Thanks for posting that. I read through it, it seemed like the main arguments against lab grown meat were:
1. It will take a lot of investment, it's unclear if it will produce enough to matter.
2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture
3. Lots of people wouldn't switch even if it tastes like real meat.
This was disappointing because I was expecting an analysis of the greenhouse gas contribution of lab grown meat. I didn't see anything (long article with lots of charts, I could have missed it). This is the key issue to me, will lab grown meat significantly help. I am fine with some meat substitutes, I want healthy and tastes good, lots of veg food is like that without trying to be meat.
> 2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture
That's not in the article, I think.
> This was disappointing because I was expecting an analysis of the greenhouse gas contribution of lab grown meat. I didn't see anything (long article with lots of charts, I could have missed it). This is the key issue to me, will lab grown meat significantly help. I am fine with some meat substitutes, I want healthy and tastes good, lots of veg food is like that without trying to be meat.
I also would love to have this analysis, however, the data simply does not exist yet which adds to the uncertainty. I would also argue that the outlook on the techno-economic aspects is more pessimistic than what you put in 1. To quote the relevant section:
> It doesn’t scale. One of the chief proponents of lab-grown meat, the Good Food Institute (GFI), commissioned a techno-economic analysis (TEA) to project what the production of cell-cultivated meat in 2030 might look like. They imagine a facility that would use huge bioreactors to produce 10,000 metric tons of meat per year at an upfront capital cost of $450 million. 10,000 metric tons might sound like a lot until you learn that it would only amount to 0.002% of meat production in the US. Further, due to the high capital expenditure, investors would have to lock themself into 30-year repayment terms to keep the price per kilogram competitive - this is why supporters of the technology are calling for substantial public investments. So investors are faced with the “choice” of either throwing away absurd amounts of money to maybe make the tiniest dent in our meat production or to make a profit with a niche luxury product.
My only argument then is that this is a bet that we cannot afford to make, especially when reductionism already gets us there. Fully agree on the points about veggies being good on their own.
Non-dairy milk is also more convenient, because it lasts for longer than a week. I'm not vegan, but I buy oat milk because I can leave it in the fridge, opened, for two months and it's still fine.
Which type of oat milk is it? So far all the oat milks I've tried have been unpleasantly oily compared to soy or almond milks. Maybe I need to keep trying...
1. Everything takes investment, that's how capitalism works and if we're in a stage of capitalism where we can no longer invest in the future then the future is doomed.
2. It also might get close, be better, or people won't care.
3. People eat meat slurry chicken nuggets without complaint. If they can price themselves cheaper (which will be hard with all the subsidies the meat industry gets to be fair) and cover it in enough batter and spices, and not draw attention to it being lab made ("Naturally tasting meat!") it will sell. Not everything needs to be a steak and eating a steak is not the most popular form of meat consumption.
4. Any reduction is good. Not everything needs to be or even should be treated like it has to be some magic bullet that completely obliterates the competition. Having options is good.
About investment: It wasn't just that it would take investment, it was that the investment option for making difference in emissions were not feasible. From the article:
> a facility that would use huge bioreactors to produce 10,000 metric tons of meat per year at an upfront capital cost of $450 million. 10,000 metric tons might sound like a lot until you learn that it would only amount to 0.002% of meat production in the US. Further, due to the high capital expenditure, investors would have to lock themself into 30-year repayment terms to keep the price per kilogram competitive
> ...
> So investors are faced with the “choice” of either throwing away absurd amounts of money to maybe make the tiniest dent in our meat production or to make a profit with a niche luxury product
I feel like this is just a statement that the market for meat is supermassive and you can't just overnight have your production capacity at comparable levels to that of the entire country.
This is actually a good point. I think I agree with the author that synthetic meat production as a 1:1 replacement for current meat consumption is not feasible, but that only leads me to question whether we should be eating all that meat in the first place.
I'm not a heavy meat eater myself — about once every 9 days — and I've read that the amount of meat I consume is the norm for human beings for most of our existence, and it's in fact unhealthy to eat much more than that. So maybe the answer isn't synthetic meat, it's just not smashing animals into our faces for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
I think it doesn't matter one iota - because if they won't accept lab grown meat they won't accept any other change such as making their favorite national foods out of chicken.
No, but it is an animal suffering solution, if you count that fact that many if not most people will not reduce their meat consumption, so the way to achieve your goal (if reducing animal suffering is your goal) is not to change people's inherent behavior (significantly), because they will not change, but by offering alternatives that align with both your and their goals.
In other words, meet people where they are, not where you want them to be. There is a reason decades of vegan propaganda (I don't use this word in the negative way but in its original neutral definition) haven't made much of the population vegan but foods like Impossible/Beyond Meat have made significant in-roads to reducing animal suffering.
I predict we will all be vegan in 100 years, not because we decided to stop eating meat, but because we moved to lab-grown meat and other such alternatives.
In ancient Greece they supposedly ate meat only during festivals. That was not only better for people but also allowed animal populations to recover.
I firmly believe that the level of meat consumption today is unnaturally high, simply because people of the old did not have refrigeration, to say nothing of how the animals are raised today. I eat meat here and there, and I enjoy it, but try to limit consumption to a few times per month.
Another point of reference: the Church forbade Crusaders to eat meat from warm-blooded animals more than two times a week. If a warrior under full armor is good with two portions of meat a week, most of us should be too.
I doubt the crusaders were really "good." Most likely nearly all soldiers historically were badly malnourished, but considered expendable and many were going to die no matter what. That isn't to say contemporary humans don't still overeat, probably everything, not just meat. Neither the calorie nor protein requirements of a sedentary office worker are comparable to a medieval soldier.
"Most seem to think they were warrior monks, or high ranking nobles or poor peasants. In some cases that’s correct, but on the whole often not the case.
Most who fought in the holy land and there were other places where they had crusades, were usually lower nobles, knightly class or franklin, usually richer farmers. They weren’t poor peasants, but they were no rich kings either. They were often people who could barely afford to travel accross the land and have some equipment. Not for nothing did the Byzantine empire get pillaged sometimes.
Picture them as mostly young men of upper middle class background, basically comparable to your modern day average college or university brat. They were relatively well off, but not exactly rich upper class either. Basically up and coming social climbers."
> I firmly believe that the level of meat consumption today is unnaturally high, simply because people of the old did not have refrigeration, to say nothing of how the animals are raised today. I eat meat here and there, and I enjoy it, but try to limit consumption to a few times per month.
It depends on how you define "natural." In our hunter-gatherer days, it was very common to eat meat, and lots of it, since we did not have much caloric intake through plants alone. We see this today in certain tribal groups that still have that way of life.
That is to say, appealing to nature is not a good argument and is in fact considered a logical fallacy [0], because not all that is natural is good and not all that is unnatural is bad.
How much -- not whether -- something is natural is determined by the statistical processes that make the thing. "Appeal to nature fallacy" misses that critical point.
When what is essentially an ultra processed high saturated fat vegetable mix is worst tasting and ~50% more expensive than the thing its trying to replace, I dont think the market will respond in the long run. Everyone I know treats these products like a novelty, nothing more.
Beyond meat and impossible burgers taste just as good if not better than ground beef burgers. Further, taste and preferences change given enough exposure.
You can call it ultra processed but so is livestock production.
There is a difference between steak and ground meat. Also: not sure what burgers you're eating but apart from the novelty factor it's not even close in favor of real meat
> Also: not sure what burgers you're eating but apart from the novelty factor it's not even close in favor of real meat
My point is that some people actually prefer veggie or “fake” burgers and if tomorrow beef didn’t exist people would be more than happy with what currently exists today. It’s not like there is a huge gap there. Most people like the burger for the additions anyway.
Sure that's true livestock are processed as well, but one of the benefits of going vegan is healthier eating. You can't even call impossible burgers healthier.
As far as taste, I'll admit that meat burgers are much more variable whereas impossible's are just one product. So it's more consistent compared to all the bad options you have for meat burgers.
But compared to a fresh unfrozen well-grilled burger there's absolutely no comparison. You are simply not making a serious argument to say impossible's taste better than that, to the point that I think you could be trolling.
At best you can say they aren't terrible, but again they're more expensive.
As far as beyond's go, they're even worse than the worst frozen burgers I can find.
> but one of the benefits of going vegan is healthier eating
Veganism is about not using animal products. It says nothing about the health of the diet. That some people incidentally eat healthier through becoming vegan says nothing about veganism as a whole.
> But compared to a fresh unfrozen well-grilled burger there's absolutely no comparison. You are simply not making a serious argument to say impossible's taste better than that, to the point that I think you could be trolling.
I agree, which is why I mention that lab grown meat (that tastes identical to naturally raised meat because, well, it's all the same cells in the end) is the answer over trying to get everyone to change their behavior.
> In other words, you're arguing a strawman, because, again, I never said health wasn't a reason
Your own words
> "Veganism is... nothing about the health of the diet (sic)"
Ignoring your grammar mistake, every single result I posted says otherwise including the link you just quoted. This is seriously sad at this point, I'm out.
Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars on HN. It's against the site guidelines and makes for tedious reading. If someone else is stubbornly wrong, usually the best thing to do is just move on to something more interesting. Trying to win an argument or have the last word is not a curiosity-driven activity and the latter is what we want here.
Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars on HN. It's against the site guidelines and makes for tedious reading. If someone else is stubbornly wrong, usually the best thing to do is just move on to something more interesting. Trying to win an argument or have the last word is not a curiosity-driven activity and the latter is what we want here.
What about human suffering? I get your argument for reducing animal suffering, but is this even viable considering the degree of development around the world and the reliance on protein from animal sources?
We won't lab-grown-meat our way out of this. We won't electric-cars our way out of this. We won't nuclear-power our way out of this. And the overall tone is that any shift in a positive direction is still driving the getaway car, even if you aren't the one to actually pull the trigger for the crime.
If you want progress in anything, you have to give people a way to atone for their sins, even if the atonement doesn't undo all of the damage already done. Without that, the vast majority are going to ignore you, because the shock to the system is too high to do what needs to be done. People do not willingly start to play games they are nearly certain they will lose, they only continue those games once they are already playing them.
What are you suggesting as the solution to getting "our way out of this," then? I'm not exactly sure by what you mean in your second paragraph regarding this.
It does no good to shoot down every change as "not good enough." I think the people who do this, almost as a knee jerk response, either do not actually believe that global climate change is something to be concerned over, or else instead achieve their self-esteem through tearing others down.
The environmentalists eat their own so often and so badly that they can't be taken seriously. You need to give people something to latch on to that appeals to them, to start something. Scolding them for believing something is a true solution when it is about a 1% solution is helping nobody.
1000 people each doing a different 1% solution is better than 10 people each doing a theoretical 100% solution. Over time, the former will run in to some good practices. The latter are just turn-offs.
- on the long run being able to produce food regardless of exterior climate condition witch might be need both to ensure having food in a changed climate and geopolitical conditions and also for space exploration and to have room for more humans on Earth;
- in the medium run being able to cut out ANY small/medium food production making such productions an industrial-only game for big & powerful, a good move for them to ensure anyone dependent on them, since we can't live without food;
- in the short term a way to make money selling smoke.
While I'm VERY interesting in the idea of being able to produce food in an artificial environment both for living on Earth and space exploration I'm far LESS interesting in being TOTALLY dependent on large industrial power for food. I know we can't live in the modern word like in the past, and I do not want to live in middle-age like condition, but being able to source SOME food in nature and from small productions meaning still have a small freedom, something VERY valuable. And well, I'm definitively not in food startup business so not interested to see public money handed over private hand selling smoke for roast.
The latest IPCC report estimates that to limit warming to 2C (67% likelihood), we have a remaining carbon budget of 1150 GtCO2. Very roughly [1], that is about 142 tCO2 per person. Say you have 40 years of your life left. That is 3.55 tCO2 per year.
How do you divvy it up? Eating a kg of beef [2] per week means you emit 3.12 tCO2/year. Add whatever else food you consume, and that is your entire budget.
[1] ignoring people's ages and as yet unborn people. I use 1150 GtCO2/8.1 billion current people alive.
My takeaway as always is that clearly the single most impactful thing most people can do is not have children, or have fewer children. Unless you're a billionaire, nothing in your life with have close to the same impact as not reproducing.
I would however also point out that simply divided total emissions reductions needed vs all humans is misleading. The average Nigerian emits FAR less CO2 than the average Indian. The average Indian emits less than the average Chinese person, who emits less than the average American.
If we look at per country per capita emissions [1], we can see that Africa, South America and Asia (excluding China and India) have current emissions below the 2C warming. So yes, they don't need to reduce anything at the country level - simply not increase.
Can someone explain to me how beef actually contributes to climate change more than any other food activity?
If you have a big open plain full of grass, does it change how much carbon is emitted if a cow eats it versus being left alone, dying, and rotting?
You have farm machinary involved I guess, but I would think actually more of it for plants than for beef especially when you consider fertiliser.
I understand that it’s possible to do worse than this though using feed lots because then you are effectively having to grow more crops (using more farm machinary and fertiliser) which basically increases the amount of carbon use versus just plants.
But then rather than saying “no meat” shouldn’t we just be saying “no feed lots”?
Shouldn’t there just be a push towards grass fed beef?
If we actually just ate free-ranging, naturally occurring herds, then it wouldn't contribute to climate change. What contributes is clearing 70% of Brazil to raise imported cattle at a population density hundreds to thousands of times what they would ever achieve without feedlots.
A push toward grass-fed beef is fine, but you can't feed the world by eating grass-fed, local food only, nor organic, nor non-GMO, nor even sustainably raised. There isn't enough of it.
Please see the data [1]. Out of the 99 kgCO2eq emitted per kg of beef, about 56 are due to methane emissions by cows and other emissions on the farm, and 23 kg are because of land use change (clearing forests)
> So we could agree that the methane is irrelevant because it would be emitted anyway by the rotting grass.
Natural forests and grasslands don't decay in a manner that emit a lot of methane. Cows on the other hand emit a lot of methane, due to how they digest their food.
> And we could also agree that clearing forests is a different thing than farming meat, which we could separately campaign against and prevent.
The data is about where current emissions come from. It is not directly suggesting any policy prescriptions, or directly stating what emissions will be under alternate food choices.
Yes, clearing forests is different from farming meat. But the best place to plant new trees in sustainable manner, in order to capture some of excess CO2 human activity causes, is where forests grew a few decades or centuries ago. Many of these places are currently occupied by cattle ranches or farms that grow food for cattle. One reasonable policy prescription would be to reduce beef demand/supply, and then incentivize tree plantation in those areas.
Many times in the past volcanic activity has caused dark winters that have lasted several years. Not much meat is available during these times, but lab grown meat could change that.
Maybe, metaphorically. I’ve always found The Matrix’s take on this pretty compelling:
“I’d like to share a revelation that I´ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you’re not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instictively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.”
(I’m sure the idea didn’t originate in The Matrix, but that’s where my 11 year old brain got exposed to it.)
This is, of course, total baloney. Drop some rabbits on an island without foxes, they will multiply until they eat all the grass, and then mass famine.
1. It will take a lot of investment, it's unclear if it will produce enough to matter.
2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture
3. Lots of people wouldn't switch even if it tastes like real meat.
This was disappointing because I was expecting an analysis of the greenhouse gas contribution of lab grown meat. I didn't see anything (long article with lots of charts, I could have missed it). This is the key issue to me, will lab grown meat significantly help. I am fine with some meat substitutes, I want healthy and tastes good, lots of veg food is like that without trying to be meat.