When you can make kobe beef in a petri dish, that is completely indistinguishable from the real thing, then we’ll talk. Even then, that’s still meat. I guess you mean meat that doesn’t require killing animals.
Why kobe? You’re saying that you’ll only eat lab-grown beef if it’s indistinguishable from something so rare that 99% of humans will never taste it? What’s wrong with something as good as American choice?
It’s possible that one lab-grown meat is perfected, they may be able to fine-tune the design to make something better than Kobe beef.
There will always be people turning up their noses and demanding the best. If we’re going to split hairs here, we’ll go with a high grade filet mignon. I’ve had that and you probably have too. The whole edible part of the animal will have to be replicated or there will still be demand for the real thing.
But the silage is from crops that are grown and processed for the purpose of feeding livestock. It’s not some sort of material that would otherwise go to waste. And I’ll bet that only a tiny fraction of livestock is only grazed on land unsuitable for agriculture. But if lab-grown meat and non-meat substitutes replace the vast majority of the factory-farmed livestock, we will be better off.
Yeah, but if the demand goes down to 1% of what it currently is, then that solves many of the problems associated with meat.
Personally, as long as it is more or less similar to ground beef, I’ll go for it. Assuming it is cheaper, of course.
Right now, there are people who are willing to pay dozens of dollars a pound for the highest quality of steak, and I don’t see that changing.
We don’t have to have perfect ribeyes and filets before most people start switching over. I imagine that there will always be a demand for “real” meat, but it will be much smaller, similar to the kind of demand that we currently have for Kobe beef and prime quality steak.
Yeah, as long as we get our electricity from fossil fuels, using such a thing may cause higher carbon emissions.
We also need to get away from using fossil fuels.
Yes, and that will make me very sad. I’m a carnivore and I really like the undiluted flavor of meat. Not “a burger smothered in other crap”.
I do feel ethical qualms about meat eating. I’m currently spending a lot more than what factory-farmed meat costs to buy local pastured meat that makes claims about humane slaughter. And I eat vegetarian suppers a few nights a week. But I really do love the flavor of meat.
Nonsense. Dried beans are under $1 per pound. Canned beans are also cheap, far less than the cost of meat. Nearly any beans&rice or beans&bread or beans&any grain will be much less expensive than meat.
I would rather kill four billion people and steal their resources than to have to eat beans instead of meat.
You don’t like beans? I love eating meat. But I like beans, too.
What kind of vegan food do you eat that doesn’t include beans? That sounds unpleasant, honestly.
Yeah, I was responding to the OP who claimed it was too expensive not to eat meat and who expressed no terrible hatred of beans.
Okay I was trolling. I don’t mind beans per se but I really dislike the idea that the way to manage finite resource and an overlarge population is a reduced quality of life, a global regimen of rationing and austerity. I don’t want to live in a world in which we can’t eat meat because it just has too large a footprint. We should either have a lower population, less impactful technology or better still both.
False dichotomy. I say eat all the meat you want, and kill four billion people.
Depending on how you define a reduced quality of life, we’re already living it. There are food species that are no longer available at all or are scarce so they’re expensive. North Atlantic cod, Chilean sea bass, lobster and oysters all used to be cheap and widely available but aren’t any longer due to overfishing. So these and other things are “rationed” by having a high price placed on them. The same thing may happen with meat, or at least the sort from a dead animal.
I’d go the technology route.
I’m not a big fan of population reduction measures, one of my biggest objections is as to the question of who gets to decide.
You joke about being willing to kill over 1/2 the population in order to keep eating meat, but the problem with your joke is that it wouldn’t be enough. Even just sustaining 3 billion people with our technology at our standard of living is not sustainable.
Our way out of this is technology, and one of those things will be transitioning our food sources to less intensive agricultural practices. One of those changes does need to be in the mass consumption of meat and other animal products.
Well, I probably would too, although my standards are going to be a bit higher than “more or less similar”. I think Impossible is more or less similar, but not enough for me personally. The problem is you can’t selectively separate the ground beef from the better cuts in an animal. As long as the demand for steaks stays the same, at all that ground beef is still going to be there.
North Americans have already (mostly) given up on commercial horse meat and rabbit meat, for instance. How has that impacted nature?
Yes, many food vegetables, the kind you eat, have parts that we dont eat, like radish greens, corn stalks, etc. All edible by animals.
And yes, most meat is grazed.