© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/meat-o-matic/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
A few years ago, researchers at NASA fried up several chunks of vat-grown fish meat in a little olive oil, garlic, lemon and pepper, and remarked on it’s striking to similarity to real fish (without going so far as tasting it). These scientists had successfully coaxed a few small chunks of fish muscle to grow inside a vat of nutrient-rich liquid, marking a scientific first.
Their aim was to develop a means for astronauts to produce edible meat for use on long voyages, such as a trip to Mars. Vat-grown meat offers a good source of protein, and would be a welcome change from the usual freeze-dried fare. But it isn’t very appetizing, particularly considering that meat developed in this way is essentially a cultured muscle tumor.
More recent efforts at the University of Maryland have led to some new methods which may prove useful on the road to Meatville, with the intent to bring “in vitro” meat to the masses. And they think they may be able to improve on nature’s recipe while they’re at it.
From the UniverseToday article:
“There would be a lot of benefits from cultured meat,” says Matheny, who studies agricultural economics and public health. “For one thing, you could control the nutrients. For example, most meats are high in the fatty acid Omega 6, which can cause high cholesterol and other health problems. With in vitro meat, you could replace that with Omega 3, which is a healthy fat.”Cultured meat could also reduce the pollution that results from raising livestock, and you wouldn’t need the drugs that are used on animals raised for meat.”
Jason Matheny and his team suggest two viable approaches for the meat-o-matic of the future: It could be grown on thin, flat membranes and then stacked to achieve thickness; or it could be cultured on tiny beads, then harvested and made into processed meats like chicken nuggets or ground beef. Either way, to get the taste and texture right, the meat will need to be stretched and exercised as it goes, just like a real animal muscle would be.
This technology could spell the end of moral vegetarianism, since animals would no longer be part of the meat-producing process. But it raises some interesting questions… For instance, would it be acceptable to use one of these machines to produce meat based on human muscle tissue? Practically speaking, human meat is extremely nutritious to humans, and such vat-grown man-burgers would not have originated from a human. There would also be no risk of cannibalism-related diseases. But on the other hand…there’s even more meat.
Because the idea of vat meat isn’t particularly appetizing, one has to wonder whether these meat machines will become the source of cheap meat for the massive underclass of the future. The rich will dine on corn-fed Iowa beef while the poor masses slave away in the underground factories, lunching on cultured meat tumor-chow laced with obedience-enhancing drugs. It seems almost inevitable.
If the world embraces the technology, all of this might one day be accomplished by an appliance churning away on your kitchen counter… producing whatever meat you desire from a small packet of “seed” cells. Gone would be the concerns of animal welfare, slaughterhouse cleanliness, and livestock-related environmental impact. In theory, one cell of meat could be cultured enough to provide for the meat demands of the entire world.
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/meat-o-matic/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
As long as my meat is not green. :-)
“It’s people. … You’ve gotta tell them! Soylent Green is people!”
The whole world would be a lot better off if someone would come up for a good recipe for sterilized, baked, minced cockroaches, and give it a nice, euphemistic name like “whitefish” — but French, so maybe we’d learn to get over our foolish dietic bigotry and embrace “pâte des cancrelats”.
I like my meat grown the natural way. No cultured meat for me thanks! I mean seriously… cattle and chickens are raised for the sole purpose of being slaughtered. If we were killing wild cows and chickens, I’d complain, but we’re not. So I shall eat them and love every second.
Cultured meat probably won’t taste the same as normal meat. In any case, the technology for growing large batches of meat at an acceptable rate is still a long, long, long way away. It won’t be very appetizing, but that will change when the technology improves.
I can’t imagine it being used in space missions any time soon. It would take up a lot of power, need to be constantly monitored, adjusted and it would take up a lot of space and you would have to use nutrients just to grow it. It makes no sense to grow meat aboard the station, except maybe as a novelty or a treat for the crew.
But I’m sure that one day, we’ll all be eating it. People said we’d never eat GM, and yet millions of tonnes of the stuff is being eaten everyday. Same with cultured meat.
I smell a stinking Tleilaxu!
This method of food supply is the future solution for the world whether you like it or not, The world is starving itself despite increased food production, we just cannot seem feed everyone. Raising animals carries allot of troubles with the risk of decease and other nasty mis-fortunes (mad cow/bird flu/genetic mutation/contamination).
Cultured meat can be made in a controlled environment with little risk to consumers. Once mastered it can be grown allot faster then animal meat can. All thats needed is the food for such growth since as said it can taste crap if not grown correctly with the right ingredients.
Mark my words tho, Its only a matter of time and if you THINK ABOUT IT, its more humane and respectful to life. Something that is EXTREMELY lacking these days in human beens.
PS. Yeah does mean allot of farm animals and a large number of pets will need to be shot in the head to rid us of the overpopulated PET/FARM animal population but heh, whatever. :)
Yummy Yummy, Green, Red, Pink or Purple…
When I’m on my way to that Planet around the nearest Star that will be the next Planet Earth, I’m a gonna eat what they left for me 100 years ago…
… Gee I hope they included some Pepto-Bismol…
“l…And they think they may be able to improve on nature’s recipe while they’re at it.”
As creative as most scientists seem to be, this makes them sound amazingly stupid. Consider all the major breakthroughs in dietary adjustments that are meant to improve our lives, but turn out to be total garbage. Weight loss pill, butter vs. margerine, fat vs. carbs, etc.
Organic and natural foods are the way to go, but they require a small amount of thought and time so the public won’t accept it as a whole. Besides, even if this technology were perfected tomorrow, political and religious groups would resist it, there would be endless bickering, and nothing would change anyway.
“Mark my words tho, Its only a matter of time and if you THINK ABOUT IT, its more humane and respectful to life. Something that is EXTREMELY lacking these days in human beens. “
Humanity and respect to life has always been lacking in human beings, in any beings in fact. If we’d all be humane, we’d all be dead by now, ever heard of survival of the fittest?
Anyways, you’ll probably get loads of quarrelling with deluded idiots promoting standpoints like “We shouldn’t play god!”, but I don’t really think this will stop it. like 95% of all American housewives (which is quite the annoying group, mind you) is against pornography, yet the US has a 10 billion dollar a year pornography industry. I don’t think there’s a lot they can do against this one.
And about the meat, there’s the difference between ‘naturally’ achieved taste and quality, and stuff that gets added later on. If we go mess about with it a bit after we grew it, we can make it look, feel and taste quite a lot like real meat, I’m guessing. ‘Naturally’ achieved taste and quality would be a lot harder.
Does this mean I would have to give up my membership in PETA?
People Eating Tasty Animals
…why can’t the astronauts just pull up alongside the nearest Astroburger joint on the way to Mars? Don’t have to worry about cultured meat or lack of culture…
Feed the world? Noble thought. Sam Kinison said it best when he noted that the problem of taking care of the worlds food problem was NOT getting the food to where it’s needed…rather…getting the people to where the food is produced! As such, he promoted sending the starving individuals of the world U-Haul trailers so they could relocate. Next problem…
“… like 95% of all American housewives…is against pornography, yet the US has a 10 billion dollar a year pornography industry. I don’t think there’s a lot they can do against this one.” Sure something can be done about this…5% of housewives aren’t trying hard enough to convert the other 95%…and do you think pornography is ever going to be eradicated? …like aids? …like drugs? …like other public nuisances? Let’s all do the world a favor…eat a beaver, save a tree!
to all of you who say: ew!!!
think of the crap we all today:
twinkies and the like (not a single natural ingrediemt)
mcdonalds: nuff said.
soda: not a whole lotta nature in there either.
this is just the next step.
taste is a culture thing… when most food is cultured, then it will be the way. Most peops of a few decades back would hate current fast food… so…. say what you will…. sipping fish is in our future
Sounds like a good idea . . . until you called it a “tumor.”
Pretty amazing, actually. I was always fascinated as a kid watching Star Trek where they had this very same debate! Those blue, red and yellow cubes would come out and Scottie would object to how much they DIDN’T taste like real meat. We’re not far from that now, huh?
Personally, I am a taste fanatic. But if it came down to living or dying…I’d say pass the cubes please, now where’s the salt?
Put SPAM in charge of production, I am pretty sure they are already half way there.
Brahmb: Scotty said they “didna” taste like real meat.
…well, in all due fairness, if you’re going to discuss “cultured foods”, then the least you can do is mention such things as: cottage cheese, sour cream and yogurt.
Your body is nothing less than one, large, convoluted, toroid. What goes in one end, comes out another. Albeit after nutrients and other matter have been scavenged and the waste discarded.
Then again…do you live to eat OR do you eat to live? THAT is the question.
Bumper sticker: “If God didn’t want us to eat animals, why are they made of meat?”
Needn’t worry about this mystery meat. High school cafeterias perfected it years ago. It’s probably only now coming to light where high school cafe mystery meat really comes from!
This technology could spell the end of moral vegetarianism, since animals would no longer be part of the meat-producing process.
Are you sure those people can complain/protest about anything
Xiphos said: “Sounds like a good idea . . . until you called it a “tumor.””
Yeah……that’s what I thought, too. Maybe it’s closer to those who enjoy reminding us that lobsters are very close to cockroaches……
Anyway, sounds like a new meat substitute. Maybe we can call it FauxSpamO…….
This reminds me of the Isaac Asimov story, “Good Taste.”
I can just see the attention seekers of the future at the dinner table who have cultured their own cells for meat…”Steak? No thanks, I only eat ME!”
The idea of having to exercise these cultures seems bizarre to me… “I can’t watch that movie tonight, I have to take tomorrow’s dinner for a walk.” I picture a petrie dish on the end of a leash.
For me, there is a sacred element to preparing and eating meat. While this vat grown meat would come to us without killing, it would also be lacking life-force. The article mentions improving the nutrient content… so instead of sitting down to a grass fed steak that has a good omega-3 to 6 ratio and is rich in CLA, iron, vitamin E and A, we’ll get a tumor that has been fortified with synthetic, isolated nutrients? Yuck! There is no way that the lab can improve on the wisdom and complexity of nature!
Damn Interesting! This one really makes ya think.
Dustin Barbour said: “… I mean seriously… cattle and chickens are raised for the sole purpose of being slaughtered. If we were killing wild cows and chickens, I’d complain, but we’re not. So I shall eat them and love every second.”
by that logic, we should breed humans in captivity to serve as soldiers in war, to perform fatally-dangerous work, and to be subjects for medical experiments culminating in dissection. after all, since they were born for the sole purpose of being killed for our benefit, it’s not wrong.
also by that logic, absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario.
i think you need to come up with a new rationalization for eating meat and loving every second.
“by that logic, we should breed humans in captivity to serve as soldiers in war, to perform fatally-dangerous work, and to be subjects for medical experiments culminating in dissection. after all, since they were born for the sole purpose of being killed for our benefit, it’s not wrong.”
Thankfully no, human beings are born without purpose and you can not assign purpose to them, such an act constitutes slavery and it has been decided a good while ago that such an act is wrong. The reason we do not extend such measure of ethics towards animals is because they lack sapience (to be wise), thus they cannot come to the realisation that they are abused and as such suffer not from their existence (this is the same argument that was raised against blacks back in the days).
I see nothing wrong with not eating meat, I myself not eat hundreds of delicious foods and suffer no ill for it, but if you seek to force people to act in a certain way without a clear societal need then you are assigning them a purpose wich they do not wish and are in your own tiny way causing an insignificant form of slavery (and thus causing us the very ill you were warning us against).
PRiME said: “This method of food supply is the future solution for the world whether you like it or not, The world is starving itself despite increased food production, we just cannot seem feed everyone. Raising animals carries allot of troubles with the risk of decease and other nasty mis-fortunes (mad cow/bird flu/genetic mutation/contamination).”
The world is not starving. Some people in select areas of the world are starving, but not for the inability to grow enough food. Any time you’ve got starvation you almost always have some two-bit dictator in charge — Kim Jong Il comes to mind — doing everything he can to keep people down and keep himself in power. That includes diverting food from the people, allowing them to starve, and giving it to his military machine.
just_dave said: “The world is not starving. Some people in select areas of the world are starving, but not for the inability to grow enough food. Any time you’ve got starvation you almost always have some two-bit dictator in charge — Kim Jong Il comes to mind — doing everything he can to keep people down and keep himself in power. That includes diverting food from the people, allowing them to starve, and giving it to his military machine.”
“some” people in select areas of the world?…..
“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, more than 25,000 people die of starvation every day, more than 800 million people are chronically undernourished. On average, every five seconds a child dies from starvation.”
Not everyone can live like the average american. The way we run things now the earth probably wouldnt be able to support it.
Growing grains to then feed to cattle is very innefficient. It also produces large amounts of waste. This is the future.
Pascal Leduc said: “The reason we do not extend such measure of ethics towards animals is because they lack sapience (to be wise), thus they cannot come to the realisation that they are abused and as such suffer not from their existence.
you could probably change humans genetically to decrease their intelligence to the level of animals, make em stupid and unable to realize they’re being mistreated… then what?
I eat meat, but I try not to think about the animals. I’ve seen poultry and cattle farms firsthand, and it’s not pretty. But then again, we’re at the top of the food chain, we’ll eat whatever the hell we want.
What I meant was that as the dominant species on the planet, we have a responsibility to our environment. Mistreating animals simply because they’re unable to realize that doesn’t reflect well on our society.
Xiphos said: “Sounds like a good idea . . . until you called it a “tumor.””
Recently there was debate as to make required ingredient listings on food be 100% accurate or whether or not they can continue to use their “beautified” forms. Like Chochineal. Chochineal. Doesn’t sound that bad. How about “crushed up bug shell” instead? Anything you eat/wear that has the natural color additive Chochineal is essentially infused with dead bug shell (unlike Chochinool, which is made with LIVE BUG SHELL!!1!1one!!eleven!!1!!), finely smashed into millions of itty bitty pieces.
I doubt half of us would eat food we are eating if we knew what it actually was, nevermind the fact that we’d already been eating it for years.
And I bet you that most people wouldn’t be able to tell which meat was vat-grown or farm grown, because most people are dumb fat bastards who eat anything in front of them. And seeing as how we’re talking in hypotheticals not yet being able to be realized, we have no idea what the final meat product will taste like. If the meat tastes halfway decent, I bet more people would buy it for cost reasons.
As for me, I always try to buy ground beef with a high fat content, because it tastes good. Yeah, Omega-6 may be unhealthy, but you create a meat without it and it ain’t gonna be tasty. The thing is not to make a nutritive food that is cheap that people can eat…we have that already in MREs and CalorieMates, the thing is to make semi-nutrive food cheaply that people want to eat.
Oh, I know some of you will start looking for Chochineal in stuff you buy now to see if I’m right, but usually in food it is referred to as Carmine. You’ll find more things with Carmine in them than Chochineal.
“Manburger?” Ew, pass the Soylent Green. Reminds me of the part in Pohl and Kornbluth’s THE SPACE MERCHANTS where a giant blob of turkey is grown in a lab, and edible chunks are just sliced right off. This classic novel is looking more prescient with each passing year. Like Furnace, I think there will be some unexpected dietary downsides . . .
A second look at the title reminded me of the old Bass-O-Matic sketch from Saturday Night Live. “Mmmmmm, that’s good bass!”
While I lived in England, an Indian lady offered me some candy from her country. She said her husband loved the stuff, but she thought it was too sweet. It was some of the nastiest stuff I’ve ever tasted (though I didn’t say so, of course). My point – your taste develops relative to what you’ve eaten during your life. If I grew up on fake meat-cubes, I’d probably like them and not know whether or not they really tasted like beef or chicken.
Trollhater said: “Does this mean I would have to give up my membership in PETA?
People Eating Tasty Animals”
That is a good one! I love my naturally grown meat, and gutting and butchering the animal is half the fun! What would all the hunters do?!??!?!?!?! Oh well not in my life time!
Vivendi said: “you could probably change humans genetically to decrease their intelligence to the level of animals, make em stupid and unable to realize they’re being mistreated… then what?
I eat meat, but I try not to think about the animals. I’ve seen poultry and cattle farms firsthand, and it’s not pretty. But then again, we’re at the top of the food chain, we’ll eat whatever the hell we want.”
…go watch the movie…The Time Machine…(the original version that is). That has many of the elements discussed in this thread…without the cultured meat. Let’s hope what the movie portrayed doesn’t end up being our future!
Pascal Leduc said: “… The reason we do not extend such measure of ethics towards animals is because they lack sapience (to be wise), thus they cannot come to the realisation that they are abused and as such suffer not from their existence…”
i find this a bit confusing. if by this you mean that animals can’t suffer (or at least, not in a way that we care about), then the original argument is still absurd, because violence towards “wild cows and chickens” would still be no better or worse than violence towards animals bred for slaughter.
if you mean that animals specifically can’t suffer in captivity (because they lack the capacity to imagine freedom perhaps), then you must not be familiar with the conditions in which the vast hordes of livestock are kept. trust me, those animals suffer plenty. especially chickens. it’s really rather horrific.
“I see nothing wrong with not eating meat, I myself not eat hundreds of delicious foods and suffer no ill for it, but if you seek to force people to act in a certain way without a clear societal need then you are assigning them a purpose wich they do not wish and are in your own tiny way causing an insignificant form of slavery (and thus causing us the very ill you were warning us against).”
i think there is a clear societal need, even discounting consideration of animal suffering. the environmental impact of meat-eating (eating factory-farmed meat in particular) is vastly more damaging than the impact of a vegetarian (or better yet vegan) diet, in terms of energy and water consumption, pollution, and overall resource allocation. i still wouldn’t legislate or otherwise force vegetarianism on anyone, but if it were up to me i would spend federal money to encourage people to give up or reduce meat, similarly to national public education programs in conservation, fitness recommendations, and tobacco prevention.
as has been pointed out, most people in industrialized countries don’t think much about where their food comes from and what’s in it. i think they should–if eating happily requires you to not know where your food is coming from, i think you have a problem.
hey guys, i’m a new addict to this site, and i just have one simple comment to make as my first:
ughhh….”meat tumor”
“you could probably change humans genetically to decrease their intelligence to the level of animals, make em stupid and unable to realize they’re being mistreated… then what?”
Then they would cease to be human, a homo-sapient that isint sapient is well not sapient. Carefull though you dont need to be a genious to think, even an idiot givin enough time can realise his plight. You’d have to make then as dumb as greath apes atleast, no speech no tool use and most importantly no transmission of anything but the basest knowledge.
“if you mean that animals specifically can’t suffer in captivity (because they lack the capacity to imagine freedom perhaps), then you must not be familiar with the conditions in which the vast hordes of livestock are kept. trust me, those animals suffer plenty. especially chickens. it’s really rather horrific.”
No im saying they cant realise they are being abused, and I find your comments rather strange, just because you see their treatment as horrific (well it is prety bad, except obviously dairy cows) dosent mean they do.
“i think there is a clear societal need, even discounting consideration of animal suffering. the environmental impact of meat-eating (eating factory-farmed meat in particular) is vastly more damaging than the impact of a vegetarian (or better yet vegan) diet, in terms of energy and water consumption, pollution, and overall resource allocation. i still wouldn’t legislate or otherwise force vegetarianism on anyone, but if it were up to me i would spend federal money to encourage people to give up or reduce meat, similarly to national public education programs in conservation, fitness recommendations, and tobacco prevention.”
This is a different argument, and a much better one. It is perfectly true that meat eating is far more energy consuming and waste producing, a single super hog-farm produces as much waste as a major metropolis. quite probably we will have to abandon pigs and cows (as meat) eventualy, chicken and fish (farmed fish, are oceans arent that abundant) however is less intensive and will probably last with us a very long time.
“as has been pointed out, most people in industrialized countries don’t think much about where their food comes from and what’s in it. i think they should–if eating happily requires you to not know where your food is coming from, i think you have a problem.”
Cognitive dissonance is the most essential trait of modern man. Atleast ten people have died directly to give me the life I have today, 50 from things done on my behalf (mostly by our goverments), behind me, behind all of us is a trail of horror and suffering. Our lives are lined with the corpse of people killed by our mere existence. If i spent my time thinking of all this pain I could not get ahead in life and most importantly I could not reach a point where I could help the world with is immense burden.
Pascal Leduc said: “Cognitive dissonance is the most essential trait of modern man. Atleast ten people have died directly to give me the life I have today, 50 from things done on my behalf (mostly by our goverments), behind me, behind all of us is a trail of horror and suffering. Our lives are lined with the corpse of people killed by our mere existence. If i spent my time thinking of all this pain I could not get ahead in life and most importantly I could not reach a point where I could help the world with is immense burden.”
Could you explain this further? Paritcularly, how did you arrive at 10 people having died for each of us?
Pascal Leduc said: “No im saying they cant realise they are being abused, and I find your comments rather strange, just because you see their treatment as horrific (well it is prety bad, except obviously dairy cows) dosent mean they do.”
why do you assume they don’t? they certainly exhibit some behaviors that imply they are hurting, uncomfortable, frantic, and wish they weren’t being treated that way… what exactly is your requirement? do you need unambiguous proof somehow of what they’re experiencing?
it seems like your response might be, we know humans realize they’re being abused because they can tell us this using language. as for humans who aren’t capable of language (infants, mutes, mentally disabled, etc), we can extrapolate from our general knowledge of humans and assume that they too should not be abused. but since no animal has the linguistic prowess to give you unambiguous proof that it realizes it’s being abused, you assume they don’t, and that their aggressive avoidance behaviors (screaming, violent pecking, etc…) may just be elaborate reflexes? doesn’t make sense to me. of course there’s more doubt about the mental state of an animal than a human, but when you’re talking about horrible abuse, isn’t the burden of proof on you that it’s ok to torture an animal, rather than on the animal advocates to prove that it’s not ok? to me the kind of proof you’d need to approve of barbaric treatment on such a massive scale is something pretty air-tight, like, “this animal’s nervous system is not physically capable of responding to painful stimuli in any way we can recognize.”
either that or you just have to be axiomatic and say, animal suffering is of negligible importance to us simply because they’re animals and we’re humans.
“Cognitive dissonance is the most essential trait of modern man. Atleast ten people have died directly to give me the life I have today, 50 from things done on my behalf (mostly by our goverments), behind me, behind all of us is a trail of horror and suffering. Our lives are lined with the corpse of people killed by our mere existence. If i spent my time thinking of all this pain I could not get ahead in life and most importantly I could not reach a point where I could help the world with is immense burden.”
this seems inconsistent. if i understand what you mean, you’re saying “unless i ignore the evils in the world i am causing, i can’t help stop those very evils.” i think cognitive dissonance is a fundamental flaw of modern civilization, not an essential trait. it’s an inescapable fact that you’re going to cause some suffering, but i believe the right thing to do is to try to be aware of that suffering and reduce it as much as possible while maintaining your own health and sanity. for example, i know that great evils are committed with the funds i pay in taxes, but i still pay them, very aware of those evils, because refusing to do so would unacceptably compromise my well-being and potential for further good work in the world. that’s a conscious choice, and i try to have as much info about it as possible. yes, it pains me to pay my taxes, but i think it’s worth it. similarly, for me it’s not worth it to drive a car, to eat meat, to shop at walmart, things of that nature. compared to tax resistance, these are trivial sacrifices to make, but add up to a significant reduction in harm done to the world. my whole point is just to say that i think maintaining cognitive dissonance is not a necessary policy like you suggest. i’m sure i am still doing lots of stuff that harms the world that i’m unaware of, but i try to be as aware as possible and make conscious choices about what sacrifices i am and am not willing to make to reduce that harm. i think that’s the only truly moral way to live.
QuasimodoJones said: “The whole world would be a lot better off if someone would come up for a good recipe for sterilized, baked, minced cockroaches, and give it a nice, euphemistic name like “whitefish” — but French, so maybe we’d learn to get over our foolish dietic bigotry and embrace “pâte des cancrelats”.”
I wonder what kind of euphemism we could come up with for cultured man-meat tumors.
le sacre said: “[A]s has been pointed out, most people in industrialized countries don’t think much about where their food comes from and what’s in it. i think they should–if eating happily requires you to not know where your food is coming from, i think you have a problem.”
Head cheese, anyone?
Actually, it occurs to me that the first mainstream application for meat culturing could be, not foods for human consumption, but specially designed animal foods (for pets, livestock, etc.) After all, other animals probably won’t get as squeamish about the idea of eating artificial meat as many of us humans evidently are.
“The rich will dine on corn-fed Iowa beef while the poor masses slave away in the underground factories, lunching on cultured meat tumor-chow laced with obedience-enhancing drugs. It seems almost inevitable.”
This article seem pretty biased to me, Yes, if you call it meat tumors you are going to gross people out, but if you called Beef : “Recently-murdered-cow-that-lived-in-cramp-conditions-and-was-scared-before-some-guy-slaughtered-it-brutally and then include a picture of said dead cow then people probably would like that so much either.
Seems a little silly to want to sabotage what could be a very important solution to many problems by incisting calling it a Meat Tumor
…WHERE’S THE BEEF??????? May Clara Peller rest in peace!
“this animal’s nervous system is not physically capable of responding to painful stimuli in any way we can recognize.”
I think the problem here is that your mistaking sapience for sentience, all mamalians and most of the meat we eat is sentient (crustacians and fish are the exception), they interpret violent nerve reactions as pain (as opposed to information), they fear, can be happy and sad, and posses atleast the wide range of base emotions. This is why meat cows must die instantly, otherwise the pain makes them seize up making the meat harsh and stringy . This is also why dairy cows must be well treated since depressed (not just sick) cows produce less milk. But sapience is different, sapience is knowledge, culture, society it is the ability to understand complex non-physical ideas and it is a far too obvious trait for us to miss if it was found in animals.
Now, of course you will most probably say that a creature dosent need to be sapient to be afforded better treatment, that only sentience is sufficient. You may accuratly point out that our treatment of others has far more to do with what kind of people we are then what kind of creature they are.
But for me the line of demarcation lies higher simply because it does, maybe because I have a vested interest in the status quo, maybe because im elitist and save the rights of higher life forms for my kind so that they appear more important, maybe because the proof towards more ethical treatment of animals is insufficient to me or maybe because I dont care.
This isint an ode to cultural relativisme, one of us is right, the other is wrong, but ther is simply not enough evidence. I feel that we can continue to treat animals as we do because of insufficient information to do otherwise, just the same way that you feel we should treat them ethicaly unless proven otherwise. Seperated by our burden of proof gap I fear that the argument remains unresolved (the contrary would have surprised me since far more brilliant people have argued and come up to the same result.)
“…or it could be cultured on tiny beads, then harvested and made into processed meats like chicken nuggets or ground beef.”
meat flavored nerds…yum!
I find this topic very disturbing, especially the part about human meat.
Vivendi said: “you could probably change humans genetically to decrease their intelligence to the level of animals, make em stupid and unable to realize they’re being mistreated… then what?
By overcoming natural selection? By allowing the almost terminally dim to have as many children as they need to avoid work for the rest of their lives, even when they haven’t got the intelligence to help those kids become anything better? Old news – Take at look around.
Is there any risk that eating a meat tumour cultured from your own cells would give you cancer?
Cosmos said “For me, there is a sacred element to preparing and eating meat. While this vat grown meat would come to us without killing, it would also be lacking life-force.”
Oh, COME ON!!
There is NO SUCH THING as “Lifeforce”.
Biological life is nothing more then CHEMICAL REACTIONS, of which vat-grown meat has just as much of as animal-grown meat.
I’m kind of surprised that it’s only been tangentially mentioned, and then only twice, that so many of our great fake-food ideas in the past have blown up in our faces and been shown to cause dietary deficiencies and potentially fatal illnesses. I mean really… “Live better through chemistry!” turned out to be great, didn’t it? Doesn’t this seem like another example of something like, say, aspartame or MSG? Or trans-fatty acid as a solid lipid substitute? Or hell, white vs wheat?
jpowell180, I’m not a particular ascriber to spirituality or belief in “life-force” either, but I can’t help noticing the long-running trend of food/nutrition science coming up with one dietary solution after another that turns out to be nowhere near as good as nature. So while intellectually I agree with you about biological life being just chemical reactions, I’ve gotta think there’s something more to natural, balanced eating than just getting the chemistry right.
The first thing I want to know is how much energy and nutrients would go into growing a chunk of meat equal to the mass of, say, a cow. If it is more cost-efficent than acctually growing the cow the normal way, this will become our new source of meat, at least for less exclusive dishes like ground beef products. It is a matter of economics. If they by using vat-grown meat can dodge the costs and bad publicity caused by regular cattlefarming, companies like mcdonalds and other major meatproducers will hop on the wagon very, very fast. Just think about the costs of buying and cultivating land, growing and harvesting fodder, slaughtering and transporting all those tons of meat from 3rd world countries. An then think about all the vandalism, sabotage and general bad press from extremist enviromentalists they will avoid. The savings would likely be enourmous and unless you crave a piece of fine tournedous there would likely be little difference to the consumer.
And considering the need for western countries to reinvent their diets to remain productive every goverment would see the profits to be made in eliminating one of the largest causes of public unhealth and obesity.
Pascal Leduc, your comments concern me somewhat… i mean – they’re reasonably valid… but they do remind me of a time when african americans were refferred to in similar terms as an excuse for keeping them as slaves…
maybe we are just being extrodinarily ignorant so we can feel better about having steak for dinner? Are we THAT much smarter than they were back then? I hope so… but really – you can’t really know what you dont know… or can you? hmm…
(to be perfectly honest… i had steak last night… and it was yummy… so maybe bring on ignorance! sure sure – the cows arent scared or unhappy! they’re squealing and mooing with pleasure!)
Could this be a way of making hypo-allergenic meat?
how do i get in touch with these folks to taste test their vat meat … i’m a meat connoisseur
“Jesus,” Molly said, her own plate empty, “gimme that. You know what this costs?” She took his plate. ‘They gotta raise a whole animal for years and then they kill it. This isn’t vat stuff.” She forked a mouthful up and chewed.
More recent efforts at the University of Maryland have led to some new methods which may prove useful on the road to Meatville, with the intent to bring “in vitro” meat to the masses.
The rich will dine on corn-fed Iowa beef while the poor masses slave away in the underground factories, lunching on cultured meat tumor-chow laced with obedience-enhancing drugs. It seems almost inevitable.
Oorah!! You all missed two good chances here: “..in VATro”; and “…ineVATable”.
I agree good story…until the tumor was mentioned.
Take care, and Happy New Year!!!
I have been wondering what human meat taste like how would they know eat human flesh, imangine what i would taste like as a cannibal no where to go the only hard choice i would have to make is sacrificing myself, to be ready to eat, if the the human flesh is sweet, and tasty think how my meat would taste is it like any another human meat as quoted on previous page as crazy as sounds but would i be able taste human meat to give an idea what i taste like especially in the future if or when that ever happens thanks.
P.S. what happens with my organs after that, i’m totally interested – signed ;Josephine Shaffer
If i ever become cannibal i asked myself as i looked in a mirror do i have enough meat to fill the whole? I’m Curious beleove me.
If i ever become cannibal i asked myself as i looked in a mirror do i have enough meat to fill the whole? I’m Curious beleive me would i be delicious too?.
I have been wondering what human meat taste like how would they know eat human flesh, imangine what i would taste like as a cannibal no where to go the only hard choice i would have to make is sacrificing myself, to be ready to eat, if the the human flesh is sweet, and tasty think how my meat would taste is it like any another human meat as quoted on previous page as crazy as sounds but would i be able taste human meat to give an idea what i taste like especially in the future if or when that ever happens thanks.
JosephineS, at risk of sounding like a canibal, human meat tastes like pork.
they asked a canibal on death row, and there was a ecltronic taste tester that secounded it.
Thought I would clarify that tumour this article doesn’t mean “Does anyone else smell burnt toast?” kind of tumour (also referred to as cancer) but cells that reproduce themselves a lot more frequently than they would normally. Eating a “tumour” is not like eating Cancer as most might assume but rather eating cells that while alive grew (divided) more than they should have in order to form “meat”. This “meat” will consist of fully functional and healthy cells that divide fast. Cancer by definition is a tumour is found to be reproducing rapidly in tissue where this rapid growth should not take place. Once the “tumour” or meat mass is dead you will be left with meat ready for human consumption.
Interestingly enough, if you think about how much more energy is needed for the production of livestock when compared to something like the energy need for crop growth, livestock will be found to use much more energy as crops will probably need to be factored into energy livestock needs as the feed that is used to bring these animals up will probably contain some sort of plant based contribution. This method of meat production would significantly increase the food yield while having a minimal or even reducing effect for the resource use needed to go into meat production.
Apologies for the poor English used above.
“We” think we know so much, and have so much control.
Ever hear of a “flavorists”?
check it out http://www.thefitshack.com/2007/04/24/what-is-the-ingredient-natural-flavor/