lab grown meat is a vaguely EA/rationalist/self IDed neolib meme. in theory it will save the environment (ok) and prevent suffering (yay) in a way that concentrates capital (double yay) and involves a lot of tech magic (triple yay).

hot luigi is a big fan apparently. seeing this discussed reminded me of this excellent article which shreds the concept of mass produced lab grown meat. I haven’t really seen this circulate much over the years, but it is really a masterwork of grift dissection. please enjoy

archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20241208141305/https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-scale/

25 points

count another yay for how magic tech could (meaning: won’t) solve major problem without people using it being inconvenienced in any way (giving up meat)

permalink
report
reply
11 points

I eat very little meat these days, and I’d be happy to have lab-grown as an option. Even if it’s more expensive and not produced at the same scale

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

at least make a pretense of having read the article instead of very obviously reacting to the headline jfc

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I read the article and nothing there contradicts the commenters opinion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That’s the power of not saying anything interesting, you can’t contradict it

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The article itself does mention that creating cultured meat is already possible, just that the limits of the technology presently known for doing it make creating it at the same cost as regular meat infeasible. Which technically doesn’t contradict with what the person you replied to said, because the commenter didn’t exactly say how expensive or niche they expected it to be, so even something like a hundred dollar hamburger that doesn’t replace a significant fraction of food consumption but does exist as a novelty luxury for someone that had the money to spend on animal protein once in a blue moon, fits.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Did that locker just say “but it was technically correct”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

fwiw the post this is replying to originally didn’t have the phrase “instead of very obviously reacting to the headline,” I edited that in later. without the edit I think it does come across like I thought zweibel was contradicting some specific point in the article. not true, b/c they didn’t address the article at all

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

“Friedrich argued that investor buy-in was the de facto proof that cultivated meat has legs. Major meatpackers, prominent venture capital firms, the government of Singapore: You could trust that these stakeholders had done their due diligence, and they wanted in.”

Ow god it is a scam. This was a reaction to researchers saying “we dont see it”.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Investors as a general class are usually pretty terrible at staying in their lane and not listening when actual subject matter experts disagree with the guy with a good story. I think the only reason they have any reputation otherwise (compared to e.g. physicists’ disease) is survivorship bias.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

In short, lab-grown cannot realistically replace a significant portion of the meat industry, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it’s far too expensive and doesn’t scale well because so much active machinery is required at each step in the manufacturing process. There are also issues regarding infected vats and if the cells’ nutrition compares to that of natural meat.

At least it’s possible in theory? I’m glad we’re that far. But it clearly isn’t going to happen at a large enough scale for lab-grown meat to start appearing at grocery stores.

permalink
report
reply
-2 points

Something this does lead me to wonder: the primary draw I usually have seen for lab grown meat is obtaining actual meat without animal suffering. (The article mentions theoretical environmental benefits if somehow perfected given the lack of need to produce unwanted parts of an animal, but given that any kind of processing of plant matter is going to be less efficient than eating the plants themselves, that seems like it can’t really be the primary motivation). Do we actually need to culture cells to do that? Suppose we went the other way, instead of trying to, say, create chicken meat without the rest of the chicken, we were to take a chicken and try to redesign it so as to be unable to suffer, while keeping other useful properties (like an immune system, as the article brings up). Suffering requires a certain level of cognitive function, which requires a certain level of brain complexity and size. Chickens in industrial scale farms don’t exactly utilize their cognitive abilities to the full, we barely even let them space to move to my understanding. So, what if we were to try to genetically engineer a chicken, or other livestock animal, with as little brains as possible while still being able to keep the thing alive, until the ethical issues of killing it were equivalent to those of something like a plant?

permalink
report
reply
6 points

We’ve actually already done that. KFC can’t legally call itself kentucky fried chicken anymore because they don’t serve “chicken”. Instead it’s a GMO non-chicken animal that fits all the criteria you mentioned. Open your third eye

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

or, you know, just eat the fucking plants instead

permalink
report
parent
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 1.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 416

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators