We currently have a restaurant here in Tel Aviv (The Chicken, https://thechicken.kitchen/), that acts as the test kitchen for a local startup called SuperMeat. This is definitely something that is happening, and even in the nearish (sub 10 year) term. The dream is that this is always around the corner, however.
I like thinking about space colonization. Whether it be a the first colony on Mars or a robust space station orbiting Jupiter, what do you think their food is like? Do you think they have farms growing cows and pigs and dogs? Or do they have a bioreactor that uses substantially less water and organic inputs to output whatever meat they want without fear of zoonotic diseases and PETA?
I'm willing to bet Star Trek rings true here in that there are no farms on spaceships growing animals, therefore, this is the future we should be working for. Why waste time tearing down the rain forest to make room for cattle and the soybeans the cows will eat when we could instead use our resources to bring about cultivated meat faster? Few people say cultivated meat is impossible. It is only a matter of research which means time and money. But given the benefits, we should be all in on this research.
I'm doubtful of any future space colonization, but given likely resource constraints, any sort of meat would be a serious luxury. As far as I know, plants are far and away the most efficient way we have of converting energy into a format compatible with human metabolism (though now that I type that out, I wonder how plausible creating synthetic carbohydrates from in-situ resources might be).
Cultured foods are a huge opportunity, but meat, at least steaks etc, or even mince, probably need much more work.
In the meantime, oils, juices, dairy, pulps and perhaps flours seem like prime candidates for cultured production, either biologically by fermentation, tissue culture etc, or just direct synthesis (esp. oils, fats).
Talk to anyone who has real experience in biotechnology and mammalian cell culture, and they will point out that this fantasy. The epitome of ZIRP. You should regard any companies in this space with extreme scepticism, and look for signs that they are scams.
Including those that work directly on cultivated meat? There are literally companies out there selling cultivated meat right now. Regressive countries like Italy and conservative states in the US like Florida and Alabama have banned the sell of cultivated meat. Did they buy into the fantasy? Or are they scared cultivated meat will impact traditional animal farming?
All that is required for the skeptics to be right is for the selectively bred cow to be the most efficient bioreactor for beef, wasteful as it is, and I nevertheless consider that to be a very realistic possibility.
If economy of scale is a problem, I look forward to seeing home-tanks that sit on the counter top like slow cookers and produce the meat-alike overnight. Go to the store and buy bags of concentrate just like any other grocery ingredient.
You can make Tempeh at home: the colonisation is ~24/72h. Super nutritious and if well cooked strong umami taste like wild/farm meat, compared to sweetysweet nugget.
I'm not convinced lab grown meat will ever be economical because real meat is subsidized, but not in the way you think (ie government subsidies).
If you think about the Earth, it receives a large amount of solar energy. While it makes the world habitable it does a lot of other things. A big one is that the Earth stores this energy in various ways. Plants are an example of this. Photosynthesizing plants, in particular, convert solar energy into sugars.
Animals come along and eat those plants and convert the plant's stored energy into protein. You can think of the plant and animal kingdom as just a massive funnel that converts solar energy into the smallest organisms that successively collects into the largest animals and plants.
Traditionally, we would eat wild animals that were essentially "free". So if you have to create that much proetein and energy from scratch in a lab, you're suddenly paying for all the steps leading up to that that being a grown animal. Obviously we have farm-raised cows that do require inputs but they're still largely eating grown feed.
It's oddly similar to creating people to work. If you had to pay for and build a person it would be incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Like imagine if Amazon had to "farm" people to work in their warehouses. They'd be spending millions of dollars for one person and it would take 18+ years. It just wouldn't be economical or make any sense.
Butinstead we create new humans all by ourselves, pay for their eduction (either directly or indirectly), pay for their food and shelter and so on. So by the time that person becomes an adult, Amazon can pay them $15/hour to work in their warehouse.
So while we create new humans for reasons of our own, from the perspective of a company who really only views you as a labor unit to create value for them, we're "subsidizing' the creation of those new labor units.
That means it's really difficult for an AI/ML system or a robot to compete with a human because that human is "subsidized". Obviously automation happens but, so far at least, it's only really for the most menial of tasks.
You can buy a calf for like $100-500 IIRC. Put it in on some land with somne grass and fresh water and in a small number of years, it'll be a cow that will produce hundres of pounds of meat. It's taken a lot of energy to get there but most of that energy is free.
Lab-grown meat will have to pay that energy cost. That's why I think it'll have a difficult time competing.
There’s not enough land for cows eating grass to make enough meat to satisfy humanity. Net result you get feedlots where cows consume the majority of the calories in their lifetime from optimized crops. That involves a great deal of labor and 80% of global agricultural land, but results in more meat from the same land.
The ~10 billion people in 2060 who will on average be better off than we are today are going to want a great deal more meat than we can produce using current methods because land is ultimately finite. Lab grown meat is simply the next stage of industrial agriculture where you need less feedstock and thus less land to produce the same amount of meat.
Cost is currently a major issue, but supply and demand means it’s not going to compete with current meat prices but where prices end up when scarcity becomes an issue.
> Put it in on some land with somne grass and fresh water and in a small number of years, it'll be a cow that will produce hundres of pounds of meat. It's taken a lot of energy to get there but most of that energy is free.
The land and water are very much not free, and under serious pressure in lots of parts of the world. The energy cost of lab-grown is real, but if it can be fed by other foodstock waste or some kind of cheap renewable source, it starts to look more competitive.
That's certainly why it used to be important, but it's no indication of future importance.
After all, a similar argument can be made about transitioning from hunting to livestock: we have to take on the responsibility for an extra part of their life cycle, and we do so willingly for the economic benefits.
The idea of cultured meat sounds wonderful. Its real meat, but without the guilt.
But there is the cold reality of enshittification and the numerous sketchy practices of the industrial food industry. So one has to make a choice: the traditional "Iowa" meat industrial complex or the new "valley bro" meat industrial one? For now at least I feel safer with the former.
For the sake of completeness : one also have the choice to not eating meat, with sub choices of various nutriments sources from wholegrain to heavily industrial processed stuff.
THIS. Plus, so far, it's looking like both the dollar cost and total carbon footprint of a pound of cultured beef are far higher than what is easily accomplished with sustainable old-fashioned cattle farming.
And if the real (vs. VC-subsidized-'till-bankrupt) costs of cultured meat stay extremely high - then it's just another ultra-luxury good for the 0.01%. With an added dose of "reassure yourself that the 99% are moral degenerates, who deserve whatever you do to them".
Funny. I share your skepticism somewhat but I was thinking about cultured meat as the solution to those problems. I'd imagine no need for antibiotics. Cynically, they probably would still have to bleach the meat or something. Though the US does that to chicken now.
But when 95% of animal products are factory farmed globally, the processes already take away from the nutrition and heavily harm the environment.
Surely reducing the harm to the environment and animals is worth it...Not to mention the horrible conditions for the people who's job it is to kill animals all day in abattoirs?!
I would be seriously concerned about sanitary situation where they grow meat, what kind of we-discover-in-future-it-increases-cancerXYZ-chance chemicals are used to keep it sterile enough.
I wish for this to be cheap effective replacement just like next Joe, but having former GF microbiologist I know how hard is to keep these things sterile even for few days. If there are nutrients for muscle cells, they are useful also for other microbes/fungus. And you literally need 1 tiny microscopic spore to get in, there is no immune system to weed it out, just chemicals that then permeate everything.
Even if it were true - it isn't, incisors are for cutting grass and fruits too - humans are more than anything, adaptable, and our survival and evolution sits on the top of that adaptability.
We are who we are because, between other things, we eat whatever is available and plenty.
If meat becomes a luxury product, and/or becomes even more dangerous to the environment to the point it's even less sustainable, the proper naturalist argument would be we shall need to adapt and stop eating meat altogether.
Às I said, though, I'm quite fond of my Picanha, and sincerely hope I can get to eat a sustainable version of it at some point in my life so I can do it with a bit less of a guilt.
Cultivated meat IS real meat from meat cells, it is not a meat imitation based on soy, wheat or whatever. Potentially much safer. Think of dead zombie disease or suspected cancer risk of beef.
Cows have incisors, should cows also eat real meat? Incisors are more for cutting than tearing, canines do the tearing but human canines are too short to effectively tear. Cows also have canines.
I would give cultivated meat a try but I don't see it becoming a staple of my diet. A hamburger sounds good about now.
why do you think that cultivated meat would ultimately be different? It will definitely be more customizable - Kobe, Angus, Wagyu - just select the corresponding option in the app.
And i see at some point convergence of technologies - human transplant growing would be pretty much the same tech, just the options in the app would be different, like how much kevlar to add into the heart muscle.
cik|1 year ago
barrenko|1 year ago
valgor|1 year ago
I'm willing to bet Star Trek rings true here in that there are no farms on spaceships growing animals, therefore, this is the future we should be working for. Why waste time tearing down the rain forest to make room for cattle and the soybeans the cows will eat when we could instead use our resources to bring about cultivated meat faster? Few people say cultivated meat is impossible. It is only a matter of research which means time and money. But given the benefits, we should be all in on this research.
silverquiet|1 year ago
jacknews|1 year ago
In the meantime, oils, juices, dairy, pulps and perhaps flours seem like prime candidates for cultured production, either biologically by fermentation, tissue culture etc, or just direct synthesis (esp. oils, fats).
dbcooper|1 year ago
valgor|1 year ago
jhanschoo|1 year ago
oliwarner|1 year ago
Once people consider an engineered meat, they might consider an enhanced mycelium for a tenth the price for their daily protein requirements.
I think all these products will develop over time but engineered meat will always have cost against it. Too many sensitive processes.
FerretFred|1 year ago
aziaziazi|1 year ago
a-french-anon|1 year ago
jmyeet|1 year ago
If you think about the Earth, it receives a large amount of solar energy. While it makes the world habitable it does a lot of other things. A big one is that the Earth stores this energy in various ways. Plants are an example of this. Photosynthesizing plants, in particular, convert solar energy into sugars.
Animals come along and eat those plants and convert the plant's stored energy into protein. You can think of the plant and animal kingdom as just a massive funnel that converts solar energy into the smallest organisms that successively collects into the largest animals and plants.
Traditionally, we would eat wild animals that were essentially "free". So if you have to create that much proetein and energy from scratch in a lab, you're suddenly paying for all the steps leading up to that that being a grown animal. Obviously we have farm-raised cows that do require inputs but they're still largely eating grown feed.
It's oddly similar to creating people to work. If you had to pay for and build a person it would be incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Like imagine if Amazon had to "farm" people to work in their warehouses. They'd be spending millions of dollars for one person and it would take 18+ years. It just wouldn't be economical or make any sense.
Butinstead we create new humans all by ourselves, pay for their eduction (either directly or indirectly), pay for their food and shelter and so on. So by the time that person becomes an adult, Amazon can pay them $15/hour to work in their warehouse.
So while we create new humans for reasons of our own, from the perspective of a company who really only views you as a labor unit to create value for them, we're "subsidizing' the creation of those new labor units.
That means it's really difficult for an AI/ML system or a robot to compete with a human because that human is "subsidized". Obviously automation happens but, so far at least, it's only really for the most menial of tasks.
You can buy a calf for like $100-500 IIRC. Put it in on some land with somne grass and fresh water and in a small number of years, it'll be a cow that will produce hundres of pounds of meat. It's taken a lot of energy to get there but most of that energy is free.
Lab-grown meat will have to pay that energy cost. That's why I think it'll have a difficult time competing.
Retric|1 year ago
The ~10 billion people in 2060 who will on average be better off than we are today are going to want a great deal more meat than we can produce using current methods because land is ultimately finite. Lab grown meat is simply the next stage of industrial agriculture where you need less feedstock and thus less land to produce the same amount of meat.
Cost is currently a major issue, but supply and demand means it’s not going to compete with current meat prices but where prices end up when scarcity becomes an issue.
pjc50|1 year ago
The land and water are very much not free, and under serious pressure in lots of parts of the world. The energy cost of lab-grown is real, but if it can be fed by other foodstock waste or some kind of cheap renewable source, it starts to look more competitive.
ben_w|1 year ago
After all, a similar argument can be made about transitioning from hunting to livestock: we have to take on the responsibility for an extra part of their life cycle, and we do so willingly for the economic benefits.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
kjellsbells|1 year ago
But there is the cold reality of enshittification and the numerous sketchy practices of the industrial food industry. So one has to make a choice: the traditional "Iowa" meat industrial complex or the new "valley bro" meat industrial one? For now at least I feel safer with the former.
aziaziazi|1 year ago
bell-cot|1 year ago
THIS. Plus, so far, it's looking like both the dollar cost and total carbon footprint of a pound of cultured beef are far higher than what is easily accomplished with sustainable old-fashioned cattle farming.
And if the real (vs. VC-subsidized-'till-bankrupt) costs of cultured meat stay extremely high - then it's just another ultra-luxury good for the 0.01%. With an added dose of "reassure yourself that the 99% are moral degenerates, who deserve whatever you do to them".
meowfly|1 year ago
stefantalpalaru|1 year ago
[deleted]
debacle|1 year ago
deepvibrations|1 year ago
Surely reducing the harm to the environment and animals is worth it...Not to mention the horrible conditions for the people who's job it is to kill animals all day in abattoirs?!
jajko|1 year ago
I wish for this to be cheap effective replacement just like next Joe, but having former GF microbiologist I know how hard is to keep these things sterile even for few days. If there are nutrients for muscle cells, they are useful also for other microbes/fungus. And you literally need 1 tiny microscopic spore to get in, there is no immune system to weed it out, just chemicals that then permeate everything.
aziaziazi|1 year ago
A better comparaison IMO would be a seedless/peelless GMO fruit compared to the original stuff that can survive in the wild.
Angostura|1 year ago
reify|1 year ago
I have incisor teeth passed down to me from generation upon generation of my previous kin all the way back to my stoneage ancestors.
Incisors are specifically designed for tearing and ripping meat.
I eat real meat!
guhcampos|1 year ago
Even if it were true - it isn't, incisors are for cutting grass and fruits too - humans are more than anything, adaptable, and our survival and evolution sits on the top of that adaptability.
We are who we are because, between other things, we eat whatever is available and plenty.
If meat becomes a luxury product, and/or becomes even more dangerous to the environment to the point it's even less sustainable, the proper naturalist argument would be we shall need to adapt and stop eating meat altogether.
Às I said, though, I'm quite fond of my Picanha, and sincerely hope I can get to eat a sustainable version of it at some point in my life so I can do it with a bit less of a guilt.
Beijinger|1 year ago
Cultivated meat IS real meat from meat cells, it is not a meat imitation based on soy, wheat or whatever. Potentially much safer. Think of dead zombie disease or suspected cancer risk of beef.
https://www.gesundheitsindustrie-bw.de/en/article/news/new-p...
https://publichealth.gmu.edu/news/2024-03/should-you-be-worr...
Why do animals have to suffer for our meat supply?
“As long as there are slaughter houses there will always be battlefields.” ― Leo Tolstoy
(The quote sounds batter in other languages, since battlefields are "slaughter fields")
Best, Beijinger, not a vegetarian
ofalkaed|1 year ago
I would give cultivated meat a try but I don't see it becoming a staple of my diet. A hamburger sounds good about now.
trhway|1 year ago
And i see at some point convergence of technologies - human transplant growing would be pretty much the same tech, just the options in the app would be different, like how much kevlar to add into the heart muscle.
NoGravitas|1 year ago
ben_w|1 year ago
Kept one and turned it into a necklace.
Galicarnax|1 year ago
Larrikin|1 year ago