.

    1. Re:Would take a big PR strategy to take off by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea, and bird flu is still bouncing around. I bet we could whip up a sufficiently scary strain to get a lot of people buying alternatives.

      Of course "Chicken Little" might well be just as vulnerable to the disease, but it's a lot easier to keep it from being exposed in an industrial lab.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  12. of course it's fine by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

    meat is really just a collection cells, nutrients and water. Whether they are assembled in a womb or in a machine, if it tastes the same, has the same texture, and can be cooked the same way, then so what?

    I feel this question is asked by someone whose parents never tricked their kids into eating something by saying it was something else or didn't contain an ingredient that the child irrationally doesn't like.

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:of course it's fine by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      if it tastes the same, has the same texture, and can be cooked the same way, then so what?

      As long as it also has the same nutrients.

    2. Re:of course it's fine by Desler · · Score: 1

      Says the Subway sandwich "artist".

  13. Water use... by x0ra · · Score: 1

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... - The SV progressive should probably switch to tea as their go-to psychoactive drug, it will save the earth.

    In the same idea, mentioning beef water use to make a point about chicken probably falls in the logical fallacy realm... Not to mention their 2,500 gallon is about 30% higher than HuffPo's number (1.800), so that's probably also probably an overly inflated number.

    1. Re:Water use... by avandesande · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The whole water thing is a dumb argument environmentalists dreamed up to make us feel bad about being alive. It's not like water from a stream in Minnesota is being diverted to livestock instead of irrigating poor farmers in the Sahara.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Water use... by flink · · Score: 2

      The whole water thing is a dumb argument environmentalists dreamed up to make us feel bad about being alive. It's not like water from a stream in Minnesota is being diverted to livestock instead of irrigating poor farmers in the Sahara.

      For the most part the water isn't coming out of a stream in Minnesota either. It's being pumped out of an aquifer in Kansas to irrigate the alfalfa and corn that we are feeding to the livestock. Those aquifers were built up over millions of years and are being drained over the course of decades. Just like we need to get off of fossilized fuels for our energy supply, we need to stop or reduce our reliance on fossil water for our agriculture. We can do this either by eating lower on the food chain, or finding ways to produce animal protein more efficiently.

    3. Re:Water use... by Ploulack · · Score: 1

      yes, and to repeat the message, you also add
      - land mass used to grow soy beans to make those livestock grow fast, (amazon...)
      - methan gases,
      - phosphate (specially for pork),
      - CO2 in transportation of everything above,
      - shame in killing fellow mammals (come on, we only diverged ~50M years ago, they're cousins)

    4. Re:Water use... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The whole water thing is a dumb argument environmentalists dreamed up to make us feel bad about being alive.

      The water thing is a real thing, but often done for different reasons that people assume.
      For instance, environmentalists detest the loss of a stream and valley to create a dam reservoir for water storage.

      Now that California is out of its drought (maybe), environmentalists are once again calling for the demolition of the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite to return the valley (originally said to be as spectacular as neighboring Yosemite Valley) it to its natural splendor. It provides much of the water for the SF Bay Area, but environmentalists usually hand-wave that without having a replacement plan.

  14. KFC to swtich to this! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    KFC to switch to this!

    and no the saveings will not be passed to you.

    The yum! Brands ceo needs a new boat!

    1. Re:KFC to swtich to this! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yet people still order their Pizza Hut and eat their Taco Bell..

      Hope he likes that boat..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:KFC to swtich to this! by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's likely going to be true. Processed chicken be grown in vats, and real chicken will get more expensive and hard to find.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  15. Re:Price? by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

    Once economies of scale kick in, I doubt that farming chickens will be cheaper than manufacturing chicken meat.

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
  16. The food of the Gods by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Looks like Clarke is predicting the future again.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  17. I'd kill a chicken. by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

    Call me old fashioned.

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  18. Water is renewable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce just a pound of beef.

    Water that is released by the animal into the environment, and flows back into the ocean. Where sunlight evaporates the water, they form into clouds and it rains down again.

    Main concerns are if you try to raise beef in the desert and have to divert rivers in order to support your operation. Or if you are emptying natural aquifers faster than they are replenished. But in many areas of the midwest and south there is sufficient surface water to operate a farm, and coming up with the 36 - 40 gallons of water per head you need is not such a big deal.

    An olympic sized swimming pool has enough water to supply 200 head of cattle for 3 months. That can cover you for summer, and you need significantly less water per head for the rest of the year.

    1. Re:Water is renewable by Desler · · Score: 1

      But not all of that water returns as potable water.

    2. Re:Water is renewable by bobbied · · Score: 1

      No, some of it is released into the local stream where it flows into a river where some city's water intake is located. It is treated and pumped into a potable water system.

      Not all that returns is potable... It NEVER was potable, even before we started raising cattle.. Besides, the biggest polluter is located in those cities and towns most of you live in...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Water is renewable by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Those figures aren't talking about drinking water for cows. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the water required to grow the corn that the animals eat.

      And yes, a good fraction of the water used to grow corn is unsustainably mined from ancient aquifers.

    4. Re:Water is renewable by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Please tell me what the figures are talking about, and then tell me how much water is permanently removed from the water cycle as a result.
      Please include numbers.

  19. Not a large number of people by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    A large portion of people are against GMO food

    A tiny handful of people are against GMO food, they are just exceedingly loud and annoying.

    Do you think anyone eating at McDonalds or Burger King gives a rats ass (ironically one of the many ingredients they are probably consuming) about GMO? Those are some of the largest food joints on earth...

    Most people do not care that much about GMO, nor conditions in which animals are treated. Most people want food and don't really care who or what had to die or suffer to obtain it, so long as it is readily at hand. As long as the lab meat does not taste disgusting and chewing it is similar, I think it will be accepted.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not a large number of people by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You must be talking about the USA.
      Against popular believe most people don't live in the USA.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Not a large number of people by Desler · · Score: 1

      Do you think anyone eating at McDonalds or Burger King gives a rats ass (ironically one of the many ingredients they are probably consuming) about GMO? Those are some of the largest food joints on earth...

      Wouldn't be so sure of that. If that were true why would McDonalds have done this.

    3. Re:Not a large number of people by reginaldo · · Score: 1

      Polls and research do show that people think GMO food is unsafe. Take for example http://www.pewinternet.org/201... I'm not sure people care about conditions of the animals so much, but they do care about the concept of "real, natural food." Whatever that means.

    4. Re:Not a large number of people by Desler · · Score: 1

      Fake news! Fake news!

    5. Re:Not a large number of people by mbone · · Score: 1

      In India people will riot over rumors that meat is involved in some common product.

    6. Re:Not a large number of people by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between what people will say in polls and what they will actually eat. Soda and Candy are also "unsafe".

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:Not a large number of people by nnull · · Score: 1

      How so? I'm currently in France and I see more McDonald's here on every corner than where I live in the US. Add to that packed with tons of people. There's no shortage of McDonald's here. They like to talk about how they want to buy local and so against GMO, then they go to McDonald's because they don't have time to find something.

    8. Re:Not a large number of people by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      McDonalds is not selling GMOed food in France.
      So ... what is your point?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  20. Bring it on! by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't wait for the day in which it will be possible to buy meat surrogate, for all meats, at a reasonable price, and with a reasonable similarity to the real thing in texture, flavor, smell and taste.

    1. Re:Bring it on! by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      I think artificial meat inevitable but I doubt it would be healthful.

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    2. Re:Bring it on! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      I think artificial meat inevitable but I doubt it would be healthful.

      Why wouldn't it be? By the time your gastric juices are done with the food you eat, it's been reduced to a slurry that is absorbed at the molecular level. If artificial meat contains the same molecules as animal meat, i.e. vitamins, fats, and amino acids, your intestines won't notice the difference. I suspect the results of these experiments are already fairly healthful. Perfecting the cosmetic attributes such as taste and texture will be the hard part.

    3. Re:Bring it on! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If artificial meat contains the same molecules as animal meat, i.e. vitamins, fats, and amino acids,

      That's a big if, because a lot of those things aren't made in the actual cells that we eat. They could be made by other organs in the animal's body, the animal's gut bacteria, or the animal's food sources.

    4. Re:Bring it on! by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      I'm concerned with what the manufacturers will add to it.

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    5. Re:Bring it on! by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      You have most of this today. Last I checked, like all the other cultured meat efforts, uses calf serum as the growth medium. Until someone succeeds from a growth medium that isn't animal derived, all of these me-too articles are snoozers.

  21. Re:But but but... by Desler · · Score: 1

    And why is it so tasty?

  22. Re:Price? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    Farming chickens also uses economies of scale, you know.

  23. Kosher? by mbone · · Score: 1

    What if you could eat pork without involving a pig? Would it be kosher? If so, that sounds like a market right there.

  24. Typical regionalist Slashdot reader by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    What in my post makes you think I'm talking about the U.S. only? In fact you find McDonalds all over the world. In fact the most vociferous anti-GMO people hail mostly from America, and the rest of the world cares FAR less about how food is obtained (Hello, Foie Gras).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Typical regionalist Slashdot reader by Desler · · Score: 1

      In fact the most vociferous anti-GMO people hail mostly from America,

      Sure, if you completely ignore Europe.

    2. Re:Typical regionalist Slashdot reader by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, then you are obviously not aware that most people are against GMO. At least in Europe. Or what do you think why GMOs are banned in Europe, and the few exceptions need to be clearly labeled?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Typical regionalist Slashdot reader by nnull · · Score: 1

      The US has gigantic food markets just the same, what's your point? More than likely the gigantic food markets is majority sourced from the US somewhere. The fact that fast food places may serve drastically different things in other countries is simply a supply issue, it maybe cheaper to supply locally than from some huge farm, but I found this to be rare and in certain areas only. More than likely fast food joints will still be serving GMO heavy food from the US due to it being cheaper, considering the US exports the vast majority of the worlds food supply. You'd be surprised how much food is imported in the EU from the US. If it's chicken, highly likely it came from the US. Paying $3 per a pound of chicken versus paying $10 - $15 per a pound from the local market, huge difference there. All the anti-GMO talks stops there when some little French shop owner gasps at trying to sell chicken for $30 and trying to justify the price to the poor French people.

      Most of the anti-GMO lobbying in the US is causing a huge price fluctuation of food around the world, which is why a lot of places are extremely expensive. It's not as pronounced in the US and many Americans don't notice (Since everything is literally local here), but on the export market, it's having a huge impact.

  25. Counting water by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce just a pound of beef

    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.
    1. Re:Counting water by hipp5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      Yes, the net amount of water stays the same on Earth, but some water is more useful than others. E.g. fresh is more useful than salty, treated is more useful than not, a unit of water in the Sahara is more useful than a unit of water in Canada. When we "use" water, we often turn useful water into not useful water, or move it from a place where it's useful to a place where it's less useful.

      Plus there's the issue where much of the water we "use" comes from groundwater sources, which can be completely non-renewable on any sort of human timescale.

    2. Re:Counting water by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Ture no water is lost. However, clean potable water is used, and what is left is energy and cost intensive to clean up to make it suitable for use again.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:Counting water by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      fresh is more useful than salty

      Not to the creatures in the ocean it isn't...

    4. Re:Counting water by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      a unit of water in the Sahara is more useful than a unit of water in Canada.

      And how many gallons of water does it take to grow one pound of human flesh? Maybe people in the Sahara should consider that.

    5. Re:Counting water by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should go sit in a dinghy without any supplies in the middle of the Pacific ocean for a few days so you can find out just how useful all that "unlost" water really is.

    6. Re:Counting water by mi · · Score: 1

      some water is more useful than others

      Yeah, and beef is more useful than wood chips. Ultimately, the cost is energy — and our star is still shining very bright and hot. We are still using a tiny fraction of what Sol outputs...

      Plus there's the issue where much of the water we "use" comes from groundwater sources, which can be completely non-renewable on any sort of human timescale.

      Why would one seek to "renew" it at all? Water under ground is just not useful...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Counting water by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Water under ground is just not useful..

      It's very useful to keep water underground, and pump up a little bit every day to use. It wouldn't be very convenient to dump the entire aquifer on your crops at once, and let it run off to the ocean, and/or evaporate.

    8. Re:Counting water by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Sam? is that you?

    9. Re:Counting water by Eloking · · Score: 1

      It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce just a pound of beef

      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?

      Exactly.

      I remember a dispute when a passerby yelled at my neighbour because he was "wasting" water on his lawn (I live in Canada so no shortage of water here). I've walked to him and ask him where did he thought the water was coming from. After he told be the water came from the ground, it was funny to see his face when I then asked : "But isn't he sending the water back to the reservoir?".

      Using "2,500 gallons of water" is false science and I'm starting to be pissed of to all that pseudo-science. If you're an environmentalist and you want to do some real science, It's not 2,500 gallons of water that want to know, you want to know the quantity of pollution created for each pound of meat. That mean :

      - The energy needed to clean/pump this water + the carbon footprint of that energy.
      - The energy needed for all the process of the meat (The cow itself, the grain of it's food, the meat processing) + the carbon footprint of that energy.
      - The quantity of waste/pollution created by the cow itself (Methane/piss/shit) and the whole infrastructure.
      - The quantity pollution/energy to build the whole infrastructure, each one divided by each pound of meat created during it's lifetime.

      I may be forgetting a thing or two.

      --
      Elok
    10. Re:Counting water by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      PARENT MUST BE VOTED HIGHER!!

      So often people say this kind of crap about water and the **ENTIRE** point is water that is usable! It takes energy to make random source of water into water that we would call "drinking" water or water we would give to cattle, etc. Water doesn't just magically revert back into "usable" water once it is consumed. Granted that right now the major pusher for recycling water is the sun energy via evaporation. However, then we're at the whims of where the water falls and when. So we either have to get better at using the water when it randomly hits the ground (large collection pits and storage systems), or we need to get vastly better at moving water that's already hit the ground (national pipe work for moving water all over the US), or some combination of both.

      Same problem can be said for wind power, we're just hoping that the wind is randomly blowing in some section of the planet we have mills in, but the plus side of that is the energy we generate from the random spots wind can be easily moved around on power lines. There isn't an easy moving around for water at the current moment. So while yes the absolute amount of water on the planet hasn't changed, the amount of energy it will take to get it back to the form it came from is high, but we don't notice it since we mostly rely on the free energy from the sun to take care of it and hope all of the plus and negatives just wash out in the end. At the rate aquifers are being drained versus the rate at which they can be refilled by nature, were in serious negative territory. Nature just doesn't move as fast as industry can produce. The reason we still stay afloat is because nature had a few million years on us to build those reserves.

      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?

      We are never going to run out of water in an absolute sense, that's just stupid. But we will run out of economically viable water, that's the entire point. When water becomes too expensive to actually buy/refine/return back into a usable form/whatever, it won't matter how much absolute volume of water is on this planet, you will have no access to it unless you have enough money for it. The same is true for crude oil. This planet will never have zero mL of oil on it, ever. Thinking otherwise is ignoring how absolutely massive the amount of crude oil on this planet is. However, we are quickly running low on economically viable crude oil. At some point, oil will become so expensive that the majority of people will choose another option or they'll be up a shit creek without a paddle. The entire point of anything is to try and get ahead of the curve so you don't find yourself on that creek.

      Yes, parent said all of this already in their comment, but I feel that if it isn't S-P-E-L-L-E-D out, that some folks might not get it. We're past the point in which nature can resupply water sources as fast as we use them. We either need to resupply those sources or we need to get better at using the sources, because not doing either of those is slowly going to increase the price of everything that depends on it and for water that's a lot of things.

  26. Seen it by slapout · · Score: 1

    This was an episode of the show "Better Off Ted"

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  27. 2500 gallons? really? by PetiePooo · · Score: 1

    Here's some quick napkin-calculations. A gallon of water weighs a little over 8 pounds. If you consider meat is mostly water, that means a pound of meat "takes" about a pint of water out of the environment. The other 2499 7/8 gallons are returned to the environment to be evaporated, filtered by the ground, or otherwise recycled. But they're not "taken" by any sane use of that word. To use a sensational figure like 2500 gallons, it's obvious to most that it's sensationalism.

    As discussed here, the water figure comes primarily from what is used to irrigate pasture, and is higher for beef because cattlemen grow pastures in drier climates than chicken or pork farmers. That is not a beef problem as much as it is a land-use problem. If we kicked the cattlemen out of California, that pastureland would become something else, like an orchard, and then we'd have an apple problem instead of a beef problem.

    This is market forces at work. It just shows that our demand for beef is high enough that it pays for a cattleman to grow pastures on arid land. The only other place you hear of irrigation at that extreme is in the UAE, since that's the only type of land they have. Make irrigation more expensive, those costs will just be passed on in the price of meat, fewer people will want to pay the higher prices, and the most expensive operations will pivot to something else. Chances are that land would not be returned to its natural, arid state, though, so you've still got a water-use problem, plus higher beef prices.

    Economics, Bruh!

  28. Hormones? by crow · · Score: 1

    With regular meat, the animal's growth is controlled by hormones, so I'm wondering if the lab meat is grown using various added hormones to force the growth. I know one of the reasons some people prefer organic meat is because they know it doesn't have added hormones. What are the health impacts of eating whatever added stuff they have to use to make the lab meat grow?

    With all the shortcuts the food industry has taken, if they get this lab meat to be cheaper than real meat, it will be a long time before people are convinced it's healthy meat.

    1. Re:Hormones? by zlives · · Score: 1

      accelerated life cycle of humans is the primary benefit.

  29. Would I Eat It? by hipp5 · · Score: 1

    Absolutely, assuming it's roughly on par with real meat in terms of cost and quality.

    It's really kind of crazy that we grow all this food to feed a whole animal, when we only want part of the animal. Plus there's the whole ethical question; I tend to not get too hung up about it, but given the choice between meat where an animal was raised in a feedlot and killed vs meat that was grown, I'll choose the latter.

    Realistically, I imagine it will be a little while before they can adequately replace a t-bone steak, but I can't seeing it being too hard to replace the meat in any processed or semi-processed meat product. So we'll probably be eating this as chicken fingers first, then as ground beef. Maybe someday they'll figure out how to fully replicate all meats. Then it could conceivably be better than a natural t-bone steak. Perfectly marbled meat with no gristle? Yes please!

    1. Re:Would I Eat It? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      assuming it's roughly on par with real meat in terms of cost and quality.

      That's a big assumption, given that most stuff from the food industry isn't very high in quality.

  30. Solved: Chicken Nuggets by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    I suspect by the time mechanically recovered meat has been processed, decontaminated, reconstituted, shaped, and cooked, there may be little difference. But by then even chicken doesn't quite taste like chicken anymore.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  31. Inaccurate /. summaries persist by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

    Not 2500 gallons of water for a pound of beef ... only 1799 !! http://gracelinks.org/blog/785...

    1. Re:Inaccurate /. summaries persist by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      haha.. "Only." Much less worrisome given the 100 million or so cattle in the US. Luckily there's no areas of the US filled with cattle that's drought-prone.

      It depends on where you raise the cattle. 2,500 gallons is a pretty common number, I believe it comes from averaging out a bunch of areas in the US.

    2. Re:Inaccurate /. summaries persist by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

      I was being a mite sarcastic (only ).... and the commonality of a misconception doesn't validate it (despite what some people would have you believe). If you have a citation supporting your belief that location somehow changes the amount of water needed to raise cattle, I'll look at it; otherwise I'll only agree that the numbers may vary according to source, but since some sources are reliable and some are not, I only accept statements supported by reliable citations. Unless it's your opinion, which is your right, but not a "fact".

  32. Chicken are deeply stupid by gweihir · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Chicken are deeply stupid by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      They are cannibalistic too. They have no compulsion against eating chicken, so why should I?

    2. Re:Chicken are deeply stupid by gweihir · · Score: 1

      What does a limitation on scientific proof have to do with what happens in reality? Science does not define what is real. It only defines what can be proven scientifically to be real. It even has a hypothesis (Goedel's incompleteness) that states this, but cannot be proven itself. Throwing around terminology you do not understand does not make you look smart, it makes you look dumb.

      Incidentally, you may well be wrong on that unfalsifiability. But since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, I will overlook that, as you have nothing worthwhile to contribute anyways.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  33. So What? by sycodon · · Score: 2

    Not really sure how this matters. How much is taken up growing crops? How much is taken up by roads, buildings, etc?

    That's like saying my garage takes up X% of my slab. Ya? And?

    The idea that humans need to be this fly on the wall, not interacting with the environment to "save" it is ridiculous.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:So What? by Rakhar · · Score: 1

      That's not the point. The point is that the human race is still growing in number, and space on the planet is finite. Unless we're just gonna whip up a few more genocides, we're going to have to make room eventually.

    2. Re:So what? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Yeah, basically we shouldn't raise beef or dairy cattle in areas where it takes a lot of energy to get clean water. Let's not divert rivers in the desert in order to raise cattle when a truck can easily deliver steaks from a more temperate climate that has better access to water (like the midwest & south)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:So what? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      That was my point really, its not actually a water issue as much as it is an energy issue.

    4. Re:So what? by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Informative

      So what? Water is an effectively infinite global resource and it isn't ever actually consumed (i.e. lost).

      Non-contaminated fresh water is not an infinite resource in any sense of the term. Water is only an infinite resource if you also assume energy (to decontaminate and desalinate) is also an infinite resource (it isn't).

    5. Re:So what? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Actually energy IS effectively infinite, just like water. Its just that immediately accessible/usable energy isn't, just as immediately accessible/usable clean water isn't.

    6. Re: So What? by ralphsiegler · · Score: 1

      2nd derivative of population growth makes it clear we'll peak around 2075 and then decline, so no worries , just engineering problems not any resource constraints despite any scary hooplah you may have read

    7. Re:So what? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it can be depleted faster than natural processes fix. In most non-desert climates, though, that's almost literally impossible with our current agricultural practices and levels of technology. California is what happens when you try to farm land that can't support the load.

      I guess it's some product of the "fake news" that clean drinking water is a problem in so many places in the world. Duly noted.

    8. Re:So what? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Water is only an infinite resource if you also assume energy (to decontaminate and desalinate) is also an infinite resource (it isn't).

      Hm. The sun evaporates the water, thus removing the impurities. The evaporated water then condenses and falls back down to the Earth.

      You are correct that the sun is not infinite, but in relation to humans and their timescales, it is effectively infinite.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    9. Re:So what? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the sun is not infinite, but in relation to humans and their timescales, it is effectively infinite.

      Look, have fun with your conceptual arguments, but there are regions on earth that have shortages of potable, non-contaminated, fresh water. Water is infinite in the same way diamonds are infinite. You just need to be able to strip and micro filter the substrate of the earth's crust down a few hundred miles.

  34. Zero appeal by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    If I want to eat meat, something has to die for me to do so. I accept that. If I want to not kill an animal I can opt for meat-free options, something I do from time to time. Growing some kind of replacement in a lab strikes me as disgusting.

  35. Work on real problems by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    They need to be working on real problems like how to make chickens taste like bacon!

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  36. How much land is used? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    "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."

    Surprised this isn't being discussed more.

    Also surprised I'm not seeing a prevalence of 'well, I eat free-range/organic' remarks. Considering that free-range/organic requires MUCH MORE space, where are we going to keep these animals? Let's assume the space for free-range/organic is just a factor of 10 more...we're already using 1/3rd of the land in the US for the existing, efficiently-raised factory-farmed animals. If they need 10x more space, where will that be? The moon isn't even big enough for all the land that'd be required.

  37. Fiction becoming fact? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

    Chicken Little by Frederick Pohl.

    nothing more needs to be said.

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  38. I'm not going to eat a meal unless... by dhalsim2 · · Score: 1

    enough animals have died in the process.

  39. No! by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    We get "factory-chemical process created" chicken and then I would worry about the chemicals and the quality.

  40. God Wins Law by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Okay... let me think...

    Humanity recklessly mucks up God's creation, despite being clearly told that we were to be its caretakers, and the increasingly fervent warnings about the consequences of our actions from basically all of our greatest thinkers that have seriously considered the issue.

    The planet, as we were warned, transitions to something Humanity has never seen before, killing most or all of our species in the process.

    God Wins. Maybe the next caretakers He creates will do a better job...

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  41. Re:Why bother? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but raising the chickens in the first place is considerably less so.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  42. granted, it doesn't taste like any Earthly animal by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    barbecue Spam done on a grill is a highly effective sodium delivery mechanism.
    Don't forget the pineapple.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  43. Grade F : mostly circus animals, some filler by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    when's the last time you had a hotdog?
    Would you notice the difference?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Grade F : mostly circus animals, some filler by dddux · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They put loads of soy into hot-dogs and mix it with tasteless "pink sludge", then they add aromas and spices so it tastes good. My father was a butcher btw and he told me how they make various sausages. Sausages of all kinds are the first meat I stopped eating before becoming a vegetarian. People would eat shit with enough aroma and seasoning - that is if you make it taste good, and that's really not so hard as you think. I have a vegetarian sausage from time to time... no difference really, except that no animal died to "sponsor" it. Since the taste is the same and it's much healthier for you, I wonder why so many people insist on eating seasoned pink sludge.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  44. Tastes like by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Tastes like, not chicken.

    The 2,500 gallons of water is for cattle beef. Bison beef tends to use much less. One ounce of beef uses about 20 times the resources that chicken or fish does.

    The real comparison would be to the resources used for chicken or for fish. There is some debate over the impacts of farm raised livestock in comparison to wild livestock, in terms of net ecological and economic inputs, however. A well designed system uses other things to remove waste products - for example, in fish farms, increased amounts of bivalves and seaweeds can remove a lot of waste and also produce useable protein or food sources, and reduces the amount the fish need to be fed. Chicken fed natural bugs with certain plants can also reduce their toxic effluent.

    Personally, I tend to buy organic and wild fish and chicken, but there are reasonable arguments that we all should really eat bugs or at least roasted bug larvae.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  45. Re:2500 gallons? really? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    Humanity grows in size, so we use more land to grow food.

    At the end of the day, it comes down to "Can we grow food on this land," regardless of the land's "natual" state.

    After that, it's a matter of "how can we profit the most by growing food on this piece of land." -- whether the profit is 'mankind's' overall profit, or just the landowner's pocketbook.

    I've seen a number of "shock" billboards lately about the amount of water required to grow, say, a single egg... yet the billboard commits the sin of omission of not stating the staggering amount of water used to grow oats, for example.

    It's not that oats are less water efficient than eggs, but that 50 gallons of water needed to grow a single egg is less worrying when you compare it to the amount of water needed to produce a bowl of oatmeal.

    While the average consumer doesn't know exactly how many gallons of water it makes to grow a tomato, a hell of a lot of us grow gardens, and dump several thousand gallons of water into the garden each year -- and know that a tomato or carrot is far from "cheap" in terms of water required.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  46. Re:But but but... by slew · · Score: 1

    And why is it so tasty?

    The song of the siren...

  47. And it takes 4-9 gallons by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

    to raise one walnut and about a gallon to make a almond. Should we stop growing nut trees?

  48. News for Nerds who eat pizza (programmers) by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Funny

    how is that news for nerds? I live in my parent's basement and the only time I ever see the outside is when mom is working and I have to answer the door for the pizza guy.

    Less environmental damage done by your pizza toppings. Safer pizza toppings for you. Cheaper pizza toppings for you. More variety of pizza toppings for you. Less killing for your your pizza toppings. More land available to grow pizza toppings.

    Eventually.

    Right now, IVM is about at the stage the integrated circuit was in circa 1958. So nothing to worry about; but still, interesting.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  49. Glass level evaluation by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    We can't just keep fucking up the planet forever like a bunch of spoiled babies.

    Um...

    We've killed 50% of the ocean life since the 1970s. We've broken the ozone layer. We've decimated the rainforests. We've polluted every single body of water in the world. We've fucked up the climate and the atmosphere. We've irradiated huge areas of land. Did you know Chernobyl won't be clean for literally millions of years? We've even polluted the shit out of outer-fucking-space.

    ...and Trump is now running our particular bit of the show, goes back to dumping coal waste in the streams, looking to close the EPA, encouraging more pollution from motor vehicles, and congress is right in there pushing these ideas forward...

    Pretty sure that means we can keep going like that, and not only that, but the system encourages it. Particularly the crew the just got installed in FuckThePlanet.exe

    That glass sure looks half-empty to me.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  50. Inevitably by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    It tastes like chicken.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  51. 2,500 gallons of water are worth it by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    A properly seasoned cooked steak is the food of the gods. I don't care if it took 10,000 gallons of water to get it to my plate. And my gout be damned!!

    1. Re:2,500 gallons of water are worth it by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Gout was historically known as "the disease of kings" or "rich man's disease".
      From wikipedia

  52. again, the nutrition comes from where? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    So if the chicken, in the lab, never eats anything, then explain to me exactly what nutrients I'm getting when I eat your tasty cellular sponge? Today, I select my chicken based on what it ate. Grain or corn, peas or carrots.

    And it "takes" gallons of water to produce a pound of beef? What, cows don't piss any of it back? Water cycles. It isn't "taken".

    Actually, I'll correct that statement. Water is indeed "taken" when the laboratory uses it, and taints it with biochemicals that don't get consumed by nature.

    So, enjoy your lab that destroys water, oh, and land, to produce sponges that taste good but have zero nutritional value. You got half-way there with your factory-farms -- along with your diabetes, mad cows, tainted everything, bland, boring, tastless meat -- enjoy the rest of the ride.

    I'll be over here, talking to my local farmers, and eating animals that I can certify myself.

    1. Re:again, the nutrition comes from where? by kaka.mala.vachva · · Score: 1

      Are you from Oregon?

    2. Re:again, the nutrition comes from where? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      No. Far from it.

  53. Re:But but but... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    If we are not supposed to eat animals then why are they made of meat?

    Found the cannibal.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  54. Pigs arent going away by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

    Feral hogs are a major problem all across the south. They won't die out just because people stop breeding them.

  55. This is already possible by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    What If You Could Eat Chicken Without Killing a Chicken?

    I can: in very very small bites, very slowly. The parts just grow back by themselves!

  56. Efficiency by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Yes. And: They can also farm vertically, and not just with chicken.

    A square block of farm with 50 levels will significantly outproduce a square block of farm with one level. It can also protect the product from weather, disease, accidents and predators whereas that's a little tough to do with animals roaming about.

    Etc.

    As I said above, IVM tech is presently about where integrated circuits were in 1958. The fact that's it's expensive at this point isn't really relevant at all. Anyone who suggests it is hasn't thought the matter through. Possibly because they aren't capable of it.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  57. Forward looking by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    See:

    o Haldane’s Possible Worlds and Other Essays (1927)
    o F. Pohl / C M Kornbluth’s The Space Merchants (1953)
    o Winston Churchill’s Fifty Years Hence (1932)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  58. No problem killing a chicken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with the killing and eating of chickens. I do have a problem with factory farming of animals where the animal is basically tortured for x years and does not get to live a happy animal life. Right now we spend a bit extra for the promise that our eggs and meat are ethically produced. I'd like more than just a promise.

  59. Re:Price? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    I have chickens and spend maybe $14 every 6 months for food. Treats really because they mostly scavenge in the yard. I get free eggs every day also. Depends on where you live though.

  60. Old (1980s) Advertising Poster: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    "Save a chicken! Eat a pizza."

    Had a drawing of a chicken kneeling and begging.

    1. Re:Old (1980s) Advertising Poster: by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I bought some really cheap pepperoni sticks and they had chicken as one of the many ingredients.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  61. Re:Sorry no, not ever by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    It's very easy. It's almost like they know how to take care of themselves without any human intervention.

  62. Is it cheaper than chicken? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If not, then no.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  63. So what? by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    >> It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce just a pound of beef.

    So what? Water is an effectively infinite global resource and it isn't ever actually consumed (i.e. lost). It all ultimately passes through the cow/human back into the environment where it evaporates then falls as rain.

  64. What's wrong? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    Wait? Is there someone wrong with killing a chicken? They are bred and exist to be eaten. It's equivalent to pulling a turnip out of the ground. Things die, we live.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:What's wrong? by eaglesrule · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference between a chicken and a turnip is one is a vertebrate animal that is capable of learned behavior, while the other is a vegetable. You can't raise and dispatch a turnip inhumanely, because it is incapable of consciousness and feeling, a quality that is shared between humans and prey animals. Of course, for the approximately %1 of the human population who are psychopathic and incapable of experiencing empathy, this is not likely a concern. However some people choose to source meat where the animal was both raised humanely and dispatched instantly without pain or suffering, or forego eating it entirely since there cannot be a guarantee how the food was produced.

      If there is an acceptable substitute to natural meat then there could be no chance that any animal was treated inhumanely or suffered in its production. Some would value having that choice.

    2. Re:What's wrong? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I'm a collection of amino acids, just like a radish, and it's no coincidence.

      And I never said we should trash the place in order to raise chickens. I don't even need to eat meat every day.

      But I have no problem with the practice. And I have killed and cleaned rabbits and field dressed deer, so it's not some abstract concept to me. (I don't usually like to pluck chickens, it's really messy compared to rabbits, if I owned chickens I'd only have them for their eggs)

      idfk why I have to defend my practice of eating meat. one day humans might learn to leave each other alone about stupid shit, but today is probably not that day.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:What's wrong? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Well good for you. I'm glad that you have pets and they bring you enjoyment in your life. But I can't really be expected to have the same experiences and feelings as you.

      I eat rabbits too, and they are mammals. And lots of people keep them as pets. But I don't really see how other people's choices should be relevant to my own choices.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:What's wrong? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Bzzt. They are domesticated animals bred for a purpose. They would not exist in this form, in their current numbers without human intervention. We've disrupted their natural selection and now humanity is responsible for them. Chickens are no longer wild animals, they may have some very similar wild cousins, but those small populations are falling.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  65. Even worse by Solandri · · Score: 2

    It takes half a million gallons of water to raise a baby to adulthood. We need to stop having babies.

    1. Re:Even worse by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Agreed, overpopulation is the problem, Humankind keeps innovating to squeeze more of us onto the planet. Me thinks we are near the breaking point. I saw one pbs show about how middle east areas are stealing sand, because the "right" kind whatever that is, is in short supply. I did my part, no kids.

  66. Better? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Is it better to be a chicken that lives for 2 (?) years and then is slaughtered (hopefully painlessly), or to never exist?

  67. how can you market this? by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

    I cannot wait for the spin of "free range" lab meat.....

  68. There is a bird flu epidemic right now by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Probably millions of chickens, and ducks, have been culled. Last count, I heard, about 180 people died from it China.

    It is all over the world: China, Greece, France, Thailand, Germany, and the USA.

    The epidemic has hit Tennessee, and maybe Alabama.

    Just another reason to avoid chicken.

  69. I did not participate in 4 million years of evo... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    ...lution to tick a check boy on my order:
    [ ] fake chicken
    [ ] real chicken

    On the other hand: this does not really concern me. I eat chicken roasted on a grill. It always will be "real chicken" and on other circumstances I eat: beef. Aka cows. Or sheep, I like sheep, or goat, they are tasty too, and as I'm german, I occasionally eat pork aka pig.

    To understand why I switch between cow/beef and pork/pig you need to read Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott ;D

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  70. Incorrect by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Well, then you are obviously not aware that most people are against GMO. At least in Europe.

    Let me refer you to me original statement - MOST people are not. Even in Europe. It's just that the ones that are, are especially loud and obnoxious about it.

    Nothing I have seen traveling around Europe leads me to believe the people there care any more than the U.S. In fact the U.S. stores I shop at have a lot more labeling saying "Non GMO" that I ever saw in European grocery stores.

    But perhaps you are not well-travelled enough to know what people on multiple continents really think.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Incorrect by dddux · · Score: 1

      You won't see any GMO labels here in Europe because GMO is banned here. Whatever you buy here should be GMO free. At least in theory. I'm not 100% sure about all the countries in Europe, though.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    2. Re:Incorrect by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Let me refer you to me original statement - MOST people are not. Even in Europe. It's just that the ones that are, are especially loud and obnoxious about it.

      That is incorrect.
      In fact the U.S. stores I shop at have a lot more labeling saying "Non GMO" that I ever saw in European grocery stores.
      Obviously, facepalm. In Europe food containing traces of GMO material must be labeled. Fully GMOed food is illegal to trade. Obviously no one is putting a voluntary 'no GMO' lanel on his food, facepalm.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  71. What if you could eat a pig without killing it? by mcswell · · Score: 1

    A tourist from the city passed a farmhouse and saw a pig with a wooden leg. He went to the farmer and asked him about the pig.

    The farmer said, "Oh, this is a great pig! There's no pig like him anywhere! Once, when I was plowing a field, the tractor tipped over and pinned my leg to the ground. This pig saw me and went to the house to get my wife. He saved my life!

    "Another time, my wife and I were asleep in the house when a fire started. This pig woke us up and got us out of the house before it burned down. He saved me again! He's a wonderful pig!"

    "But you didn't tell us how he got the wooden leg," said the tourist.

    "Oh," said the farmer, "a pig like that, you don't eat all at once!"

    (adapted from Prairie Home Companion, this short version here: http://www.mendosa.com/pig.htm...)