19
   

Would you eat laboratory grown meat? (Gotta be better than soylent green?)

 
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:01 am
i have not yet found a food i would not eat
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:07 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
i have not yet found a food i would not eat


That pretty well describes the little doggies--except for shrimp. They just don't understand shrimp. They look at me as though i were goofy when i eat shrimp.
Tai Chi
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:08 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Yes?

Why was it spooky?


Book review: http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/oryx_and_crake/review/

Quote:
In a capitalistic society, the successful companies provide a product the public desperately wants or must have. In Margaret Atwood's dystopia, the biotech companies control the world because they pander to society's aching desire for what they don't have. Providing products or techniques to allow for perpetually youthful looks and skin, drug-induced euphoria, and ultimate sexual satisfaction makes their products indispensable to the public. By bioengineering plants and animals that allow maximum production of food and other products, these same companies allow the rape of nature to continue as the world struggles to provide for a continuously growing population it can no longer support.


I really should read it again, I think.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:08 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
i have not yet found a food i would not eat


That pretty well describes the little doggies--except for shrimp. They just don't understand shrimp. They look at me as though i were goofy when i eat shrimp.


and yet most dogs will eat spiders, go figure
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:13 am
@Tai Chi,

It was the rape of nature and the cruelty to animals I hoped this might alleviate.


I was thinking of much less land needed for grazing where the nature could sort of grow back!
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:20 am
@dlowan,
I think it will be a long time before they can do it cheaply. Chickens are the most economical on a food in meat out basis.They would be hard to beat with manufacturing all the requirements.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:22 am
@Ionus,
Yeah? Is that informed opinion?

(I truly have no idea.)
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:27 am
@dlowan,
Yes, it is why chickens are everywhere in the third world. They are the most cost effective form of meat. There are also problems with cattle, sheep and pigs depending on location (religion, climate, feed, etc) but chickens are quite adaptable and although they have feathers, they dont waste protein on large bones.

I think steak will be the most economical to produce first. Especially in countries like Japan who import it and sell it for over $100 a kg. So steak in certain locations, I think will be first.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:31 am
@Ionus,
Good...so my free range chicken eating is a good thing, environmentally speaking...except for the bird flu thing?

Do chooks fart in a worrying way, chemically speaking?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:37 am
@dlowan,
The only thing I know about a chooks digestion is that if you pour mercury in one end you can run around and catch it at the other. All mammals (do birds ??) have two types of gut bacteria...one that produces methane and some chlorine and one that produces sulphur. Sulpur is the smelly one and probably comes from meat (not sure) and the other comes from vegetables/fruit. I dont know if that helps but it is as much as i know, sorry.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:45 am
@Ionus,
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/22/peta/

Quote:
Welcome, then, the savior of environmentally concerned carnivores everywhere: the chicken. Unlike cattle, chickens don't burp methane. They also have an amazing ability to turn a relatively small amount of grain into a large amount of protein. A chicken requires 2 pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat, compared with about 6 pounds of grain for a feedlot cow and 3 pounds for a pig. Poultry waste produces only about one-tenth of the methane of hog and cattle manure.

That's not to say chicken production is pure. The waste often contains the cancer-causing element arsenic, which is added to most U.S. chicken feed to promote growth. Plus, chicken poop frequently has mercury in it, possibly from fish meal used as feed, or from vaccines. And let's be clear: The life of an industrially raised chicken is not a happy one. The growing birds are warehoused in spaces so small they can't flap their wings, turn around or preen. Breeding for maximum meat production has resulted in animals whose bodies have difficulty supporting their own weight, meaning chickens live much of their lives in pain.

Still, chickens are such efficient producers of protein that a study in the science journal Earth Interactions finds that Americans who eat poultry, dairy and eggs, but not red meat, are responsible for fewer greenhouse gases than those who consume a vegetarian diet that includes dairy and eggs. "Astonishingly enough," says study coauthor Gidon Eshel, a Bard College geophysicist, "the poultry diet is actually better than lacto-ovo vegetarian." In other words, a roast chicken dinner is better for the planet than a cheese pizza. "If you need to eat dead animals, poultry is the way to go," says Eshel, a vegan.



I'll only eat free range and organically raised chook, and I don't eat beef or sheep, or any but a teensy bit of pork, so it looks as though I am being fairly ok.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:48 am
@dlowan,
I have to add a caution : chicken fat should be thrown away; dont eat it. Poisons tend to acrue in fat but chicken fat also is one of the unhealthiest fats to eat.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:51 am
@Ionus,
Well, damn.

Free range chooks are fairly slender and have more muscle than the poor abused ones raised in those awful chook torture places.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 08:14 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Would you eat laboratory grown meat?

Other things being equal, absolutely!
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 08:38 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Would you eat laboratory grown meat?

Other things being equal, absolutely!
yeah sure, why not.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 09:49 am
@Tai Chi,
Tai Chi, why do you think genetically engineered animals are creepy? I would have thought it's the conditions in factory farms that are creepy.

As an aside, I'm surprised that our A2K Gun-toters aren't using these animal welfare threads to make their sales pitch. Hunting your own meat brings a healty dose of reality to the process of killing sentient beings for food. And, no matter how much it sucked for Bambi to see its mother killed, at least both of them had a reasonably decent life before the hunters got her. The same goes for whales of course. (Hello MsOlga!)
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 09:56 am
@dlowan,
It could bring on a Utopian future for the global food market. There is a lot of potential here in terms of bringing this product to the third world where too many people suffer from diets that are protein deficient.

But this future shouldn't be dictated by the powerful, unreliable, greedy, and untrustworthy hands of the conglomerate food system we have today.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 11:56 am
@djjd62,
I don't think the little doggies know from arthropods . . .
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 01:03 pm
I note that when I plug in my toaster, it doesn't seem to notice whether the electricity comes from a nuclear generator or a coal fired generator. The toast always pops up burned.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 01:07 pm
@dyslexia,
Duly noted. The source doesn't matter....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/06/2022 at 02:21:38