Would You Eat Synthetic Beef?

[robbie111]

Bill Gates in an article in the Washington Times suggested that all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. Would you eat synthetic beef?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...jXdHJXLLv-cFIQ

[Weitz]

Not if regular beef was available. Undecided if regular beef is not available.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by robbie111

Bill Gates in an article in the Washington Times suggested that all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. Would you eat synthetic beef?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...jXdHJXLLv-cFIQ

If you could convince me that it was healthier, safer, and better for the environment, yes. Currently, I am not convinced. Also, not all beef is farmed the same way. If you are burning down the rainforest to make pasture for cattle, then yes, that is bad for the environment. If you are letting them graze on natural grasslands that can't really grow trees, then it is not as bad for the environment.

[btimbit]

Maybe? Hard to say right now but without trying it and knowing nothing about it, who's to say. Does seem odd but who knows

[Coach]

Yes.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Not as bad, but the methane is still a major issue.

And yes, I will, as soon as it's able to be made safely at large scale such that the cost of a meatball isn't egregious, which is still a number of years away. I think, incidentally, that it will be mostly things like meatballs - making synthetic ground beef is much easier than making a synthetic rib eye.

The article, though, is not talking about synthetic meat, but fake, plant-based meat alternatives like beyond meat or impossible burgers. I'm talking about meat grown in a lab - a la https://www.memphismeats.com/. The plant-based stuff is just seasoned to mask the flavour to make it sort of approximate to meat. Synthetic meat is meat, it was just never part of a living animal. That's the path forward, if it can be made feasible.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

If you are letting them graze on natural grasslands that can't really grow trees, then it is not as bad for the environment.

Maybe not as bad but nearing the exact same. Cow farts are the biggest problem when it comes to their environmental impact and that has nothing to do with where they are eating (although what they are eating is important).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

If you could convince me that it was healthier, safer, and better for the environment, yes. Currently, I am not convinced. Also, not all beef is farmed the same way. If you are burning down the rainforest to make pasture for cattle, then yes, that is bad for the environment. If you are letting them graze on natural grasslands that can't really grow trees, then it is not as bad for the environment.

It's actually better for grasslands to have cows grazing in a sustainable manner(not overloading the land and stripping it bare.) The cows replace the rolls of bison on the plains, and their grazing is beneficial for a lot of reasons.


https://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/li...t-study-finds/

[ResAlien]

Good luck ever getting a populace that loses their minds over GMOs to accept lab grown beef. Sure that’ll happen.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's actually better for grasslands to have cows grazing in a sustainable manner(not overloading the land and stripping it bare.)

Until the methane they produce turns that grassland into a hot desert or artic tundra, whatever the climate change de jour ends up being.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Until the methane they produce turns that grassland into a hot desert or artic tundra, whatever the climate change de jour ends up being.

It's not as bad as you have been led to believe, your statement is pretty hyperbolic:


https://medium.com/@caroline.stocks/...e-23926c63f2c0

[troutman]

I remember Norm on Cheers talking about "Bef" from the Hungry Heifer.

• Norm Peterson : [about his and Cliff's meal at The Hungry Heifer] Yeah, Cliffy had himself the tunnel T-bone. For less than four bucks, you get 24 ounces of USDA choice US bef.
  Cliff Clavin : Bef? You mean beef.
  Norm Peterson : Beef? Don't be ridiculous Cliffy, that stuff is bef. You see, it's a Hungry Heifer trademark for a processed, synthetic, what... , meat-like substance.
  Cliff Clavin : Ohh, Norm.
  Norm Peterson : What do expect for four bucks? Do you hear me complain about the loobster?
  

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not as bad as you have been led to believe, your statement is pretty hyperbolic:


https://medium.com/@caroline.stocks/...e-23926c63f2c0

“For those who say cows contribute the most GHG emissions, that’s simply not true,” Prof Mitloehner says.
Livestock’s impact has been hugely overstated, while the major culprit — the use of fossil fuels, particularly for transportation — has largely been allowed to slip under the radar.

This guy thinks that people who believe methane from cows (re: scientists) is contributing to climate change don't believe that fossil fuels are...

Of course cows aren't the only reason, but they are a significant reason.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Good luck ever getting a populace that loses their minds over GMOs to accept lab grown beef. Sure that’ll happen.

Not wanting to start a GMO battle here, but the people I know who are anti-GMO (myself included) are generally more nuanced than that.

It’s not the lab-developed part that I’m against, but what it is designed to allow: giant swaths of monoculture lands with zero biodiversity ostensibly doused in herbicides and pesticides. Corporatization and commoditization of a farmers own crops. Etc etc.

If you can grow a food in a lab that doesn’t result in burning down rainforests, preventing biodiversity and pumping the groundwater full of glyphosate, ####ing rights do it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This guy thinks that people who believe methane from cows (re: scientists) is contributing to climate change don't believe that fossil fuels are...

Of course cows aren't the only reason, but they are a significant reason.

Thanks for the input...you sure debunked that article.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I'm all for it so long as the texture and taste is pretty close to the real thing. So long as there's any question of the quality, people will not be likely to adopt the practice of eating it.

Honestly, it's the way of the future, so you may as well get used to it. Sorry Alberta. That really, really sucks to hear, but traditional cattle raising will eventually become a niche industry. I don't know how long it will take to see that shift, but it's coming.

[Kybosh]

Will it be cheaper? That's how to get people to change behaviours.

[ClubFlames]

When will Bill Gates stop?
First, he created the coronavirus so there would be population control.
Second, he creates a vaccine so he can put a chip in us.
Now he wants us to eat some magically created beef?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I'm all for it so long as the texture and taste is pretty close to the real thing. So long as there's any question of the quality, people will not be likely to adopt the practice of eating it.

Honestly, it's the way of the future, so you may as well get used to it. Sorry Alberta. That really, really sucks to hear, but traditional cattle raising will eventually become a niche industry. I don't know how long it will take to see that shift, but it's coming.

Yes, a sustainable industry the helps maintain biodiversity and natural prairies is going to become a niche industry. Any day now.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Thanks for the input...you sure debunked that article.

There's not much to debunk. The guy isn't wrong, cattle don't make up the majority of GHG. But they make up a huge significant portion and he doesn't disagree with that, just that they aren't the only reason which is...duh.