If artificial meat contains the same molecules as animal meat, i.e. vitamins, fats, and amino acids,
That's a big if, because a lot of those things aren't made in the actual cells that we eat. They could be made by other organs in the animal's body, the animal's gut bacteria, or the animal's food sources.
It's very useful to keep water underground, and pump up a little bit every day to use. It wouldn't be very convenient to dump the entire aquifer on your crops at once, and let it run off to the ocean, and/or evaporate.
The EPA graph also includes the other greenhouse gases, so there's not more to that story. Total methane only accounts for 4-9% of the total greenhouse effect, and according to your quote, livestock only produces 37% of that.
Problem is that the cloning process involves feeding the growing cells, which gets you back to the first problem of producing all the nutrients you need.
...based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies...
epidemiological studies are pretty much worthless because of the many confounders. And by picking which confounders to remove, and which to keep, you can get any result you want.
Taste isn't all there is to meat. Meat also contains many different nutrients, which could be easily lacking from artificial products. Vitamin B12 is a prime example, but meat has many different nutrients, some of which we may not even have identified as such.
Read the article... 30-50% of the warming is due to natural, not man made, effects.
Not warming, but Arctic ice loss. Local climates, such as the Arctic, are sensitive to existing heat moving around the Earth in a different pattern, but global warming is much less affected by that. Global warming is 110% man made, and -10% natural.
If so we should see the melt rate slow over the next few decades.
Not necessarily. The Arctic area is subject to numerous feedback mechanisms, including albedo changes (dark water absorb more energy than white ice), increasing currents (feeding in warm waters), change in moisture contents (moving energy due to phase changes), change in winds (exporting ice to warmer water), salinity changes (salt water freezes slower), weather pattern changes due to different temperature gradients, algae growth on ice (increasing albedo), and plenty more...
It's quite possible that we can reach a tipping point where the feedback overwhelms natural variation. It's also possible that these natural looking variations are actually influenced by the changes in the Arctic.
Slashdot Mirror
If artificial meat contains the same molecules as animal meat, i.e. vitamins, fats, and amino acids,
That's a big if, because a lot of those things aren't made in the actual cells that we eat. They could be made by other organs in the animal's body, the animal's gut bacteria, or the animal's food sources.
Water under ground is just not useful..
It's very useful to keep water underground, and pump up a little bit every day to use. It wouldn't be very convenient to dump the entire aquifer on your crops at once, and let it run off to the ocean, and/or evaporate.
Assuming they figure out how to perfect the foam in zero gravity environment, how is this going to help them here on Earth, I wonder.
assuming it's roughly on par with real meat in terms of cost and quality.
That's a big assumption, given that most stuff from the food industry isn't very high in quality.
a unit of water in the Sahara is more useful than a unit of water in Canada.
And how many gallons of water does it take to grow one pound of human flesh? Maybe people in the Sahara should consider that.
The EPA graph also includes the other greenhouse gases, so there's not more to that story. Total methane only accounts for 4-9% of the total greenhouse effect, and according to your quote, livestock only produces 37% of that.
Farming chickens also uses economies of scale, you know.
one of the greatest contributors to Climate Change
According to this pie chart, agriculture (which includes meat, but also rice production) is only responsible for 9% of the greenhouse gases.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
if it tastes the same, has the same texture, and can be cooked the same way, then so what?
As long as it also has the same nutrients.
Problem is that the cloning process involves feeding the growing cells, which gets you back to the first problem of producing all the nutrients you need.
...based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies...
epidemiological studies are pretty much worthless because of the many confounders. And by picking which confounders to remove, and which to keep, you can get any result you want.
A blob of meat grown in a vat has no intrinsic need for tendons, bones, silverskin and big chunks of fat
Which could be a problem, because those parts of the animal have specific nutritional benefits, such as high glycine content.
Taste isn't all there is to meat. Meat also contains many different nutrients, which could be easily lacking from artificial products. Vitamin B12 is a prime example, but meat has many different nutrients, some of which we may not even have identified as such.
Or you can eat meat from animals that didn't suffer.
Read the article... 30-50% of the warming is due to natural, not man made, effects.
Not warming, but Arctic ice loss. Local climates, such as the Arctic, are sensitive to existing heat moving around the Earth in a different pattern, but global warming is much less affected by that. Global warming is 110% man made, and -10% natural.
If so we should see the melt rate slow over the next few decades.
Not necessarily. The Arctic area is subject to numerous feedback mechanisms, including albedo changes (dark water absorb more energy than white ice), increasing currents (feeding in warm waters), change in moisture contents (moving energy due to phase changes), change in winds (exporting ice to warmer water), salinity changes (salt water freezes slower), weather pattern changes due to different temperature gradients, algae growth on ice (increasing albedo), and plenty more...
It's quite possible that we can reach a tipping point where the feedback overwhelms natural variation. It's also possible that these natural looking variations are actually influenced by the changes in the Arctic.
How about the same solution we'll use when fossil fuels run out, but we'll just get a head start ?
Why has natural variation in temperatures ceased just because we are on the scene?
You are quite correct, it hasn't. Natural variation accounts for -10%, and human contribution is actually 110%.
Because it is rather difficult to completly crash a whole plane in a single moment
You mean to say that sometimes the front half of the plane crashes, but the rear section continues to fly and land safely at the destination ?
Well, how long does it take to pump out half of the water ?
In space the pressure is an outward force, in atmosphere it's an inward force.
For steel, the compressive and tensile strengths are similar, so it doesn't really matter.
But they have looked closely at the issues, and have come to a different conclusion, so your statement is false.
No, the point is that airplane accidents involve forces that normally preclude survival. JUst like with a hyperloop track.
Exactly my point, yes. And despite the grim outlook, millions of planes fly every year with very few deadly accidents.
You have more light for evening activities
It's still too cold right now for evening activities, and if I just wait another month, sunset will be an hour later anyway.
That was the point, yes.