Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates and Richard Branson Back Startup That Grows 'Clean Meat' (bloomberg.com)

A large global agricultural company has joined Bill Gates and Richard Branson to invest in a nascent technology to make meat from self-producing animal cells. "Memphis Meats, which produces beef, chicken and duck directly from animal cells without raising and slaughtering livestock or poultry, raised $17 million from investors including Cargill, Gates and billionaire Richard Branson, according to a statement Tuesday on the San Francisco-based startup's website," reports Bloomberg. From the report: This is the latest move by an agricultural giant to respond to consumers, especially Millennials, who are rapidly leaving their mark on the U.S. food world. That's happening through surging demand for organic products, increasing focus on food that's considered sustainable and greater attention on animal treatment. Big poultry and livestock processors have started to take up alternatives to traditional meat. To date, Memphis Meats has raised $22 million, signaling a commitment to the "clean-meat movement," the company said.

243 comments

  1. Clean meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are we gonna get clean shit?

    1. Re:Clean meat? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      I got drunk as fuck and I FUCKED your mom's nasty smelly fishy bearded clam.

      Hey, we're Eskimo brothers!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: Clean meat? by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      it gives people something to complain about because they have nothing better to do and didnt think of it themselves.

    3. Re:Clean meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That one probably stopped being funny some decades back, gramps. I don't know if you know any Inuit or Yupiks, but alcoholism, STDs, assault, and sexual abuse are epidemic up there.

  2. $22 Million is Chicken Feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -- no pun intended --
    Geeez, Americans spend that much on hamburgers every hour.

    1. Re:$22 Million is Chicken Feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -- no pun intended --
      Geeez, Americans spend that much on hamburgers every hour.

      Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.

    2. Re:$22 Million is Chicken Feed by gnick · · Score: 2

      No burgers. I only eat veal because of the cruel way cattle are butchered. Veal calves are left to die of loneliness, the way nature intended.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:$22 Million is Chicken Feed by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      Geeez, Americans spend that much on hamburgers every hour.

      Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.

      Where is the "body shaming"? The first post seemed to be pretty close to factual. One source suggests that the annual consumption of hamburgers in the US is around 50 billion burgers. If we say that on average a burger costs $2 (assuming more are consumed at inexpensive places than not), that is $100B per year on hamburgers in this country. Divide by 365 days and we're looking at ~$273M per day, divide by 24 and we're around $11.4M per hour - assuming that the average burger is $2. If the average is closer to $4 then we hit the $22M the original comment was pointing to.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    4. Re:$22 Million is Chicken Feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut the FUCK up with this "tolerant left" crap. I'm going to force my ideals on you because they're simply BETTER than yours you limp-dick fuckwad

    5. Re: $22 Million is Chicken Feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, for the Shkreli-like arrogance of your leftism, you're going to get Trump, more Trump, and then Son-in-Law of Trump, followed by a long, long march of increasingly unpleasant populists who'll teach you that San Fran values aren't a bankable hobby. If you're lucky, they won't burn you at the stake.

      Then again, just maybe they will. And maybe they should.

    6. Re:$22 Million is Chicken Feed by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.

      I don't think the left has been promoting tolerance in the general sense of tolerating different opinions for at least a decade and more like two. Bill Clinton was probably the last of the tolerant left. Now they are more the Maoist left complete with goon squads.

  3. Richard Branson!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I see Richard Branson's name now, I just want to punch him in the face. It all started when my company replaced a certain amount of medical benefits with that stupid Virgin Pulse, track your steps taken each day crap. May the flees of a thousand camels infest your armpits!!!

    1. Re:Richard Branson!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get violent.
      Keep it in the family and get help from a pro.
      My cousin Louie can help you get that Branson guy off your back.
      He even has a promo video -
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlDGFrP4NgI

    2. Re:Richard Branson!!!! by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It all started when my company replaced a certain amount of medical benefits with that stupid Virgin Pulse, track your steps taken each day crap.

      Get a small dog and put it on the collar.

    3. Re:Richard Branson!!!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Get a small dog and put it on the collar.

      I don't think dogs qualify as clean meat.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Richard Branson!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is dirty meat this is marketing bs and if Cargill is involved none of it will be clean.
      The ruling class wants to put farmers out of business and feed us trash.

    5. Re: Richard Branson!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it involves shooting a metal bolt into an animal's head, slitting its throat then trying to remove its skin, guts, head and feet without getting any of its bacteria-laden shit on the meat. A dirty business altogether.

    6. Re: Richard Branson!!!! by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Because it involves shooting a metal bolt into an animal's head, slitting its throat then trying to remove its skin, guts, head and feet without getting any of its bacteria-laden shit on the meat. A dirty business altogether.

      In that case, better not contemplate eggs and mushrooms.

    7. Re: Richard Branson!!!! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In that case, better not contemplate eggs and mushrooms.

      I don't think eggs and mushrooms contribute the same level of greenhouse gases as cows and pigs.

      The "dirty" part of dirty meat is in its environmental footprint. I will eat the new clean meat overlords as long as they taste like chicken or pork chops.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re: Richard Branson!!!! by arth1 · · Score: 2

      I will eat the new clean meat overlords as long as they taste like chicken or pork chops.

      One of the enjoyable things about pork chops is how the taste and texture differs across the chop, with the most succulent meat being next to the fat rind and along the bone. I think that's a target that will be hard to reach for vat grown meat.
      Similar with chicken - unless associating chicken with nuggets, crispy skin and meat that varies depending on where it is is part of the experience.

      I can see it more as a substitute for ground meat and pink slime.

      My main concern is that the vat doesn't have a working immune system, unlike the animals. What will they have to do to ensure the meat is safe?

    9. Re: Richard Branson!!!! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      My main concern is that the vat doesn't have a working immune system, unlike the animals. What will they have to do to ensure the meat is safe?

      Chemical antibiotics. Tanker trucks full.

      Will this result in the breeding of superbugs that will cause a national pandemic, wiping out 80% of the population? Yes. Yes it will.

      The only people left will be the fanatic vegans and the animal meat eaters. Then the animal meat eaters will kill the vegans and eat them, leaving only 10% of the current population, thus ushering in the New Utopia.

    10. Re: Richard Branson!!!! by beastofburdon · · Score: 0

      A world without vegans or vegetarians? That does sound like a utopia. Now, if only we could get rid of all religions in the process...

  4. So I've been eating dirty meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explain.

    1. Re:So I've been eating dirty meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might have dreamed that scenario. My buddy Todd was over last night, we were drinking sangria, and I woke up the next day with a sore ass and a weird taste in my mouth.

  5. "clean" "meat" by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?

    There's enough problems with processed food already. Here we have a processed thing that did not even start from being food.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree I want to only eat meat labeled extra cruel.

    2. Re:"clean" "meat" by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But millennials and stuff don't you know.... they hate big-cow and big-chicken and big-pig and want clean organic vat meat. So you just stop it with your "labels" and your anti-vat meat anxiety because Bloomberg says that millennials have decided what they will and won't tolerate you eating.

      Vat-to-table, pal.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:"clean" "meat" by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it. Otherwise if it's molecularly the same, who cares if it came from a factory where it was grown artificially or if some critter carried it around before having it shorn off. As long as it still tastes good (some meat isn't just the muscle, but also the intramuscular fat) I'll eat it. If it eventually means I can get a great cut of steak for $2 at the market because this is cheaper than feeding an actual cow, I think it would go a long way towards being able to supply more of the world with protein.

    4. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, because it will be chemically indistinguishable from the meat you get from slaughtering an animal. This isn't some soy based substitute, it is actual meat.

      You can have "not actual cow" on the labelling if you like, but it's still meat.

    5. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. As soon as pig organs aren't labeled as "meat" either.

    6. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm vegan and still wouldn't eat this, and I don't know any others that would either.

    7. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Label is easy "Soylent Green"!

    8. Re:"clean" "meat" by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      No, because it will be chemically indistinguishable from the meat you get from slaughtering an animal.

      So lemme give you a small sack of sand, with a few grains of gold and many other trace metals, and toss in a lump of partially rusted iron -- while I get a computer. They are chemically indistinguishable from each other, you see.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    9. Re:"clean" "meat" by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?

      Good luck with that. With process cheese not containing cheese, marshmallows not containing any marshmallow, "beer" being rice brews, and perhaps worst of all, "real mayonnaise" neither being real nor mayonnaise, I am fairly certain that this will be called meat.
      Which is why you go to a butcher when you want meat.

    10. Re:"clean" "meat" by rtb61 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Growing meat cells, has a real problem with pathogens and corporate greed. A whole food like algae is safer in corporate hands, it tends to die real fast or look after itself in relatively clean environments. Grow meat, vulnerable meat without, an immune system and that means a whole host of chemicals to keep it alive, pretty much a whole range of antibiotics, to keep the meat from being infected, anti-biotics they will in turn be fed to us, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., basically "opposing life", so side affects with loads of corporate PR and lawyer denials are the expected results. Poor people meat, rather than the highest quality food and poor people meat because of the necessary chemicals to keep the franken meat alive and corporate greed driven stupidity always looking for short cuts, this quarters profits and people will last eating it for at least a year.

      Note also, algae based and everyone with the right basic equipment can grow it (fish tank in the kitchen, feed the fish and they produce fertiliser), fake meat and only corporate industrial facilities can grow it. Total corporate control over food, obey or starve, another part of the corporate take over. Corporate cash less society, obey or be denied access to anything else. Corporate government, obey or die. The investors, basically the whose who of control freaks, only they know, only their insane levels of greed makes them smart, the billions of the rest of us know fuck all, as far as their egos are concerned (we are just not insanely greedy like them).

      An algae steak, grown in clean salt water with reduced chemical input apart from chemicals the algae uses to grow far preferable to fake meat soaking in anti-biotics, hmm, I can just taste those anti-biotic side affects,"opposing life", so tasty (I'll bet none of those "opposing life" chemicals will cause cancer when you eat it every day, just ask the companies lawyers growing or the investors who never eat it).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?

      There's enough problems with processed food already. Here we have a processed thing that did not even start from being food.

      Oh - we have a person here who already knows this is bad. Seriously, it's awesome to have a person who doesn't need to know anything but knows everything.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      But millennials and stuff don't you know.... they hate big-cow and big-chicken and big-pig and want clean organic vat meat. So you just stop it with your "labels" and your anti-vat meat anxiety because Bloomberg says that millennials have decided what they will and won't tolerate you eating.

      Yeah yeah look traditionalists, when you harvest and skin all of the meat you eat, killing it with tools you made yourself, cooking it over an open firem and wear it's skins while you gather nuts and berries, then come back and act all paleolithic on us.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same way that jello is clearly chemically indistinguishable from your brain.

    14. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sir are what's called a spectacular idiot! well done. by this logic a fertilized egg in a test tube (and later implanted) is not really a baby. maybe a collection of water, some iron and calcium. a bag of sand shall we say? and what of the people who get body parts like ligaments grown in a test tube. just plain sand instead of a trachea you claim. and surely you are right. I see thousands, nay millions clambering to agree with you not to get anything grown in a testtube anywhere near you. good luck in your cave.

    15. Re:"clean" "meat" by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      You make a mound of assumptions backed by nothing

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    16. Re:"clean" "meat" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?

      Why? In what way is it "not meat"? Anyway, you can avoid buying it by looking at ... the price tag. This stuff is going to sell for at least twice the price of dead-animal-meat.

      My daughter is a vegan, and she said there is no way she will eat this stuff. According to her, it is still meat.

    17. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it. Otherwise if it's molecularly the same, who cares if it came from a factory where it was grown artificially or if some critter carried it around before having it shorn off.

      I certainly agree, but we have a world full of anti-vaxxers, anti anything but unmanipulated original veggies, anti-science, and flat earthers.

      I'm a dedicated omnivore (because it is the natural state of humans) but would be very happy to eat synthetic meat.

      Imagine, we could eat rare animals, or hybrid meat. Some donations would be all that is needed. We wouldn't have to be worried about maltreatment of food animals, or alomst killing off an entire species of food. I'm pretty certain that the meat eventually can be grown completely organically.

      side note 1 - much of the "organic" veggies grown are grown hydroponically. And it is organic, and often very good.

      side note 2 - I'm a foodie, have been one as long as I've been on the earth. And I eat a lot of organic, so synthetic shamers will be laughed at.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, because it will be chemically indistinguishable from the meat you get from slaughtering an animal.

      So lemme give you a small sack of sand, with a few grains of gold and many other trace metals, and toss in a lump of partially rusted iron -- while I get a computer. They are chemically indistinguishable from each other, you see.

      The parent is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. The product is animal tissue (although grown in a lab) considered as food. It is not plant matter or some raw components.

      Your example is a horrible straw-man. It might have been more reasonable if you had offered a PC (vat meat) instead of a Mac (prime cuts). I mean who would want a PC? Only pudgy guys with glasses who obviously don't care what they eat unlike the cool guys who are better at life stuff.

    19. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm vegan and still wouldn't eat this, and I don't know any others that would either.

      I'm sorry. Not sorry that you won't eat this, just sorry that you're vegan.

      I've met lots of vegans. I've never personally seen a vegan man with decent muscle mass. I've never personally seen a vegan woman with pleasing curves and supple breasts. I don't imagine I will either. You require artificial supplements just to stay something resembling healthy.

      We're omnivores, from our dentition to our digestive tract to our prehistoric diet and everything. Back in the day, meat was a smaller fraction of our diet of mostly fruits and vegetables, but it was a regular part of it all the same. The best way is to have meat be a regular 10-20% of your diet, let red meat be a very rare treat, and let the rest be fruits and veggies while going light on the grains.

      Ovo-lacto vegetarians come close to this, if they also allow fish. Except I would avoid dairy whenever practical. You're not a suckling calf and don't need all the hormones and bGH and shit that often comes with milk. Neither do you need fat droplets that have been homogenized and rendered a micro-size that your body doesn't really know how to process.

    20. Re:"clean" "meat" by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You eat it, we'll wait a few hundred years to see how evolution treats your kids. You never know, they could have the IQ of Socrates and be amazingly athletic. Then again, they could have the IQ and athleticism of a turnip. Why do we have to be your guinea pig?

      Science says lots of things are good, and it's not always true. Perhaps try cracking some books and reading history on the subject.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    21. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My daughter is a vegan, and she said there is no way she will eat this stuff. According to her, it is still meat.

      Our condolences?

    22. Re:"clean" "meat" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.

      Vegans, being religious psychoceramics who require no connection to animals in any way, will not eat vat meat. Vegetarians object specifically to the idea of killing for meat, so they will probably be receptive to this.

    23. Re:"clean" "meat" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Imagine, we could eat rare animals, or hybrid meat.

      For the adventurous, I can see it going farther than that: "long pig" and from specific celebrities. Fans will pay a premium for Mark Wahlberg filet mignon.

    24. Re:"clean" "meat" by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Probably not too big a concern. Chances are that it will fail due to tasting like despair.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    25. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Good luck with that. With process cheese not containing cheese,

      Negative, there are specific standards that process chees has to adhere to specific composition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . From the page: These products tend to be classified as cheese food, "cheese spread", or "cheese product", depending on the amount of cheese, moisture, and milkfat present in the final product.

      marshmallows not containing any marshmallow,

      "Pâte de guimauve", the French confection that was originally made from the Marsh Mallow plant, was changed to a gelatin/sugar/starch mixture a long long time ago. And the fact that the marsh mallow roots once used have a medicinal connection, It probably would not be used for more than the also fact that we'd probably extinct the plant. It's a gorgeous plant, better looked at than eaten unless you are using it for medicine.

      "beer" being rice brews,

      Rice is one of the adjuncts that is sometimes used in brewing. Loke corn, and even wheat if you are a strict Reinheitsgebot adherent, there are a multitude of ingredients that make them completely acceptable to call beer.

      and perhaps worst of all, "real mayonnaise" neither being real nor mayonnaise, I am fairly certain that this will be called meat.

      Oh hell, which type of "real Mayonnaise" are you talking about? There are so many types made in so many countries and the recipe has changed over time just like everything else, and some of the changes are pretty helpful, like those to avoid botulism poisoning.

      Which is why you go to a butcher when you want meat.

      Yes, I go to the butchers at the moment. I process venison from relatives who hunt and share the results with them. I even eat vegan hamburgers made out of Fusarium venenatum. It's mycoprotein, naturally occurring and pretty darn good. That's all I require in my food, good taste, natural and organic if possible. But I'm not going to pretend that What is organo-trendy is the only good diet. And i'm suspecting that this synthetic meat can be processed organically.

      And my last response is that I believe that this synthetic meat will advertise as such because a lot of people will want it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    26. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meat has specific structure(s) and flavor(s). That's why there's fish, poultry, etc. Unless you replicate (not imitate) these, it's not meat.

    27. Re:"clean" "meat" by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Why can't the meat be grown in a sterile environment?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    28. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, are you ever in denial. You should look inward and try to determine why you're so opposed to a vegan diet. I personally don't give a shit what you choose to delude yourself with, but you should probably care. Be truthful to yourself at least.

    29. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      when you harvest and skin all of the meat you eat, killing it with tools you made....

      As if you are going to tend your meat vat and not let some nameless immigrant or disposable Chinamen to do it for you, as you do everything else.

    30. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wat

      I mean they're never going to stop me calling it lab meat, but

      I don't think you understand how chemistry works mate, let alone biochemistry

    31. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This notion held by carnists that all vegans crave meat or overpriced fake meat products is bogus.

    32. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You require artificial supplements just to stay something resembling healthy.

      And you require other "artificial" stuff, like oh, toothpaste, lest your teeth fall out.

      B-12 deficiency is *unheard of* in vegans that don't also suffer from malnutrition. Look how much food is fortified with vitamins and you'll
      see why the B-12 deficiency simply isn't going to happen in the first world.

    33. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you not see the irony in your concern with a "artificial supplements" in an article where you're supporting lab-grown meat?

      By your reasoning, the vitamins contained in this meat will be artificial as well, making your position very inconsistent.

    34. Re:"clean" "meat" by jandersen · · Score: 2

      ... I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.

      I think it is merely a popular misconception, that vegetarians et al avoid meat simply because they object to the slaughter of animals and feel they have eat vegetables as a sort of penance. Maybe there are some of that kind - otherwise there wouldn't be a market for all those horrible meat-imitations. Personally, though, I tend to eat vegetables because I like them more than meat - the taste, the texture, the fact that I don't feel as if I had eaten a bowl of cement after eating etc. - and I think I have more energy for longer after eating. It's all about how you cook things - I find meat tastes about the same no matter how it is prepared (and I have tried some very well made meat dishes, believe me), but vegetables are so varied - if you know how to cook them and especially when to stop cooking. I still recall with loathing the brussel sprouts that had had all nutrition boiled out of them - as the saying went: "If you can count them, they haven't had enough".

    35. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll label it with something that they can trademark and sell as a proprietary food product. This shit is *not* going to be cheap. A lot of people, I imagine, would be ready to pay a premium for "clean" and "ethical" meat.

      I have serious doubts whether this thing is going to be healthy to eat in big quantities. As rtb61 mentioned below, they'll likely need to keep the meat in life support in order for it to survive the growing process, and that of course means using either antibiotics or other chemicals. Not all chemicals are bad, but I have zero trust in the US food industry. They either can't or won't make this a healthy product.

    36. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be specific in your criticisms.

      There are no assumptions, only common sense. There is no need for "backing" this isn't a thesis paper.

      There is however, a need for punctuation which you lack. Don't criticize other's not presenting a fucking slashdot comment in APA format if you can't bother with a period on a single sentence response.

    37. Re:"clean" "meat" by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      But you won't have the claim of animal cruelty anymore.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    38. Re:"clean" "meat" by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Growing meat cells, has a real problem with pathogens and corporate greed. A whole food like algae is safer in corporate hands, it tends to die real fast or look after itself in relatively clean environments. Grow meat, vulnerable meat without, an immune system and that means a whole host of chemicals to keep it alive, pretty much a whole range of antibiotics, to keep the meat from being infected, anti-biotics they will in turn be fed to us, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., basically "opposing life", so side affects with loads of corporate PR and lawyer denials are the expected results. Poor people meat, rather than the highest quality food and poor people meat because of the necessary chemicals to keep the franken meat alive and corporate greed driven stupidity always looking for short cuts, this quarters profits and people will last eating it for at least a year.

      Note also, algae based and everyone with the right basic equipment can grow it (fish tank in the kitchen, feed the fish and they produce fertiliser), fake meat and only corporate industrial facilities can grow it. Total corporate control over food, obey or starve, another part of the corporate take over. Corporate cash less society, obey or be denied access to anything else. Corporate government, obey or die. The investors, basically the whose who of control freaks, only they know, only their insane levels of greed makes them smart, the billions of the rest of us know fuck all, as far as their egos are concerned (we are just not insanely greedy like them).

      An algae steak, grown in clean salt water with reduced chemical input apart from chemicals the algae uses to grow far preferable to fake meat soaking in anti-biotics, hmm, I can just taste those anti-biotic side affects,"opposing life", so tasty (I'll bet none of those "opposing life" chemicals will cause cancer when you eat it every day, just ask the companies lawyers growing or the investors who never eat it).

      Holy fuck. Do you think it's remotely possible that some people would like to eat meat but aren't comfortable with the concept of an animal dying to provide it?

      I don't care either way, but holy shit way to miss the point.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    39. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wonder if carnetin or any of the myriad other chems and trace minerals will get faked into this empty container as well; without them you have no hope of this fooling your tastebuds and body chemistry at all. nvm the fat, meat is only a protein as far as the macro level goes, on the micro level its a whole lot more involved than that.

      are you a programmer perchance? its the difference between doing the work and getting a spec from customer-stories here. the reality is completely different.

    40. Re:"clean" "meat" by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Have two. Digressions into non-sequiturs about corporate this and that. Failing to acknowledge that other foods still fucking exist.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    41. Re:"clean" "meat" by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree, but we have a world full of anti-vaxxers, anti anything but unmanipulated original veggies, anti-science, and flat earthers.

      Sadly true, but I feel we should be giving them the attention they deserve. None at all.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    42. Re:"clean" "meat" by Maritz · · Score: 1

      This notion held by carnists that all vegans crave meat or overpriced fake meat products is bogus.

      "Carnist"? Lame. In any case, I'm one, and I think I've just disproven your statement because I don't think all vegans crave meat or overpriced fake meat products.

      I bet some do, though.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    43. Re:"clean" "meat" by Maritz · · Score: 2

      Jesus. It's embarrassing that you think that's a good analogy.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    44. Re:"clean" "meat" by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Do you suppose that these structures and flavours are related somehow to the animal cells that the tissue is made from? I reckon they are related, on account of it being painfully obvious and logical, and that the result will be fucking meat whether you like it or not.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    45. Re:"clean" "meat" by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The sad part is that anyone thinks 'natural' is an adjective of much relevance. Our natural state is eking out a miserable, parasite-ridden existence for three or four decades. Everything better than that comes to us from artificiality.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    46. Re:"clean" "meat" by Whibla · · Score: 1

      And i'm suspecting that this synthetic meat can be processed organically.

      While I accept that definitions vary the first one I can across for "organic food" was:

      Organic food is the product of a farming system which avoids the use of man-made fertilisers, pesticides; growth regulators and livestock feed additives. Irradiation and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products produced from or by GMOs are generally prohibited by organic legislation.

      I'm sure you don't think that vat grown meat can be produced without man-made growth regulators, but I'm not sure what this does mean for your version of organic. I'm also pretty sure that the cells will have to be 'modified', otherwise growing them will prove not only impractical but 'uneconomical'. Please note I'm not saying impossible, just impractical. The market for $35,000 hamburgers is somewhat limited!

      And my last response is that I believe that this synthetic meat will advertise as such because a lot of people will want it.

      It will be labeled as such because legislation will ensure it must be. It will be branded and advertised to make people want it. No vegan will eat it, as it is still very much an animal product. Most vegetarians will not eat it, either because of the taste or texture, or because it's still animal flesh at the end of the day. A reasonably large number of people will not eat it because of either trust issues or the yuck factor, and finally some people will eat it because it's cheap / expensive. People are funny like that...

    47. Re:"clean" "meat" by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I'll happily eat it, because I'm not a fucking pseudoscientist like you. How evolution treats your kids? What?

      Start by explaining why eating the exact same compounds, in the exact same ratios, mysteriously causes illnesses and consequences for the evolution of your progeny. Go ahead. Whatever you do, don't use 'science', because it was wrong about something, or other.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    48. Re:"clean" "meat" by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Growing meat cells, has a real problem with pathogens and corporate greed. A whole food like algae is safer in corporate hands, it tends to die real fast or look after itself in relatively clean environments. Grow meat, vulnerable meat without, an immune system and that means a whole host of chemicals to keep it alive, pretty much a whole range of antibiotics, to keep the meat from being infected, anti-biotics they will in turn be fed to us, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., basically "opposing life", so side affects with loads of corporate PR and lawyer denials are the expected results. Poor people meat, rather than the highest quality food and poor people meat because of the necessary chemicals to keep the franken meat alive and corporate greed driven stupidity always looking for short cuts, this quarters profits and people will last eating it for at least a year.

      Note also, algae based and everyone with the right basic equipment can grow it (fish tank in the kitchen, feed the fish and they produce fertiliser), fake meat and only corporate industrial facilities can grow it. Total corporate control over food, obey or starve, another part of the corporate take over. Corporate cash less society, obey or be denied access to anything else. Corporate government, obey or die. The investors, basically the whose who of control freaks, only they know, only their insane levels of greed makes them smart, the billions of the rest of us know fuck all, as far as their egos are concerned (we are just not insanely greedy like them).

      An algae steak, grown in clean salt water with reduced chemical input apart from chemicals the algae uses to grow far preferable to fake meat soaking in anti-biotics, hmm, I can just taste those anti-biotic side affects,"opposing life", so tasty (I'll bet none of those "opposing life" chemicals will cause cancer when you eat it every day, just ask the companies lawyers growing or the investors who never eat it).

      How ironic your assumptions about future designs describe all of the fucking problems you're already eating today...

    49. Re:"clean" "meat" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now I'm curious: Why?

      So far I thought one of the key reasons why vegans try to talk us out of eating our our tuna pizza is animal cruelty. That meat never saw an animal, so what's the reason now?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    50. Re:"clean" "meat" by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has a lot of a religious sermon: Lots of postulation, little in terms of evidence. Or at least any kind of hint resembling something akin to a shred of an inkling that any of this is based in reality and that we should believe any of it on anything other than "I told you so".

      You can grow this stuff in a controlled environment. No antibiotics needed because when there are no bacteria there is no need to use something to kill them.

      To the rest of the drivel, well, "chemistry baaaad" sums it up pretty nicely. Why do I have the feeling I'm dealing with a homeopathetic anti-vaxer?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    51. Re:"clean" "meat" by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Can we please have some labelling laws so this thing can't be legally called "meat"?

      There's enough problems with processed food already. Here we have a processed thing that did not even start from being food.

      We do, this is why Quorn advertises itself as a "protein" product. Other doubleplus good terms are "meat-free" and "meat-replacement", "meat-like" will probably be along shortly.

      You must be thinking of other bollocks terms like "natural" and "organic" which dont have legal definitions. However these labels are just there to swindle extra money out of idiots who believe in "toxins" by getting them to pay extra for the same product, responsible capitalism in other words (like the cafe who gives me 50p off by paying for my coffee with a £2 coin rather than sticking it on my card, but I digress).

      BTW, there aren't any problems with processed food, there are problems with people who wont cook or do anything for themselves. Its easy to knock up a healthy meal out of fresh meat and veg in 15 mins (fajitas, stir-fry, steak salad just of the top of my head) or cook in bulk on the weekends. We dont need the government interfering with food beyond making sure its safe and setting nutritional label standards.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    52. Re:"clean" "meat" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah. That's only those vegans that don't really want to be vegans but "must" be for some odd reason. These are also the ones that rant and rave without end in an attempt to get everyone else to suffer with them, for shared pain is easier to endure. The others, the ones that just don't want to eat meat and be done with it, are actually cool. And as far as I can tell the majority.

      But as always, it's the loudmouthed majority that gives the whole bunch a bad name.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    53. Re:"clean" "meat" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I find meat tastes about the same no matter how it is prepared [...] but vegetables are so varied - if you know how to cook them and especially when to stop cooking.

      Same is true for meat. Of course, if "burned to perfection" is the only way you know how to grill your meat, it will all taste like a piece of leather pasted in whatever marinade you use.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the article says that this artificial meat will appeal mostly to millennials and hipsters, do you really think that the Mac is the prime cut? Really? Prime cuts and steak a food for men. Big, burly hairy men. That's not Mac.

    55. Re:"clean" "meat" by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      >who believe in "toxins"
      Yeah, there's no such things as pesticide

    56. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think it's remotely possible that some people won't eat meat that DIDN'T come from an actual animal?

    57. Re:"clean" "meat" by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Vat meat isn't organic. From my experience organic and vegan tend to frequently go hand in hand with the people that advocate it.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    58. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, learn how to properly use commas and eliminate run-on sentences.

      Your rant reads like William Shatner after an all-night meth binge.

    59. Re:"clean" "meat" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Growing meat cells, has a real problem with pathogens and corporate greed.

      Okay.

      A whole food like algae is safer in corporate hands,

      Whole algae is not food for humans. Nobody can stomach it. The most anyone can manage is a few capsulesful, nobody can manage to eat much of it without hiding it in a smoothie.

      it tends to die real fast or look after itself in relatively clean environments.

      Algae is floating in the air at all times. If you leave some water uncovered, algae will come and colonize it. Two different buckets with water with different characteristics will get two different kinds of algae, but they'll both get algae.

      Grow meat, vulnerable meat without, an immune system and that means a whole host of chemicals to keep it alive, pretty much a whole range of antibiotics, to keep the meat from being infected,

      I don't think they will even need antibiotics. I think the real problem is that if they have a DNA replication error, it will just keep replicating in a way that would make an embryo nonviable, and cause it to be aborted naturally before it even becomes a cow, and that their testing process might be inadequate to detect such a failure. Testing processes we depend upon now are often inadequate, so I think that's a reasonable fear.

      An algae steak,

      *throws up in mouth a little*

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:"clean" "meat" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Vat meat isn't organic. From my experience organic and vegan tend to frequently go hand in hand with the people that advocate it.

      Organic gardening/farming as it was envisioned by its creators (those who are credited for naming it) involves cyclical systems in which soil health and community health are linked, explicitly including returning human waste to the fields. Composting crap safely is trivial; add some of your household compost to the toilet every time you crap and in a year, you'll have the highest-quality soil possible coming out the other end of the system.

      There are [at least] two primary kinds of vegan aside from the virtue signalers: the "I love animals" vegan, and the "I love the planet" vegan. The more genuinely "organic" (stupid name, not my fault) the farming process is, the more planet-friendly it is. Both major types of vegan support organic farming (the truer the better) because animals live on the planet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:"clean" "meat" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're wrong about cheese, but it reminds me of my favorite product name: "Pasteurized processed cheese food substitute". Somehow that's still more appetizing than "Potted meat food product". It's bad enough that you have to state that something is food, but it's even worse when you have to explicitly drive home the point that it was intended for both resale and consumption, and not simply as some sort of national emergency rations. No, honest, you should pay for this.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    62. Re:"clean" "meat" by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The sad part is that anyone thinks 'natural' is an adjective of much relevance. Our natural state is eking out a miserable, parasite-ridden existence for three or four decades. Everything better than that comes to us from artificiality.

      Natives of the west coast and the northwestern USA regularly lived to be over a hundred years old, in societies which lasted over ten thousand years that we know of so far. (The estimates keep creeping upwards, last I heard they were looking at fourteen thousand.) And they weren't even parasite-ridden, because they didn't practice animal husbandry. They didn't have to, because they did practice land management. They ignited yearly controlled burns to keep the understory clear, and they had clear agreements on who could fish where and on not overfishing. They tended to build a new communal house every year to live in through the winter, and then burn it when they were done with it, so they didn't even have problems with mold.

      Most humans have poor resource management skills, and so your description is accurate enough. The white man deliberately destroyed the environment of the native (and everyone else, of course) so that lifestyle is now not accessible to anyone. Here in Lake county, CA, homesteaders were paid a dollar a tree to plant black walnuts, in a campaign designed to displace oaks. The walnuts have literally never been a notable economic benefit to the region, as pears and grapes have been, but they are a benefit if your strategy is to permanently destroy a way of life. You can live on acorns alone, but you can't live on walnuts.

      Artificiality, like most anything else, is a blade which cuts in both directions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    63. Re:"clean" "meat" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Jesus. It's embarrassing that you think that's a good analogy.

      It's a better analogy than you clearly recognize. Those components have to go through a process which literally filters out the undesirable parts, and there is testing at every step of the way. Nature also has something analogous to a test procedure; if the process goes wrong, there are numerous points at which it will abend. Neither process is foolproof; the point the GP was trying to make (with an admittedly ridiculous example) is that not all arrangements of the same constituents are satisfactory. The point you're missing is that it's entirely plausible that the testing procedure will be less reliable than the natural screening processes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    64. Re:"clean" "meat" by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

      I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.

      You must be new to this planet. Of course some of them, maybe even most of them, are going to object to this. People who are vegetarian for religious reasons (ie. Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) may not object to it. The main religious objection is that meat comes from killing a creature with a soul and you incur a karmic debt by participating in the killing it took to get you the animal flesh. This doesn't mean you can't find people with religious beliefs that oppose eating animal flesh that will do so anyway at times, but the main religious objection should be taken away. Still, don't be surprised if some of these folks still object because they will likely claim that the original source of the cells came from a killed animal.

      Some vegetarians and vegans are going to object but not for religious reasons. There are plenty of people who are vegan and vegetarian because they think that eating animal flesh is a really bad idea from a health standpoint and this isn't going to change that kind of belief at all.

      Does nobody consider the possibility that consumers may consider such meat to be inferior in terms of taste? If so, unless it's really cheap it may not sell very well. I wouldn't be surprised if this idea fails in the developed world and only finds an audience where cost is the number one factor. And if they price it higher than regular meat, yeah, that's just never going to work.

    65. Re:"clean" "meat" by elainerd · · Score: 1

      No, I understand. If you're going to deny yourself with a lifetime of not eating delicious rib-eye steaks, lamb gyros and Texas BBQ then maintaining the smug pseudo-superiority of Veganism becomes paramount. Sometimes I drink crude oil for the health benefits, like coal-it comes from nature and it's organic.

      --
      Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
    66. Re:"clean" "meat" by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately it's pretty hard to feed the global population with this method. Arable land isn't available in unlimited quantity and "organic" agriculture cannot compete in terms of pure output with industrial crops production.

      It's nice that you can grow in your own garden what you need, but I hope you have a solution for the millions of New York or Mexico City.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    67. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Soylent Red"
      Soylent Green comes later.

    68. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically this will be a neoplasm, not meat. But it's difficult to get people excited about eating tumors.

    69. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can be vegan for a variety of reasons, from concerns about animal welfare, resource usage, actual or perceived health benefits, or religious reasons. Some vegans may accept vat-grown meat, some may not.

    70. Re:"clean" "meat" by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately it's pretty hard to feed the global population with this method.

      At the moment, it takes a lot more hand labor. So what? There's a lot of unemployed people. You can produce more food per acre by planting crops in guilds instead of monocultures, and feeding the soil. We're on the cusp of being able to automate that kind of farming with advances in robotics, so if we can just avoid destroying the biosphere in the mean time, that'd be great.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm vegan as well. While I think lab-meat is a step in the right direction (as well as a distraction), I still won't touch this nasty shit.

    72. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realise that there is already a word for meat-eating animal, don't you? Carnist is not a word, hence why it is underlined by my browser's spellchecker. If you want to be taken seriously, then learn to communicate properly. But if you want other people to think you're a twat, then keep using stupid words like "carnist".

    73. Re:"clean" "meat" by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      How about labeling the meat you eat today with "produced from animals fed with hormones and antibiotics".

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    74. Re:"clean" "meat" by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      DNA replication errors generally kill the cell. Synthetic meat doesn't have a problem with cancer, because it basically *is* cancer - the entire goal is to get muscle cells replicating more or less indefinitely and immortally.

    75. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently vat-grown beef tastes like chicken. Chicken is seemingly vanilla meat, and other factors are important for taste.

    76. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Vegans are fucking tards

      they smell funny too

    77. Re:"clean" "meat" by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Here in Lake county, CA, homesteaders were paid a dollar a tree to plant black walnuts, in a campaign designed to displace oaks. The walnuts have literally never been a notable economic benefit to the region, as pears and grapes have been, but they are a benefit if your strategy is to permanently destroy a way of life. You can live on acorns alone, but you can't live on walnuts.

      Was driving out the oaks just because acorns could support subsistence, or was there some other reason to replace them?

      --
      Nope, no sig
    78. Re:"clean" "meat" by johnstrass1 · · Score: 1

      Vegan and vegetarian is about eating clean food. Not come chemical experiment from the evil spawn of big pharma meets industrial food

    79. Re:"clean" "meat" by Chaset · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that I had an "ew" reaction to that, even though logically, there is nothing physiologically/chemically "bad" about eating lab grown meat based on human DNA. (assuming basic food safety issues are taken care of.)

      I wonder where that comes from, evolutionary/instinct-wise.

      --
      -- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
    80. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting that I had an "ew" reaction to that, even though logically, there is nothing physiologically/chemically "bad" about eating lab grown meat based on human DNA. (assuming basic food safety issues are taken care of.)

      I wonder where that comes from, evolutionary/instinct-wise.

      Well there is a very nasty prion disease only ever found in human cannibals. Apparently this is how you get prion diseases: forcing farmed cows to consume the (unsaleable) remains of other cows is how we ended up with BSE ("mad cow disease", another prion disease). Just as many of our "disgust" reactions function to keep us safe from parasites and unsafe food, I can see how an aversion to cannibalism would be similar.

      Add the social component and there's another reason. For human history cannibalism meant having to kill someone. That someone likely had family/friends who would want revenge. This could start blood feuds, retaliation, etc. None of this is good for a group of hunter-gatherers trying to survive.

    81. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Not about to trust Bill mandatorypopulationreduction Gates' food substitute for the masses.

    82. Re:"clean" "meat" by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Oh hell, which type of "real Mayonnaise" are you talking about? There are so many types made in so many countries and the recipe has changed over time just like everything else, and some of the changes are pretty helpful, like those to avoid botulism poisoning.

      At a minimum, I would require from a "real mayonnaise":
      - It should have olive oil as the main component, and raw egg yolks as the main flavor component, and either vinegar or lemon juice as an emulsifier. Water is not an ingredient for mayonnaise.
      - It should be a semi-solid, not a thick sauce. If you shape it, it should stay that shape.
      - It should yellow with air exposure. That's a feature. It does not have a shelf life of months, it has a shelf life of hours. How it looks is how you avoid botulism and other diseases, and why a real mayonnaise is generally safe to eat. The cooked product with EDTA, you can't tell anything by looking at it. That's dangerous.

    83. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up on a small family farm there is no fucking way i would eat this even if it did not come from cargill and a couple of billionaires.

    84. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not feeding people to stupid to limit their own numbers it is having a population that matches your countries resources except for the west we do not need more illiterate knuckle daggers so weak people can virtue signal.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA

    85. Re:"clean" "meat" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Was driving out the oaks just because acorns could support subsistence, or was there some other reason to replace them?

      The alleged reason was that they would be economically beneficial, but there was no evidence even at the time that this was true. The only people who ever made any money worth mentioning grafted other species onto black walnut stumps, and even that was never much. This region used to be known for cattle, and then it was known for pears, and then it was known for the night life (briefly) and now it's known for hicks in sticks, and being part of the increasingly-misnamed emerald triangle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    86. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only because it bothers vegists like you.

    87. Re:"clean" "meat" by 93,000 · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine you'll be paying anything less than a $5/pound premium on the lab grown stuff. If I had to be on anything about this, it's that it isn't going to be cheap.

    88. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends, which industry will back up your wish for information in order to buy those laws?

    89. Re:"clean" "meat" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Synthetic meat doesn't have a problem with cancer, because it basically *is* cancer - the entire goal is to get muscle cells replicating more or less indefinitely and immortally.

      Except cancer cells often produce toxics and other unwanted byproducts, which brings us back to the potential to do harm.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    90. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont engage the resident troll

    91. Re: "clean" "meat" by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I'm opposed to a vegan diet/lifestyle because it's idiotic, unhealthy, unappetizing, unnatural and literally deranged. If _you_ can live off vegetation the way a rabbit, cow, or elephant can you'd be a strange animal indeed. Compare your entire alimentary canal to any obligate herbivore and _prove_ that humans are naturally meant to live off vegetation alone. That is my challenge to all of the vegans out there. I know they can't so they'll attempt diversionary tactics. If you can prove it, do so, if you can't, consider the absurdity of your dietary choices.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    92. Re:"clean" "meat" by Megol · · Score: 1

      Processed food is great. Processing have improved the quality of food products in western countries (and by extension to most of the world) in many ways. If you don't like some kind of processing (and there are many examples I personally think are shit) then list them instead of using a catchphrase used by idiots.

      The same thing applies to the reverse: natural food isn't always better, many foods require significant processing to produce something edible by humans. Heating, using chemicals, extensive water soaking etc. This is processing too and have been used by humans at least for the historical time. Many things that people have traditionally eaten have to be processed to remove poisons and/or transform the nutrition to something humans can consume. In some cases "modern" idiots that like "natural" food have skipped processing because it isn't natural with toxic results...

    93. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You eat it, we'll wait a few hundred years to see how evolution treats your kids. You never know, they could have the IQ of Socrates and be amazingly athletic. Then again, they could have the IQ and athleticism of a turnip. Why do we have to be your guinea pig?

      Science says lots of things are good, and it's not always true. Perhaps try cracking some books and reading history on the subject.

      I see. Are foods in use today not subject to the same issues? Food is food, and just because it is someon's definition of natural does not grant some ill defined health benefit. positive or negative.

      People are whacked about food in many respects. While they go bat chit crazy about Genetically modified food, and in a ridiculous display of bafflegab, attempt to say that genetic modification is in no way equivalent to say, a evil scientist making a cauliflower that contains a lot of vitaman A is bad, while completely ignoring that the Lenape potato, produced quite naturally (by traditional cross breeding) that produced large amounts of solanine, a poison.

      So far, about the oddest chemical in the process is Sodium Benzoate. a big bad scary chemical that is very scary, and is also used as a medicine. If it is too scary, scientists are looking for other bacteriostats and fungistats. As well, some cochineal might be used as a coloring agent.

      And then, we have you, who have taken the cheap argument point, by issuing a dire and fearful story ofhow this synthetic meat is simply too risky to even attempt, because generations from now, it might turn our descendents into the citizens we saw in idiocracy. refer to my first statement.

      When in fact, we have arrived there already, without benefit of any synthetic meat whatsoever.

      So anyhow, seeing as how you think I am woefully uneducated on the subject, Why don't you reboot this conversation using all the big words in order to educate me - at least on the veracity of your expertise that enables you to understand my lack of it. Use the big words and obscure technical references, I promise to make a feeble attempt to follow. Looking forward to my education on the matter.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    94. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the moment, it takes a lot more hand labor. So what?

      Increased hand labor comes with increased food handling by laborers that haven't washed their hands after producing organic fertilizer in the fields.

    95. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'll happily eat it, because I'm not a fucking pseudoscientist like you. How evolution treats your kids? What?

      That's the move the argument into an undefineable future. It borders on faith, where "I know, I cannot articulate that I know, but I'm going to accues you of jeapordizing your children because I can't be proven wrong - or right.

      Start by explaining why eating the exact same compounds, in the exact same ratios, mysteriously causes illnesses and consequences for the evolution of your progeny. Go ahead. Whatever you do, don't use 'science', because it was wrong about something, or other.

      Cold fusion didn't work, so synthetic meat can't either. Fusion is always 20 years away, so all food additives are bad for you and will make your children stupid.

      I'll be he starts yapping about micronutrients and moment now.

      The stuff is meat. It's grown as an analogue of regular meat, and about the only thing some might object with any rationality to is that it uses a preservative like Sodium Benzoate while in the vat. Objections to that approach anti-vaxxer territory however.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    96. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are frugivores, meaning "yes, we're omnivores but it's more healthy to eat limited quantities of animal products." I believe the documentary is called "Forks over Knives"? It has a website too.

    97. Re: "clean" "meat" by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I qualify for a lot of that, actually. I don't make my own tools. There are more efficient means.

      Given that I personally clean the vast majority if my meat, I'm pretty sure it is clean meat. This year, I even got my moose permit. It will be tasty.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    98. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again with not "backing up" your claims and failing basic grammar, then doubling down with ad hominem.

      There are reasons why nobody listens to your opinion or takes your concerns seriously.

    99. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Cancer is the exact same compounds in the exact same ratios as healthy tissue which can cause sterility, ergo no kids, ergo an evolutionary dead-end for your family line.
      2. Nobody said the artificial meat would be exactly the same. It wouldn't be. No nervous system. No circulatory system. No lymph nodes. No platelets. So on and so on. Remember those "pill meals" that NASA was trying to make for astronauts decades ago? Scientists took everything that a person needed in the right ratios and created capsules, then feed mice with them. Those mice developed tumors and cancers. They died in very high numbers. The conclusion was that we do not know everything yet and therefore can't make artificial foods. So now astronauts don't eat hyper-efficient pill dinners. They eat normal food like everyone else. That is the state-of-the-art.

      Go ahead. Whatever you do, don't use 'science', because it was wrong about something, or other.

      3. Grow up. You denounce someone as not specifically using science in an explanation then demand they do not use science in a specific explanation. Do you want to have a conversation or not? Do you want to understand or feel good in knowing you are right without evidence?

    100. Re:"clean" "meat" by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Actually, vegan is about not exploiting animals, the term was coined in 1944 with the definition:

      "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

      Source: the Vegan Society.

      Far as I've seen, they haven't addressed the lab-grown meat issue; if it's grown in bovine serum (as is often the case so far), then it wouldn't be considered vegan. If they somehow manage to eliminate all animal sources, then it could in theory be considered vegan. I'm not interested in eating it however..

    101. Re:"clean" "meat" by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I'm vegan and I would consider eating it. It depends on how efficient the process is and if it requires periodic infusion of new stem cells from living animals.

    102. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homo Sapien lactase was "selectively" evolved; our "choice" to induce that evolutionary pressure can be argued as "unnatural" but it was pushed all the same, and so long ago it was successfully evolved.

      If you have beef (sorry) with Big Milk or the low standards of modern processing or whatever, that's cool, but we've been drinking it so long that you can't really play the "unnatural" card after our monkey gut adapted to metabolizing dairy.

    103. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like we have now?

      Who the fuck cares? Say, do you realize that you're swallowing your boogers as you read this?

      Be glad you have a constant stream of slime going down your throat. Be glad there's nothing you can do about it. I hope you're grateful, because cycling mucus away, after helpfully gathering bacteria for your phobic ass, keeps shit from taking hold and infecting you.

      The human race is going to go extinct because people like you are too pussy to change a diaper. Wash your carrots, big whoop. Peel them, even.

    104. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love how you provide absolutely no direction to correct this alleged denial other than "look inward".

      The burden of proof is on you, faggot. Either you supply the groundbreaking new information you claim to have or you ain't smarter than millions of years of evolution.

      My money is on the latter, and I'm ALL in.

    105. Re:"clean" "meat" by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      "I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it."

      Vegetarian here (almost vegan but very difficult to get rid of all dairy although I'm trying) and I won't eat this. I don't object to it on principle since it doesn't require an animal to die, but I won't eat it because meat just isn't something I want to eat regardless of source. If you've not eaten meat for any length of time, going back is hard because it actually doesn't taste that great. It has a strong flavour which drowns all the other food. I applaud the move to supply meat to the population without killing animals and the associated environmental harm of having to grow these beasts, but I wouldn't eat it any more than I would eat a real steak.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    106. Re:"clean" "meat" by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that they'll label it in some way just because I can't imagine vegetarians or vegans objecting to eating it.

      You don't know many vegetarians or vegans do you? To rephrase a joke - how do you know if someone is a vegan. Don't worry, if they are they will tell you.

    107. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A neckbeard hasn't seen a vegan with decent muscle mass?! LOL. I've been one for 25+ years, and at age 50 can run circles and lift circles around the typical gamer omnivore...

    108. Re: "clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans aren't "naturally meant" to read or write either... I suppose you're against such things?

    109. Re:"clean" "meat" by kwerle · · Score: 1

      I'm vegetarian and I would...

    110. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Imagine, we could eat rare animals, or hybrid meat.

      For the adventurous, I can see it going farther than that: "long pig" and from specific celebrities. Fans will pay a premium for Mark Wahlberg filet mignon.

      Well, that escalated quickly. 8^) I've said Something something, Sophia Vergara at times, but never thought about it that way!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    111. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      when you harvest and skin all of the meat you eat, killing it with tools you made....

      As if you are going to tend your meat vat and not let some nameless immigrant or disposable Chinamen to do it for you, as you do everything else.

      whoosh...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    112. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do there have to be sides to this? First; we don't know how it's grown. So points about bacteria or about cleanliness are speculation.

      WE should welcome pros and cons and see what will happen.

      I'm very open to an alternative meat but I don't want it to be unhealthy chemical goo. So I think that about covers it.

    113. Re:"clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The sad part is that anyone thinks 'natural' is an adjective of much relevance. Our natural state is eking out a miserable, parasite-ridden existence for three or four decades. Everything better than that comes to us from artificiality.

      Oh jeebuz this! Humans crack me up. We're living longer than ever, (note that in the USA, we are slipping) and for most of it, much healthier. But perhaps all of this living has addled our pates. We whine about Nitrates in our food based on some seriously inconclusive experiments, but forget why meats wer cured in the first place. People frigging died. Many other examples of how we are better served exist. One of th emost amusing is that "cooked food is poison" as advocated by raw food advocates. Vegans believe that meat is bad for us - whene there is some evidence that cooking and eating more meat made us healthier and stronger. Certainly intelligence in vegan animals is lacking and the fact that they are prey animals might argue otherwise.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    114. Re: "clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I qualify for a lot of that, actually. I don't make my own tools. There are more efficient means.

      Given that I personally clean the vast majority if my meat, I'm pretty sure it is clean meat. This year, I even got my moose permit. It will be tasty.

      Never had moose. That must make for a whole winter's worth of food.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    115. Re: "clean" "meat" by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Longer, really. My last one dressed out to about 1400 pounds and there's still some left. I have my eye on a specific moose this year (I harvest specific animals, it's that easy to hunt here) and he looks like he'll be about the same. I expect the meat to last a few years. I harvest a whitetail every year (up to about 320#, dressed) and the neighbor's farm supplies my beef and most of my fowl. The rest of my meat usually comes form what I catch fishing. I've got a few freezers that I keep it all in, as well as smoking and dehydrating.

      For being retired, I am awfully busy. Still, it's enjoyable and I have a greater respect for what I eat. There's no moral reasons for this, in my case. I just like growing and harvesting, as well as hunting and fishing. I like knowing that the animal I took was healthy and is sustainable, but that's not really my motives. I just like tasty food.

      Moose is a bit like a gamier venison. One of the favorite ways is ground moose. It's got a different fat content, so you want to make your burgers with cold hands and maybe put some breadcrumbs into the burger to keep it together better. There's a whole lot of meat on a moose. There's a limit to how many are harvested each year so we enter a lottery for moose permits.

      Because I got my moose permit, I'm going to try to grand-slam this year. That's a deer, moose, turkey, and a bear. I've already found the deer and the moose but my bear bait buckets are hardly being hit. I'll end up having to bait down in Central Maine, as well. It just widens the scope and makes it more likely to hit. I'll put them up near the blueberry fields. Bear is best served piping hot. If you let it cool, the fat starts to congeal. So, eat it hot.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    116. Re: "clean" "meat" by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Longer, really. My last one dressed out to about 1400 pounds and there's still some left.

      Jeesh! That is a heckava lot of meat.

      I have my eye on a specific moose this year (I harvest specific animals, it's that easy to hunt here) and he looks like he'll be about the same. I expect the meat to last a few years. I harvest a whitetail every year (up to about 320#, dressed) and the neighbor's farm supplies my beef and most of my fowl. The rest of my meat usually comes form what I catch fishing.

      I don't hunt any more, as I have friends and relatives who do, and we share meat and product. I make a kickass venison bologna that we try to keep around until Superbowl Sunday, and the wife makes venison chili that's like heaven. If I need to again, I certainly will. I take a Native American outlook toward food harvesting, to be very thankful to the animal providing me with sustenance.

      I've got a few freezers that I keep it all in, as well as smoking and dehydrating.

      I do a lot of smoking, from pork hungarian hot sausage, Canadian bacon, regular bacon and salmon and trout when I can get it. The wife and I do a lot of canning as well, tomatoes corn and oil peppers. We don't need to, but there's something about the effort, and by gosh, you know they are packed fresh

      Moose is a bit like a gamier venison. One of the favorite ways is ground moose. It's got a different fat content, so you want to make your burgers with cold hands and maybe put some breadcrumbs into the burger to keep it together better.

      Is it like the deer fat? I've always discarded that and put a little beef fat in the venison because the deer fat leaves a film on my teeth.

      There's a whole lot of meat on a moose. There's a limit to how many are harvested each year so we enter a lottery for moose permits.

      Because I got my moose permit, I'm going to try to grand-slam this year. That's a deer, moose, turkey, and a bear. I've already found the deer and the moose but my bear bait buckets are hardly being hit. I'll end up having to bait down in Central Maine, as well. It just widens the scope and makes it more likely to hit. I'll put them up near the blueberry fields. Bear is best served piping hot. If you let it cool, the fat starts to congeal. So, eat it hot.

      Had bear once, it was't the best thing I ever ate, but I could live off it for a while without feeling abused. Okay about Maine - I was going to ask if you were in Alaska. And you have those Maine Blueberries - you do pemmican?

      Something tells me you might be getting a bigger - or another - freezer soon. 8^)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    117. Re: "clean" "meat" by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yup, it's a lot of meat. After bones are removed, it's about 800 pounds for the last one. Err... I think? I didn't actually weigh it all.

      I should like to try venison bologna. I made jerky and sausages. They are delicious.

      Yes, it's similar to venison fat - though I've not noticed any film on my teeth. I've never added beef fat to it, though I have often cooked it in a cast iron pan and used bacon grease. (That may sound odd, but it's delightful.) I usually get a couple of pigs from the neighbor.

      I don't do pemmican but I do have many, many tons of blueberries. (I own a bunch of blueberry fields that are commercially harvested. Pics available on request - it's beautiful.) The blueberry fields are located in Vienna, ME.

      I've got four giant chest freezers and two freezers that are attached to the fridge. I'm actually going to buy a fifth one when I get a chance to get down into the city. I just haven't gotten there yet, I've been pretty busy.

      To add to this, I often have guests. So, I go through a whole lot of food. In theory, it's just my girlfriend and I. However, there's a bunch of parties and guests that show up. Each year, I get a couple of pigs and at least a half a cow. My garden is just about 2 acres - I think. I haven't actually measured it. It keeps getting bigger. That gets harvested and preserved/eaten.

      I didn't start off with this as a goal. But, more or less, my food pretty much all comes from local sources - with some exceptions. The exception being things like flour and I've actually considered planting a small field with wheat and another with rye. I already have a tractor, so it's not that much more work. There's a place to get both processed and it's not too far away.

      But no, this wasn't actually my goal. It just kinda happened. I'd never actually grown anything, prior to retiring.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    118. Re:"clean" "meat" by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Same is true for meat. Of course, if "burned to perfection" is the only way you know how to grill your meat, it will all taste like a piece of leather pasted in whatever marinade you use.

      Well, I do know how to cook meat, and my steaks, roasts stews etc are generally praised by our guests (since it mostly when we have guests). But to me at least meat tends only to taste like meat, unless you add spices, herbs and vegetables; so I guess I simply decided to leave out the meat more and more. It's a bit like ice cream or cake - it may be the best of its kind, but if you have it every day, in the end it just loses its appeal. You grow out of it.

    119. Re:"clean" "meat" by dddux · · Score: 1

      I would consider it ridiculous to eat this after so many years being vegetarian and vegan. There's just no need in me. However, I think it's a positive thing to have for those who, for some to me unknown reason, still crave meat. Maybe it is a way for them to eventually become vegetarians at least... who knows?

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    120. Re:"clean" "meat" by dddux · · Score: 1

      Same here, bro. :)

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    121. Re:"clean" "meat" by dddux · · Score: 1

      Yes, they will tell you because they have to tell you. Otherwise you'd serve them something that they won't eat. How's that a joke? How do you treat people with allergies? "I cannot eat peanuts" - "ha ha ha, you cannot eat peanuts, have just a little!" ? How do you know I wouldn't throw up or get a diarrhoea? You just don't force people to eat anything they don't want to eat. It's simply thei choice and you should be able to give people a choice. I don't find this the least funny. And no, I wouldn't mind you eating this fake meat. Enjoy it all you want. It's just that I can't. I hope this is easy for you to understand?

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    122. Re:"clean" "meat" by dddux · · Score: 1

      This is so easy to explain. Is there something you don't like to eat? Broccoli maybe? Well, his daughter doesn't like meat the same way you don't like broccoli. I also cannot stand the taste of meat. Easy, eh?

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    123. Re:"clean" "meat" by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      It's yet to be determined this will actually be better for the environment, etc..so still a lot of questions. Personally, I think the best use (if proven safe) will be for pets and wildlife rehab centers, sparring them from harming other animals. =)

    124. Re:"clean" "meat" by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Otherwise if it's molecularly the same, who cares if it came from a factory where it was grown artificially or if some critter carried it around before having it shorn off.

      I care, because I want to be able to have the taste of meat without having to grow & kill an animal.

      (BTW, I'm probably about as far from a left-winger as you can imagine, at least on some issues.)

    125. Re:"clean" "meat" by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Neither do you need fat droplets that have been homogenized and rendered a micro-size that your body doesn't really know how to process.

      I think drinking milk is kind of strange for the same reason you do (though I use it in coffee & on cereal).

      But [citation needed] about "your body doesn't really know how to process".

    126. Re:"clean" "meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If it eventually means I can get a great cut of steak for $2 at the market

      If you're under the impression this is being done so you can get cheaper steaks, you've been seriously mislead.

    127. Re:"clean" "meat" by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      If the taste of blood is what you demand, why pretend to cook it at all?

    128. Re:"clean" "meat" by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Memphis, like everyone who came before them, is using a animal-based growth medium. Until they get around that, this is not news.

    129. Re:"clean" "meat" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's called culture. And it's customary to not eat your meat raw, people tend to look strange at you if you do.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Clean my meat, NERDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Present them!

  7. Trade one ill for another by DaMattster · · Score: 0

    We're trading cleaning up our environment for eating food that mother nature never intended us to. By no means am I an expert, but I'm concerned and I'd like to read a study that has not been sponsored by the industry hawking the product. I want an objective study.

    1. Re:Trade one ill for another by plopez · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence it will clean up the environment until we see what the energy balance, carbon foot print, and waste products are.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Trade one ill for another by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I'm concerned and I'd like to read a study that has not been sponsored by the industry hawking the product.

      Ha ha ha. This bridge can reach not only Terabithia but up to Mars' orbit. Just count studies that say male genital mutilation has no or bad effect on STD transmission (most of them) vs ones that claim it is a miracle cure for AIDS (the ridiculously bad Orange Farms study, a few that have a conclusion that contradicts their own data, and that's it) -- then compare with what you read in press or even on Wikipedia. Or, see "not sponsored by the industry, honest" studies of tobacco and sugar a few decades ago. Or, gender wage gap. Or, global warming "not being caused by humans". Or...

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Trade one ill for another by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence it will clean up the environment until we see what the energy balance, carbon foot print, and waste products are.

      At the very least, it won't belch methane.

    4. Re:Trade one ill for another by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I'd like to read a study that has not been sponsored by the industry hawking the product. I want an objective study.

      I can't promise you an objective study, but if this ever actually takes off, there will be lots of "studies" from the existing meat industry about how horrible this is. This is currently in the experimental stage. The actual meat industry sells more meat in a day than the total money so far spent on every vat meat experiment combined. The actual meat industry will likely try to introduce FUD and likely won't have much problem getting people afraid of it as many people already are.

    5. Re:Trade one ill for another by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Nature never intends anything, because intent requires an intelligence behind it, and nature itself is not an intelligent being.

      That said, don't anthropomorphize nature. It hates that.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    6. Re: Trade one ill for another by Evtim · · Score: 1

      She hates that! It's a 'she' you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:Trade one ill for another by hord · · Score: 1

      It will belch CO2 and other noxious compounds as chemicals and raw materials are manufactured and delivered to food labs. Keep looking for the free lunch, I'm sure it's out there.

    8. Re:Trade one ill for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CO2 isn't noxious, by the way.

    9. Re: Trade one ill for another by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Well, I have determined it can be amusing to fool MILF Nature.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    10. Re:Trade one ill for another by plopez · · Score: 1

      It can suffocate you and is a green house gas. Or did you miss that discussion of the last part over the last 40 years?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    11. Re:Trade one ill for another by plopez · · Score: 1

      You'll find it in the pseudo-science aisle right next to perpetual motion.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  8. Requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll only consume clean meat if it is produced with clean renewable energy. It'll cost 382 dollars per pound but fuck it's the planet dude.

  9. Another meaningless gesture from Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it tastes terrible, and even worse on a grill, it is no substitute.

    1. Re:Another meaningless gesture from Bill Gates by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the study to turn shit into butter where they claimed a 50% success. It spreads perfectly, but the taste is still off.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. I'm Skeptical by plopez · · Score: 0

    Until I see I an energy balance, carbon foot print, and waste products I will not use it.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  11. Eat yur meat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beat yur meat?
    Eat to the beat?
    Pudding involved somehow?
    Trump sexcapades captured on video by Putin!
    Grab yur meat or I will darling!

  12. Start at the animal level! by RhettLivingston · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think Mr. Herbert had it right. We should start the engineering at the animal level and shoot for a creating a mindless animal that grows continuously without movement. Just shovel garbage in one end and slice meat off the other.

    The slig is an awesome idea!

    1. Re:Start at the animal level! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      We should start the engineering at the animal level

      We have been doing that for 10,000 years. Look at a Holstein. Then look at a Auroch. Do you notice any difference?

    2. Re:Start at the animal level! by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      At least sligs ate waste, chair dogs were even more disturbing sounding. Basically a shaggy dog designed to be a living recliner.

    3. Re:Start at the animal level! by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      Also thought of another movie called space truckers. Where they were hauling pigs shaped like squares that fit perfectly in the cages.

    4. Re:Start at the animal level! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I think Mr. Herbert had it right. We should start the engineering at the animal level and shoot for a creating a mindless animal that grows continuously without movement. Just shovel garbage in one end and slice meat off the other.

      The slig is an awesome idea!

      I think Mr Adams is more correct.

      The meat should want to die, knowing that filling others with it's tasty body is the culmination of its life's work. It'll make meat much cheaper at the supermarket as you don't need to build slaughtering facilities, just give the beast a shotgun and send it out back. I'm sure it'll be very humane about it. An emo roast would cut itself, I don't see the downside.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  13. You gotta be kidding me by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Microsoft meat" sounds about as appetizing as cockroach pie.

    Does it include an EULA? It might really end the user.
         

    1. Re:You gotta be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just wait for the BSOD

    2. Re:You gotta be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. As if Microsoft has ever released something without an oppressive EULA.

    3. Re:You gotta be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not from Microsoftdipshit. I'm sure you'd be more enticed by a freshly picked bag of "Stallman's Toejam" or "Tim Cook's Felch Soda."

    4. Re: You gotta be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet it will look like a McNugget.

    5. Re:You gotta be kidding me by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If Bill Gates is involved, it will at least be Microsoft-ish.

  14. I'll buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll buy it. ...

    If it's cheaper and/or tastier than murdering animals.

  15. Ob. Better Off Ted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jerome: It tastes familiar
    Ted: Beef?
    Jerome: No
    Linda: Chicken? We’ll take chicken.
    Jerome: [Shakes head.]
    Ted: What does it taste like?
    Jerome: Despair.
    Ted: Is it possible it just needs salt?

  16. Nothing says "New Forms of Cancer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Tampering with Mother Nature... Especially when it comes to food. I assume there is 50+ years of testing and real world study to prove its "Safe"? (As if...)

  17. Moronic, let me FTFY by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Yeah yeah look eco-authoritarian, when you harvest and clean all of the fruits and vegetables you eat, planting it and harvesting it with tools you made yourself, cooking and canning it over an open fire and wear it's skins while you gather nuts and berries, then come back and act all vegan on us.

    That garbage works both ways. I did have the decency to fix your spelling error with "fire" too.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Moronic, let me FTFY by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah look eco-authoritarian, when you harvest and clean all of the fruits and vegetables you eat, planting it and harvesting it with tools you made yourself, cooking and canning it over an open fire and wear it's skins while you gather nuts and berries, then come back and act all vegan on us.

      That garbage works both ways. I did have the decency to fix your spelling error with "fire" too.

      Eco-authoritarian?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Moronic, let me FTFY by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Replace it with veganazi, or what ever you prefer. I tried to be a bit more generic since so many people bitch for so many reasons.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  18. We already have this don't we? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Spam

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  19. Kinda surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it's no surprise to me seeing Cargill and Gates as investors here. I am however surprised that Branson is getting in on tech that can be adapted for population control.

  20. How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long until completely organic fleshlights become available?

    Asking for a friend...

    1. Re:How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're around, but they often demand things like wedding rings and marriage.

    2. Re: How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're available now but the mooing puts some people off.

  21. "clean" is about the self, not the environment by nicolaiplum · · Score: 0

    The trend for "organic" food goes along with the trend for "clean eating", and the subject of this story says that too.

    "Organic" food consumers are not focused on environmental friendliness - typically the production methods allow use of old-fashioned pesticides like copper sulphate (which persists in soil and is toxic in large quantities) and over-fertilisation with manures that cause runoff into watersheds and it is often transported long distances. Those who eat "Organic" food that is not local are deluding themselves that they have a lower environmental impact on the world.

    "Organic" food is about seeking purity, about hygiene in personal life, in feeling that the consumer of the "organic" food is preventing themselves from being contaminated by the world around them. It is elitist food for the isolationist, elitist richer consumer.

    So this "clean meat" is just meat for the hygiene-obssessed elite.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
    1. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >this "clean meat" is just meat for the hygiene-obssessed elite.

      Perhaps for some. For others it's the ability to put meat on the table with a small fraction of the environmental impact and none of the necessary cruelty involved in raising an animal for food.

    2. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For others it's the ability to put meat on the table with a small fraction of the environmental impact and none of the necessary cruelty involved in raising an animal for food.

      There's less cruelty necessarily involved in raising an animal for food than there is in your morning commute. There is such a thing as free range meat (though to be fair, it's more than meat at the time at which it's ranging) and there are slaughterhouses designed to calm animals and keep them ignorant of their fate. They live a short and unremarkable life, then die quickly and painlessly. Of course, there's more animals suffering than have to, but it's not a necessity. Animals running around turning native grasses into crap is also a net environmental benefit... if they're not horribly inefficient cows. Even that problem could theoretically be fixed, though. On feedlots (which are cruel) it's feasible to feed the cows additives to address their methane production. It's not clear what can be done to correct this problem for free-range cattle, but it's not inconceivable that their methane emissions could be reduced somehow.

      Meanwhile, I'm having a hard time imagining making meat in factories having zero or positive environmental impact.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >There's less cruelty necessarily involved in raising an animal for food than there is in your morning commute.

      It's a matter of whether the blood's on our hands or Nature's. And the most efficient methods are not pleasant.

      >I'm having a hard time imagining making meat in factories having zero or positive environmental impact.

      They would require far less water and land than raising animals. After all, you aren't supporting a brain, mobility, or reproductive systems. You're only growing the meat.

    4. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wording "clean meat" seemed odd to me. I don't know of anyone who buys unclean meat but the butcher, and he cleans it before selling it to anyone. "Artificial meat" would be more descriptive, but "sustainable meat" or even "animal-free meat" work to keep the hip factor up as well.

    5. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a hard time imagining it. Given these are living cells, they grow on their own when provided with the right environment and feedstock. I could see the environment being a warm place with a small electric current, and the feedstock being vegetable oil with certain minerals added. Thats guesswork, but the raw materials are guaranteed to be less than raising an entire animal from birth. unless they need to do something else weirdly energy-intensive to get the cells to grow.
      No, that won't get you to "zero impact", but it goes a damn long way. When discussing pollutants, degree is everything. 5 C of global warming will probably end civilization, but reduce that to 1 C and you probably won't get that outcome.

    6. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of whether the blood's on our hands or Nature's. And the most efficient methods are not pleasant.

      Not pleasant to watch, maybe. Not horribly unpleasant to experience; a few seconds of confusion, and then death. Certainly much better than most of the ways we execute humans.

      After all, you aren't supporting a brain, mobility, or reproductive systems. You're only growing the meat.

      Most of that stuff is just made out of meat, you know... Our brains use a lot of resources, a cow's... not so much.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      They would require far less water and land than raising animals. After all, you aren't supporting a brain, mobility, or reproductive systems. You're only growing the meat.

      Meat that has been finely butchered also has much of the fat already trimmed from it. If the meat that is being produced is already in a trimmed state for best flavor, then there is less food waste. This could include inedible waste, such as bone.

      However, Drinkypoo (as ironic as the name seems to me right now) may be considering the waste produced from the metabolism of the animal cells being cultivated. Invariably, food goes in, shit comes out. How this theoretical waste is processed, recyled or disposed of on an industrial scale is something to consider.

    8. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      You have made it clear you aren't as short on opinion as you are on knowledge.

    9. Re:"clean" is about the self, not the environment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You have made it clear you aren't as short on opinion as you are on knowledge.

      You have made it clear that you're a whiner.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. Like Clean Coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually no, assuming you can better source the raw materials and can operate in closed bioreactors, vat meat would be so-so from a environmental perspective. Slicing off tumor meat tubes is a different kettle of fish though.

  23. Millenials want real food. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Millenials want real food.

    1. Re:Millenials want real food. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millenials want real food.

      Sadly, they can only afford McShit...

  24. Wot? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    No growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, no Listeria, E-Coli, not washed with chlorine?
    Disgusting!

    1. Re:Wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be hardly possible to culture the meat cells and not involve those concerns.

  25. Better to breed an intelligent animal by aberglas · · Score: 1

    That wants to be eaten. Whose instincts have been carefully honed to feel that being eaten and enjoyed is the best thing that could happen to it. And make it articulate enough to express its desires. HHGTTG.

  26. prior art - no patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wants to be eaten. Whose instincts have been carefully honed to feel that being eaten and enjoyed is the best thing that could happen to it. And make it articulate enough to express its desires. HHGTTG.

    That already exists: the American voter

  27. Millennials are such an idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will actually believe they demanded that...You tell anything to Millennials and they will f@cken take it like a CNN news crossbred with gospel bible. Dumbest generation of all. No sense of survival, living in a f@# bubble ... Bread by gov to be YES generation.
    Go outside and slap Millennia in the face. as hard as you can, will he fight back? Fuck no, he will tweet about it and Instagram it, next thing you know there will be 5 other Millennias waiting to be slapped, because selfies with black eye are the "thing"

  28. W & B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he smoked his breakfast.

    1. Re:W & B by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Only if it's grown naturally and without pesticides. Which makes sense, ergot has no chance to grow with modern fungicides...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Bigger Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come none of these rich inventors/businessmen talk about overpopulation? Maybe they do and I missed it.

    Is it not a valid and perhaps interesting to just ask:

    'How many humans are we going to have with us on earth?'
    'Does the earth have a maximum carrying capacity for humans and their internet?'

  30. Cancer tumor for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he is going to grow cancer tumors om industrial scale and sell them as meat. Very nice organic product!

  31. It's called science! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    We KNOW from this thing called SCIENCE that diet impacts the development of humans. In fact we can see that today because we have people and countries in extreme poverty who have crap diets. We know from evolutionary biology that diet has played a role in our evolution, and have plenty of SCIENCE to back the impact.

    I never claimed that this lab meat would cause mysterious illness, you pulled that statement out of your ass because you believe in a religion and rational thought is scary to you.

    I said I would wait for the science to see the impact because we lack any such science at this time. You on the other hand believe your deities and religious leaders. Hence your attempt at insinuating that wanting to see real science on the subject is "pseudoscience". Proving that you know a word, but have no clue what it means.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:It's called science! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      We KNOW from this thing called SCIENCE that diet impacts the development of humans.

      We who delve into science also know that there is a tremendous and pervasive amount of bullshit spread as science. Your silly atgument that this synthetic meat substange is too reisky because it might have a genetic effect on intellignec of progeny is right up theer with the Anti-vaxxers bullshit.

      Enought saying, let's talk the science using the real science, not the 5000 years form now, people's peens might fall off stuff.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:It's called science! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Really there Mister claims to be from science, where are your long term studies of impact from the artificially grown mean? You don't have any, because the "food" has not been around long enough to have any such study! You don't delve into science at all, you practice religion!

      If you really "delved" into science you would know about things like Coca-Cola, cigarettes, butt-loads of food dyes, and other processed foods which underwent massive propaganda campaigns like you are attempting to spread all of which proved to be very harmful to people. You are right that science can be used for good or bad, but your religion does not allow you to question which side you are on. You have no facts. Go on back to your grand wizard Gates and suck them salty balls.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:It's called science! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If you really "delved" into science you would know about things like Coca-Cola, cigarettes, butt-loads of food dyes, and other processed foods which underwent massive propaganda campaigns like you are attempting to spread all of which proved to be very harmful to people.

      Coca Cola - which one are you referring to, the original recipe with cola nuts and various alkaloids from the coca tree leaves? Cigarettes? I have a reference book written in the 1850s that outlines and presents all of the effects of Cigarette smoking, and chewing tobacco as well. They called several forms of the resulting cancers "consumption" as was the fashion at that time. All of those other issues with dyes and such. Scientists are the people who have found out that some of these substances are harmful. Other people stood in their way and opposed them,

      Who you think are scientists are marketers and lawyers. And companies that wold suffer a pecuniary loss if they had to remove a popular product from the marketplace. But when scientists find the problem it magically becomes the scientist's fault.

      Go on back to your grand wizard Gates and suck them salty balls.

      Cute. And there sums up your ability to engage in a cogent and intelligent discussion. You cannot. Sad. Good day sir.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:It's called science! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      In the other part of this thread you said you didn't want debate. Now when someone plays your ad hominem game against you we are supposed to believe you really want a debate? Haha, you are an idiot.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:It's called science! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      In the other part of this thread you said you didn't want debate. Now when someone plays your ad hominem game against you we are supposed to believe you really want a debate? Haha, you are an idiot.

      Um..... where did I say that? I do have a post where I very specifically wrote:

      Enough saying, let's talk the science using the real science, not the 5000 years from now, people's peens might fall off stuff.

      note, a couple spelling errors fixed

      I've asked for discussion, and mostly get called pejoratives.

      And at this point, I am just playing you like a fish on the line for the lulz, although I'm not certain you understand that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  32. Imagining a pit of flesh like substance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagining a pit of flesh like substance screaming "kill meeee"

  33. I am Cannibal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I can finally eat human without society looking down on me?

  34. KFC by ChadSmith4920 · · Score: 1

    So the test tube chicken rumors are true :-/

  35. Hell nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it doesn't involve the killing of an animal then I want no part of it. Animals MUST die so that I may eat half and throw the other half away.

  36. Soylent Green for the vegan crowd by johnstrass1 · · Score: 1

    The most disgusting thing I have eaten recently is the "beyond meaty" burger at our local chain. As gross as eating raw meat and a repulsive as eating something that has been processed and reprocesses. Like eating vegan " pink slime " http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he...

  37. it's more then just tha t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the ecological cost of the meat industry (mostly methane) is just one aspect of why i dont eat meat anymore , few videos of cualty in slaughter house was another ,another one is all the garbage they shoot animals with (my dad was a master butcher , i know a bit on the subject) , all in all i'm not going back to consuming animal proteine exept for cheese and eggs

  38. Demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in Agriculture, the demand for Organic, Free Range, etc is totally overblown. The market demand is not what media makes it sound like. I have a family member who owns an Organic chicken house, their supplier just dropped the organic line for lack of demand. People do not care as much as this article makes it seem.

  39. no nono blue screened meat thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no nono blue screened meat thank you

    and does this meat carry windows 11 in nano bots that report telemetry?

  40. dog is tastey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ask asians

  41. Arthur C. Clarke, "The Food of the Gods" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ARTHUR C. CLARKE Colombo, Ceylon
    February 1971
    >> The food of the Gods
    It's only fair to warn you, Mr. Chairman, that much of my evidence will
    be highly nauseating; it involves aspects of human nature that are very
    seldom discussed in public, and certainly not before a congressional
    committee. But I am afraid that they have to be faced; there are times
    when the veil of hypocrisy has to be ripped away, and this is one of
    them.
    You and I, gentlemen, have descended from a long line of carnivores. I
    see from your expressions that most of you don't recognize the term.
    Well, that's not surprising - it comes from a language that has been
    obsolete for two thousand years. Perhaps I had better avoid euphemisms
    and be brutally frank, even if I have to use words that are never heard
    in polite society. I apologize in advance to anyone I may offend.
    Until a few centuries ago, the favorite food of almost all men was meat -
    the flesh of once living animals. I'm not trying to turn your stomachs;
    this is a simple statement of fact, which you can check in any history
    book....
    Why, certainly, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to wait until Senator
    Irving feels better. We professionals sometimes forget how laymen may
    react to statements like that. At the same time, I must warn the
    committee that there is very much worse to come. If any of you gentlemen
    are at all squeamish, I suggest you follow the Senator before it's too
    late....
    Well, if I may continue. Until modern times, all food fell into two
    categories. Most of it was produced from plants - cereals, fruits,
    plankton, algae, and other forms of vegetation. It's hard for us to
    realize that the vast majority of our ancestors were farmers, winning
    food from land or sea by primitive and often back- breaking techniques;
    but that is the truth.
    The second type of food, if I may return to this unpleasant subject, was
    meat, produced from a relatively small number of animals. You may be
    familiar with some of them - cows, pigs, sheep, whales. Most people -
    1
    am sorry to stress this, but the fact is beyond dispute - preferred meat
    to any other food, though only the wealthiest were able to indulge this
    appetite. To most of mankind, meat was a rare and occasional delicacy in
    a diet that was more than ninety-per-cent vegetable.
    If we look at the matter calmly and dispassionately - as I hope Senator
    Irving is now in a position to do - we can see that meat was bound to be
    rare and expensive, for its production is an extremely inefficient
    process. To make a kilo of meat, the animal concerned had to eat at least
    ten kilos of vegetable food - very often food that could have been
    consumed directly by human beings. Quite apart from any consideration of
    aesthetics, this state of affairs could not be tolerated after the
    population explosion of the twentieth century. Every man who ate meat was
    condemning ten or more of his fellow humans to starvation....
    Luckily for all of us, the biochemists solved the problem; as you may
    know, the answer was one of the countless by-products of space research.
    All food - animal or vegetable - is built up from a very few common
    elements. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, traces of sulphur and
    phosphorus - these half-dozen elements, and a few others, combine in an
    almost infinite variety of ways to make up every food that man has ever
    eaten or ever will eat. Faced with the problem of colonizing the Moon and
    planets, the biochemists of the twenty-first century discovered how to
    synthesize any desired food from the basic raw materials of water, air,
    and rock. It was the greatest, and perhaps the most important,
    achievement in the history of science. But we should not feel too proud
    of it. The vegetable kingdom had beaten us by a billion years.
    The chemists could now synthesize any conceivable food, whether it had a
    counterpart in nature or not. Needless to say, there were mistakes - even
    d

  42. secret ingredient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it' people. Bill Gates and Richard Branson are funding it -- of course it's people.

  43. "Dick" is short for "Richard" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates and Richard Branson invite you to eat their meat!

  44. So many logic fails, so few words. by s.petry · · Score: 1

    False equivalency and appeal to ignorance, followed immediately by another appeal to ignorance. We DO NOT HAVE any long term studies from this artificial meat. The future is definable once we have facts, but you have NONE! There are no long term studies on animals for eating this stuff either. Perhaps you are so stupid you believe that diet has no impact on children, but we have SCIENCE that proves that it does have impact. Here is a very simple product for you to investigate to prove me correct and you an ignorant and inconsiderate prick who is fine with people being harmed by your belief in religion. prenatal vitamins

    You then jump right to a false equivalency, and repeat the same appeal to ignorance that can be proven wrong with SCIENCE. How about comparing this meat to a product like Cigarettes, which were advertised for the better part of a century as beneficial to your health. Do you see how ingesting cigarette smoke, or perhaps red dye #5 might be more similar to eating food grown in a lab? Oh, probably not. Your priest class may burn your eyes out for reading such heathen speak.

    You follow that brilliance up with a flat out lie. I'll bet you start bragging about your 80 IQ to back that crystal ball reading statement up though. Perhaps you read it in one of your religious pamphlets your masters gave you to worship. I'm sure they told you all about their prophesy that naysayer heathens would speak out against your religion.

    You then move to another false claim, and you demonstrate it's falsehood in your second sentence (though you are probably not smart enough to understand that part). Another false claim, and the grand finale is the old appeal to emotion. Your masters surely know what's best for you, no need for self think and all that.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:So many logic fails, so few words. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      False equivalency and appeal to ignorance, followed immediately by another appeal to ignorance. We DO NOT HAVE any long term studies from this artificial meat.

      I see, can you point out where I said that we did have any long term studies? You bandy about debate terms like that means something, but dear sir, This is not some debate, especially when you attempt to make points on made up things.

      The future is definable once we have facts, but you have NONE!

      Am I upsetting you, getting you angry enough to write indecipherable and non parseable comments? One cannot define the future at all, or ever. What a strange statement you make. CAPS are also a great way to make your argument.

      There are no long term studies on animals for eating this stuff either.

      As an early stage concept, there has to be enough of the product to perform tests. Certainly before animal testing, there will be continuing In Vitro testing. At present, they are working on policy issues, http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/742.... Certainly synthetic meat has been eaten, and is chemically lean meat. The results? Apparently the burger one person ate was pretty good, and another tester said in a blind test, she would have called it meat. That's because it is meat. No harm was done to the victims.

      Perhaps you are so stupid you believe that diet has no impact on children, but we have SCIENCE that proves that it does have impact.

      I'm beginning to think that you have arguments with people in your head, and make up things for them to say so you can destroy them with a witty and dashing riposte. It is within the realm of possibility that I am quite stupid, but I am quite concerned about the health of children. Certainly the present state of say, bovine meat leads one to concerns about it's health issues.

      Here is a very simple product for you to investigate to prove me correct and you an ignorant and inconsiderate prick who is fine with people being harmed by your belief in religion. prenatal vitamins

      You then jump right to a false equivalency, and repeat the same appeal to ignorance that can be proven wrong with SCIENCE.

      I have no idea what you are talking about. Where on earth did I ever mention anything about prenatal vitamins? What do prenatal vitamins have to do with artificial meats, or much of anything. Vitamins are a class of nutriments that are needed by the body, but in fact are not needed by most people who eat a balanced diet. Can you have a discussion without trying to switch the subject all of the time? It doesn't lend credence to arguments, and I have to waste time pointing it out.

      How about comparing this meat to a product like Cigarettes, which were advertised for the better part of a century as beneficial to your health.

      You keep bringing up cigarettes as if they were something scientists invented. The health effects of tobacco products were well correlated and exposed as causation even in the mid-late 1850's. But there were groups with a pecuniary interest in growing and selling tobacco products. These advertisements trying to claim that cigarettes were good for you were not put out by scientists, they were put out by tobacco company marketing and ad departments. Here are some for the lulz. I don't see any scientists in that mix, merely a bunch of bullshit. https://www.buzzfeed.com/copyr...

      Do you see how ingesting cigarette smoke, or perhaps red dye #5 might be more similar to eating food grown in a lab?

      A non-sequitur. Tobacco is a natural substance that you can grow in your house. It's also toxic. And scientists have known for a long time that it is a toxic substance. You need to direct your ire towards the tobacco industry and their lawyers, who betwee

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:So many logic fails, so few words. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      It's all about the social control. You don't have any study at all, so have no facts. I'm not upset at all, I'm pointing out key points in caps since its easier than tagging bold. Of course you don't want a debate, you have 0 facts to debate with. You chose a religion, and argue just like every other cult member we have seen.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:So many logic fails, so few words. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's all about the social control. You don't have any study at all, so have no facts. I'm not upset at all, I'm pointing out key points in caps since its easier than tagging bold. Of course you don't want a debate, you have 0 facts to debate with. You chose a religion, and argue just like every other cult member we have seen.

      My goodness, you do tend to repeat yourself. You have backed yourself into a corner. I declined to point it out, but since you are belaboring the obvious and engaging in an abusive fallacy, which I only bring up since you appear to take much stock in those things, here is your problem.

      If I have "0 facts" to deal with, you have "0 facts" to deal with. See where you boxed yourself in?

      But I don't have "0 facts" to deal with. we have the method in which these foods are grown. We know the chemicals used to grow them. Looks like Sodium benzoate is about the most chemicalish chemical in the batch. We know the meat cells are grown on a collagen substrate. All of those things are consumed every day with little problem. We know that synthetic meats have been eaten with no problems, indeed found quite tasty. So far, we've seen no problems, despite your apparent surety that there will be problems such as the intelligence of a turnip being the outcome. One can only assume that since you don't want to be a guinea pig. Rejoice brother - no one is forcing you to eat synthetic meat.

      You might also consider giving up on your "religion" accusations. Because you are the one who seems to believe these meats are going to be bad, yet without any evidence that they are, other than a vague reference to some history books. I think that is what is called projection.

      Sit back, have an adult beverage of your choice, and chillaxe.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  45. I'd like to grow my meat.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..if you know what I mean

  46. constructive Trumpian-era comments by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    dominate the top of slashdot since the elections or at least it looks like that, i almost miss back in the days of soviet slashdot and .firstpost so what do the vegans have to say on this ? i mean ... its GMaterial but its not really "harming" animals ... ??!? is this okay or not ? according to you lot ? but you lot doesn't live here does it ... even the slashdotians from arcturus and beyond seemed to have moved to deeper places ... i cant blame them ... a bit of cock and yo mommas ass is always fun but its been a literal shitstorm of bad genitalia puns or maybe im just reading all the wrong posts ... is this because its one of the last sites where you can use the words without being censored or banned or is it part of the trumpian offense to ban all thought originating in the upper brain ? (you know where the lower brain lies, you mention it about 100 times in the first two posts)

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?