Whenever it McDonald's or some other big company it can't be taken well by the public. No matter how good it could be or groundbreaking, people will claim it's evil just out of habit.

I understand this isn't fully automated, but even if it was, this would never be "without workers". You would still need to supply it, to repair and maintain the machines, people to program and update the software. There won't be less jobs, just different ones.

Also, people don't get that even if there were no more jobs to do at all this would still be good. You just wouldn't have to work to get fed, to sleep under a roof or have access to medicine. It would just mean we don't require the labor anymore for producing to our needs.

Anyone who truly believes that a chemical reaction of bioluminescence could ever replace the light emitted from a 1000°C hot metal is out of their minds.

Look at this armchair psychologist.

The only thing making me angry here is the amount of people on this thread that gulp up corporate propaganda on Netflix and that never took the time to actually learn something new, like how difficult it is to grow cells.

There is almost nothing smart on Netflix. 90% of the documentaries there are in the very least inaccurate. At worst, straight up lies.

You are right, plants and animals didnt evolve to be eaten by us.

But we cultivated them, directed their evolution to become as efficient as possible to be eaten by us.

The best we could with cross breeding -that is. genetic modification might change that.But then we wiill have large plants outputting nutrient dense fruit that is either directly sent to the table or grinded and turned into food patties of different shape.

Not this shit.

>You can skip all kinds of unwanted growth and a life cycle normal animals have to undergo if you specifically focus on muscle tissue and other parts we actually want to eat and grow it as rapidly as possible.

Thats not how it works. Not one single cell works on its own. In the lab we go around this by pumping insane amounts of chemicals into the medium they grow in and change that medium regularly.

To do what you are talking about and grow a specialized cell in a isolated environment means you need to go back a few steps to feed it.

For example. Feeding a cow requires having cattle feed. This means having a few plant crops that you can grind into meal and feed the cows with. (Lets just ignore for a second that you usually dont even need that, because most of the time they can graze grass from fields that cant grow agri crops).
Growing cells requires medium. To make medium you need amino acids, several minerals, vitamins, glucose, pH buffers, pyruvate, sodium... the list goes on. Not to mention ultra pure water.

To make just sodium pyruvate, one of the parts of this list, you need to make giant fermentation broths where sugars are metabolized by genetically altered microbes to produce a liquid which is then extracted using vast amounts of organic solvents at high temperatures. This sugar is produced by a crop you need to sow, the organic molecules by oil refining and more chemical processes that use vast amounts of energy and other chemicals. All of these chemicals and electrical energy cost the ecology.
THIS IS JUST FOR ONE PURE CHEMICAL FROM THE LIST.

Now imagine this for +20 other chemicals, which all NEED to be pure otherwise your cells wont grow. And compare this with just having two crops and a grassy hill to grow a cow.

What's that? Cows also need a lot of water and electricity, not just food?

Youre right!

Cultured meat need a sterile environment, extremely well controlled conditions and tons upon tons of really pure water. Im not even talking simple destilation. It needs to be completely deionized and filtered.

Can you imagine the energy needed to keep a vat of 100's of liters of liquid always heated to 37°C? Its a lot.

You should go to a local lab and ask someone to show you how a cell culture is made.

The problem is not that its propaganda, but that its factually incorrect and out of context.

They die in the worst possible way. Of all the animal practices we do, extracting BSA - bovine serum albumin is the most gruesome. A needle is stuck into the heart of a living, freshly born calf. We do it because there is no way to avoid it and it's absolutely necessary for growing cells.

Netflix is not a good source of information. You are looking at propaganda videos made by the cell culturing industry. I actually grew them.

All life is not equal. That was the point. You save a human child. Period. All across the spectrum of animals each species puts a premium on protecting their own over others, only in humans we have idiots that think saving a cow is better than saving children from starvation.

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.

It would be only more convenient because you can ship the liquids for the medium in a box onto a space station, while you can't do that with a chicken as easily. But I think you underestimate the size of the facility needed to make a sufficient production of meat for the astronauts. And it will be nutritionally inferior to real meat that you can also ship in a box and launch it towards a space station.

Thats a lie. Animals die for making the medium used to culture the cells. Animals die even in plant farming, just not pigs or cattle. But insects, rats, mice, snakes, bees, small animals and everything else that gets caught in the fence. And it's not a small number.

And if you think that it's better for a rat to die than a pig then you are admitting not all life is equal. If you think all life is equal than plant farming kills more.

Its all bullshit. It's a farce to sell ideas that sound futuristic or ideologies that sound philanthropic.

If you have ten times the energy and resource expenditure then animals die, just further down the line. Where that power is made from building new power plants.

You're not reducing cruelty, you are distancing it from yourself to not feel it as much.

It is. Because I'm human, not a chicken

Edit: why does that frustrate you? Because I'm right?

None of your ever had farms and it shows

It's an animal. A chicken doesn't even know it's being slaughtered. I slaughter chicken myself. The rest of them continue eating as if I didn't cut off a chick head a literal 60 cm from their feed.

93% of all global farms are family owned medium or small sized farms. Not factory farms. And most of our meat comes from them. Source: FAO

This is a propaganda movie no one here bothered to fact check

How does that make it different? Its still made the same way and still wastes resources

But here's a paper detailing an analysis that kinda proves my point. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005/full

I like it because it's well made and thorough. Most studies of this type are usually focused on beef production which is the worst possible industry for the environment. So you are often comparing the worst of the classical industry with the best possible scenario from the new industry. And the new industry usually also assumes that it will get more efficient while not assuming the same for the conventional means.

This paper is a bit more nuanced although it makes similar mistakes just to show the best case scenario for cultured meat. And it still fails in the long run.

BSA has tried to be replaced for decades now. It's a problem in research since we invented cell culturing. Im skeptical that its here just because some large companies with stakes in the matter say it is. I'll believe it when I see it.

But even if there was such culturing you would still need albumin serum replacements. The only way you can do that without using animals is with bacterial cloning for making protein sequences.

My source is me, my experience in the lab and what cell culturing looks like. Its also purely logical.

If you have to have a manufacturing process where you have to build everything from scratch and another where you don't - which is more efficient?

If I have to spend energy, water, chemicals and manpower to create BSA replacements, vitamins, amino acids, soluble minerals, buffer solutions, extremely purified water, sugars and other constituents needed to grow cells, and then grow the cells through that inefficient process, all the while spending resources towards tending to the cells, changing their solutions, keeping them in sterile environments just to make a small amount of meat then this will inevitably be more expensive.

I don't know if it's a 100 to 1, less or more, but its not more efficient than conventional means. And it will never be. It can't logically. The more steps you have in a process the more loss you will have. And cell culturing has a lot of steps.

Using plant cells and supplementing with nutrients to make it as meat is better but also has the same downsides as producing cells, just for producing supplements for the meat.

I initially thought this was cultured meat.

So my response is about that.

It's bad because growing cells from scratch will inevitably suffer more losses in production than simply feeding a cow soy and letting it graze grass on lands where fields aren't growable.

You need to first grow something from which you will extract raw resources for growing meat. Then you need to extract and grow the cells. And then structure them. All of this requires additional logistics, energy, manpower and sterile environments to work.

This is inevitably going to be more expensive for resources and energy which means for the environment.

And there's nothing that can fix it. We will sooner make conventional meat production more efficient and better regulated than make this meat efficient.

Its like saying that synthesizing a drug from 7 different chemical reactions or harvesting it directly from a growable plant will be more efficient. It will never be.

The proportion is killing 100 calfs to make the equivalent of 1 cow in meat. What the hell are you talking about?

Have you ever grown cells?

I didn't gather it was Beyond meat.

But plant based meat substitutes are notoriously lacking in vital nutrients that you usually get from animals. Unless Beyond is directly supplementing the B12, carnitine and iron

Artificial meat uses BSA to grow it.

Do you know the only way possible of obtaining this BSA? An unavoidable resource for growing meat.

They need to stab a baby calf in the heart to extract it. They use cows for their production, it's just further down the line.

Hi, I'm a biotech major and a scientist. This meat is made by using large vats of cultured cells. Specifically, muscle fiber cells. To get the same nutritional value as real meat you would need to have each type of cell usually present in an animal muscle. Which is difficult to even know, let alone develop, grow (some cells are harder to grow than others) and structure into a muscle replacement.

I don't like OPs naturalistic bs. Proteins are the same if synthesized or cut out of the cow. But this slab of printed mush is not nutritionally equivalent to real meat. Proteins aren't the only thing you require from meat. It's in fact the least important thing on it. You can get protein from plants too, you can't get, however, several important vitamins, iron, carnitine and fatty acids that are simply not produced by muscle cells alone.

And if we do ever make such a real replicas it will be incredibly taxing for the environment.

The Amazon will have to burn down at twice the rate.

It doesn't. It's perfectly safe. It's just terrible for the ecology.

As anyone who's grown cells will ever tell you.

As someone who worked with cells, 3D printed meat is horrible for the ecology

You need ten times the resources to make meat from scratch and not from a living being.

And it's never getting more ecological.