The milk most people drink is proceeded in facilities that look much the same, because whole batches of it are ruined by a single germ, since it has no immune system either.
We also have to pasteurize it. Or we don't, and germs from cows are hundreds of times more likely to make us sick, despite generations of selective breeding.
> The milk most people drink is proceeded in facilities that look much the same, because whole batches of it are ruined by a single germ, since it has no immune system either.
But you're not growing milk in those facilities, only storing and processing it. That's an important distinction, because it means with milk it's totally fine to deal with those "single germs" with long-understood sterilization techniques.
If you try to sterilize your "lab grown meat" cultures to deal with the germs, you're going to destroy your "meat" too.
Well, sterilizing the meat is the same as cooking it. The problem is keeping it sterile while it's growing/brewing. It can be done, as has been with breweries, but it is os not an easy task.
To make this analogy complete you’d have to compare current milk production to some fictional milk that would require far less human processing and facility investment.
I understand you’re saying the challenges lab grown meat faces arent insurmountable, but short of some outside influence (statutory interference?) I don’t see how it can compete with traditional cattle on the cost perspective
Cattle production, especially large scale for more efficient meat production (ie. chickens and pigs in very small spaces) is already somewhat outlawed.
Yeah, me too. It wouldn't help much, of course, but it's a popular way to do something.
At 380 ppm anything that doesn't either directly alter reflectivity of the atmosphere or drastically lower CO2 in the atmosphere is just not going to work.
We also have to pasteurize it. Or we don't, and germs from cows are hundreds of times more likely to make us sick, despite generations of selective breeding.