Lab Grown Meat gets closer to see consumer plates

[Arika]

if it tastes like normal meat, sign me up

[Jito463]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No it doesn't.  Not by a long shot.

Sure.  Whatever.

[MimigaKing]

13 minutes ago, Arika S said:

if it tastes like normal meat, sign me up

agreed. If it takes, looks or feels anywhere close to meat, or even to the A&W Beyond Burger in Canada, Sign me up. 

 

I legit would not have noticed a difference if I hadn't know it wasn't meat when I ate that burger.

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, Muffin_man17 said:

We don't know how safe or beneficial this electricity is for lighting so we'll stick with our whale fat oil instead...

Because thats not a remotely good comparison.

 

Dont you ever see the drug recall class action lawsuit commercials? Yes, this drug is perfectly safe according to the drug company and the FDA. Couple years later its recalled and everyone who took it is suing the company for selling unsafe drugs. 

 

Some useless and incredibly dangerous drugs dont even get recalled and are still prescribed like a bunch of suicide inducing SSRIs. 

 

$ is what matters here. Health and safety come after that.

 

Remember Olestra? It was a perfectly safe fat substitute right? 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra

[Muffin_man17]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Straw. man.  Some assembly required.

Fixed that for you.  I've been around long enough to see claims of this being bad for you, then suddenly it's good for you.  Then that is bad for, and suddenly it's good for you again.  I don't trust any of it and will just eat what I like.

Was trying to simplify what you sound like in most of your posts.

 

I wont actully attempt to argue this case with you since I would have better results talking to the wall. 

[SocomSuade]

Just now, Muffin_man17 said:

Sorry was trying to step it down for you. Wouldn't want to confuse you or better yet wouldn't get a response that would fuel the rage in this thread

 

I'm not going to try to argue with you cause I would have better results talking to the wall next to me. 

 

Have a nice day.

But this was just getting interesting.

 

Meat is murder guise, I don't care if it was made in a lab or not I will protest.

[Muffin_man17]

I'm gonna bring up something that others have not mentioned yet. Such as what (*IF*) this newable food source could be used for outside of Earth. This would be a method of future colonies could use as a food source. 

 

Food for thought.

[mr moose]

I think the scariest thing here is people who confuse marketing and general business practices with science.  The two are not intrinsically linked. Just because big pharma does a few things unethically does not change the value and importance of scientific practices.  

 

I have a challenge for anyone who wishes to argue,  get something proven to be untrue published in the journal Nature and have it remain there and I will listen to your drivel.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Muffin_man17 said:

I'm gonna bring up something that others have not mentioned yet. Such as what (*IF*) this newable food source could be used for outside of Earth. This would be a method of future colonies could use as a food source. 

 

Food for thought.

no one on these forums understands the concept of "IF". 

[mr moose]

58 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Sure.  Whatever.

What are you hoping to achieve by posting that?  It doesn't change how science works and it doesn't invalidate what I said.   Per chance you realise there is a difference between many people agreeing with a person or theory and multiple professionals agreeing upon not only the validity but also what the evidence means?

[MoonSpot]

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

 

 

Once humans stopped eating real meat, we're gonna have cows ending up where they're not suppose to be.
 

 

Cows learned that from other broken farm animals.

Beware, they're practicing while bidding their time for their day of reckoning is upon mankind.

[Andreas Lilja]

How much for a burger?

 

A&W is charging 6.99$ for their vegan burger.. 

[The Benjamins]

52 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

How much for a burger?

 

A&W is charging 6.99$ for their vegan burger.. 

Well they are not released to the public so 50,000 for a prototype

[Jito463]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It still boils down to how many scientists agree with a theory.

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

In it's crudest form it is many professionals agreeing on the evidence.

*sigh*

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

What are you hoping to achieve by posting that?

I would have said that we'll have to agree to disagree, but I figured you'd try to correct me on that, too.

[ARikozuM]

You guys realize that we would still need to give them hundreds of pounds of food to produce less than that amount of meat, right? I’m all for advancing society, but let’s also fight for better livestock conditions/husbandry. Also, fuck Monsanto. 

[IAnthonyFX]

On 11/19/2018 at 9:51 AM, Crunchy Dragon said:

Agreed.

 

Why is this a thing? So people can eat meat without hurting the poor, precious animals?

think about it a bit more. Theoretically if you can put X amount of energy into just making meat tissue you would get better yields with synthetic meat, compared to a cow that also was to breathe. It could get very cheap if economy of scales allow it. 

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

*sigh*

I would have said that we'll have to agree to disagree, but I figured you'd try to correct me on that, too.

 

 

I am sure there are plenty of debates where you hear people misrepresent things that are important to the debate and either just wish they wouldn't or take them to task over it.  This is one of those things for me.   I am not going to sit by and let science be dumbed down to the point people will just believe whatever they want and use this to justify it.

[Amazonsucks]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

*sigh*

I would have said that we'll have to agree to disagree, but I figured you'd try to correct me on that, too.

Except that actual science backs what you said and there is no point agreeing to disagree. People who claim to be scientific often have no clue about real science. Things are either objectively true or they aren't.

 

 

In reality, scientific consensus is just what you said: most of a group agreeing. That group is scientists of all kinds: some competent,some incompetent. Some ethical, some unethical.

 

And the problem with scientific consensus is that its sometimes wrong, and we sometimes find out that the vast majority of what people once thought to be scientific facts about something in our world was actually incorrect because our model or understanding was flawed or incomplete.

 

Thats part of science: constantly evolving knowledge by discovering new things. Sometimes humans discover that they assumed wrong based on their scientific observations.

 

Drugs are constantly being recalled. New scientific research either refines our current understanding or completely disproves it.

 

Then of course there's the fraud aspect. Data dredging, in addition to the replicability crisis being discussed in that Veratasium video, are things that happen because corporate funded science is sometimes about creating a study in a specific way to give you the results you want, not the truth.

 

Remember this guy?

 

 

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, Muffin_man17 said:

Food for thought.

I see what you did there.

 

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

get something proven to be untrue published in the journal Nature and have it remain there and I will listen to your drivel.

Proven before publication or proven after? The first should be impossible.

[DeScruff]

8 hours ago, Muffin_man17 said:

I'm gonna bring up something that others have not mentioned yet. Such as what (*IF*) this newable food source could be used for outside of Earth. This would be a method of future colonies could use as a food source. 

 

Food for thought.

That was my thought as well.
If the technology for replicators never becomes a reality, this is the only viable way for a Starship Enterprise to have meat!
... Unless you put so much preservatives in the meat that your essentially eating formaldehyde.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

Proven before publication or proven after? The first should be impossible.

exactly,  and the sheer scrutiny one gets when trying to publish in nature should mean that anything actually published is by all reasonable expectations honest.

 

<content removed>

Edited November 21, 2018 by SansVarnic
Content Removed

[ARikozuM]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

exactly,  and the sheer scrutiny one gets when trying to publish in nature should mean that anything actually published  Professional googlers stand out a mile though. 

Everyone in the STEM fields has and will be a “professional” Googler.  It’s what you’re required to be able to do. If you need to find an answer or supporting evidence, you go to the library and Google. You don’t just run an experiment for black holes with cheddar cheese and an eraser. You need to get basic background on a subject without complete reliance on yourself.

[Jito463]

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

*sigh*

I would have said that we'll have to agree to disagree, but I figured you'd try to correct me on that, too.

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am sure there are plenty of debates where you hear people misrepresent things that are important to the debate and either just wish they wouldn't or take them to task over it.  This is one of those things for me.   I am not going to sit by and let science be dumbed down to the point people will just believe whatever they want and use this to justify it.

The irony would be funny, if you weren't so oblivious to it.

[Undated]

Ignoring everything else (as in, not saying other arguments are false or true and only focusing on this argument), I don’t get the “natural” argument. What exactly is natural?  When we talk about something being natural should we be talking about all things that have had human influences? Is that banana or corn natural if it has been selectively bred by humans? If humans are natural then wouldn’t everything we do and make be natural? The word natural seems very fluid. If it passes the requirements to be meat then I feel it is meat. It being natural or not should not affect it. It’s like saying if a cell divides outside of its usual environment it should not be considered real. 

 

I’m not in any way saying we shouldn’t be cautious, I’m sure problems will be caused because of lab grown meat, and if you don’t want to eat lab grown meat it’s fine but people seem to be treating this like there is no time to transition from our current ways to the future (apologies if I’m wrong) and not even willing to give it a chance.