Submitted by Shelfrock77 t3_yabjqr in singularity
Rebatu t1_itassu2 wrote
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.
Rebatu t1_itb08ld wrote
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.
Down_The_Rabbithole t1_itbse4z wrote
>And it's never getting more ecological.
This is objectively false. 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.
This is also true for plants, in theory we could engineer artificial plants that grow faster, don't generate parts of the plants we don't eat/discard and have more efficient photosynthesis to become more caloric and nutrient dense.
This makes sense when you think about it. Plants and Animals weren't evolved to be eaten by us, they were evolved to be their own species to thrive and live in the world. We have no time for that so cutting out all of that and jumping directly to the food portion we are interested in inherently makes the entire process more efficient.
Rebatu t1_itfq29m wrote
>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.
Rebatu t1_itfqa5b wrote
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.
ravelfish t1_itc0ifh wrote
"relating to or concerned with the relation of living organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings."
but no animals die. how is that insignificant, ecologically? :(
Rebatu t1_itcycev wrote
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.
ravelfish t1_itcz50v wrote
That's interesting. By what way do the animals used for culturing cells die? That isn't the case for the rooster whose cells they harvested on the Netflix program about cultured meat. Same with the cows.
You speak from what sounds like the lofty confines of somebody who is frustrated with a system they are stuck in.
Ramble on all you want about the value of life, but let me ask you this: a rat, a pig and a human child are present. You can only save one. Do you feel superior in the argument that it doesn't matter which life you save, as they are all the same?
Moral relativism. Everyone needs to eat. Rats eat their own young when it is necessary. This is called nature, and it doesn't care one bit about how you feel.
Angry_Grandpa_ t1_itec1qc wrote
From what I've read they use fetal bovine serum to grow the cells -- which kind of defeats the purpose if you're a doing it for feel good reasons.
Rebatu t1_itfkuev wrote
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.
ravelfish t1_itgf6d7 wrote
Maybe you should lose the condescension and then we can have a nice conversation like nice people. :) :) :)
I understand the issue is an emotionally deep one, but i'm not the one sticking needles into baby cow hearts. You are. Right? Perhaps some of this hostility is internal, turned out.
Netflix is great! I disagree. And while it's rough to have a needle stuck into one's heart, my husband and I have both had the unfortunate experience. It sucks, but we both lived.
And that's that. Unless you all euthanized the baby cow after the procedure?
I'd say maybe you should consider a career that is more sustainable for your positive mental health. This one is doing a number on your soul.
Rebatu t1_itghbd3 wrote
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.
ravelfish t1_itgq1k1 wrote
Look at you, raging about the very industry you participate in. 🤔 Yet for all your rebuttals, you're very reluctant for a redditor to provide any tangible citations yourself.
Just out here being loud, rude, and in a delusion of moral superiority while sticking needles into baby cows and rambling on about how you are the only one who gets it.
Yeah, that's not indictative of a stable mind.
Angry_Grandpa_ t1_iteboda wrote
I think the focus of this type of meat production should be for space stations or other hard to reach locations where growing it conventionally is impossible.
Rebatu t1_itfk6ot 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.
mlecchaslayer t1_itb4m3t wrote
These will be used in processed food industries like burger pizza stores,street food etc
Rebatu t1_itb9aym wrote
How does that make it different? Its still made the same way and still wastes resources
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments