Headlines have overshadowed inconvenient truths about biology and cost. Now, new research suggests the industry may be on a crash course with reality.
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
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)
"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".
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.
I have long suspected that it was a dead end, because at most you get a slurry that you then have to process. We already have that, the slurry is just made of vegetables. Growing animal cells in a way is way more complex then mashing peas or beans and make processed food from that.
This is not a good take. Even if the tech is further away than the optimistic takes of the industry that doesnt make it impossible, and "at best" you could definitely have more than a slurry. There are mang current scientific studies revolving around growing human organs in a lab. Eventually we will be able to grow meat that is essentiallt indistinguishable from the 'real thing'. And yes, while everyone should just go vegetarian, they arent going to. So the sooner we get to that point, the better.
"We can't get people to eat less meat and more vegetables, therefore we must invest billions so that we can get to the logical endpoint: million dollars steaks!"
"Or at least, that is what we told them. Now, feast on the most expensive meat yet as we now can literally eat up the planets resources!"
Evil laughter as the billionaires twirl their mustaches and salivates.
I just want to have a chance to get some for myself even if it's super over priced I'll go for it, my whole life meat has been my favorite type of food, either gmo me a plant that can make fat and gristle or I'm stuck with lab grown stuff
I just want a non destructive way to enjoy my favourite thing
You could always move out to the country and raise your own cows, just a few, for the milk and occasionally meat. Get some chickens too, for endless eggs.
Farm a small plot of land to feed them.
Get a big freezer, resign yourself to eating meat monthly instead of weekly or daily, and you'll be set for life with minimal impact on the environment.
eggs are alright but I just can't get the same thrill(not exactly the right word) out of cooking vegetable stuff, baking can have a bit of fun trying something new but meat is way more interesting to make good food with
I don't think I could really get into full butchery, I'm fine with cutting up meat but killing and dressing is a bit much for me but I guess that's where I could hire someone out
Man I don't need to be reminded of the sorry state of meat alternatives.
It's bitterly funny to me that fashoid governments started banning cultivated meat as if the economic and technical issues weren't enough. Ignorants terrified of threats they made up in their head as always.
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.
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.
In many people's minds lab-grown meat is a fact, and a reason to condemn everybody who isn't eating it. It has become a belief system - like thinking Tesla invented all of modern technology. If the companies disappear because investors got tired of flushing money down them, the default reason will be a conspiracy engineered by evil meat lords.
@sc_griffith Sobering. Making meat from scratch sure sounds like a hard problem. But what if, hear me out, we acquire whatever meat we can find that can't afford to sue us, deconstitute it into our bio reactors, and then sell the resultant slurry on a prescription basis?
this could result in the funniest possible outcome which is the revolutionary PeopleMeat turning out to be just scrap animal meat b/c PeopleMeat isn't actually economically viable
i had a bit of hope that this "cellular agriculture" from luigi's twitter would be growing hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria or something of that nature, but no it's a bad grift
Very good read, but throughout I can't help but say to myself "ye so the issue is scale. AS ALWAYS"
This is a tale as old as time. Fusion energy is here! Quantum computers will revolutionise the world! Lab-grown meat! All based on actual scientific experiments and progress, but tiny, one-shot experiments under best-case conditions. There is no reason to think it brings us closer to a future where those are commonplace, except for a very nebulous technical meaning of "closer" as "yes, time has passed". There is no reason to think this would ever scale in any way! Like, there is a chance that e.g. fusion energy at any meaningful scale is just... impossible? Like, physically impossible to do. Or a stable quantum computer able to run Doom. Or lab-grown meat on a supermarket shelf. Every software engineer should understand this, we know there are ideas that work only when they're in a limited setting (number of threads, connections, size of input, whatever).
The media is always terrible at communicating this. Science isn't fucking magic, the fact that scientists were able to put one more qubit into their quantum computer means literally nothing to you, because the answer to "when will we have personal quantum computers" is "what? how did you get into my lab?". We have no idea. 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Likely never? Which number can I pull out of my ass for you to fuck off and let me do my research in peace? Of course, science is amazing, reading about those experiments is extremely interesting and cool as all fuck, but for some fucking reason the immediate reaction of the general public is "great, how quickly can we put a pricemark on it".
And this leads to this zeitgeist where the next great "breakthrough" is just around the corner and is going to save us all. AI will fix the job market! Carbon capture will fix climate change! Terraforming Mars will solve everything! Sit the fuck down and grow up, this is not how anything works. I don't even know where this idea of "breakthroughs" comes from, the scientific process isn't an action movie with three acts and a climax, who told you that? What even was the last technological "breakthrough"? Transistors were invented like 70yrs ago, but it wasn't an immediate breakthrough, it required like 40yrs of work on improving vacuum tubes to get there. And that was based on a shitton of work on electric theory from the XIX century. It was a slow process of incremental scientific discoveries across nations and people, which culminated in you having an iPhone 200 years later. And that's at least based on something we can actually easily observe in the natural world (and, funnily enough, we still don't have a comprehensive theory of how lightning storms even form on Earth). With fusion you're talking about replicating the heart of a star here on Earth, with lab grown meat you're talking about growing flesh in defiance of gods, and you think it's an overnight thing where you'll wake up tomorrow and suddenly bam we just have cold fusion and hot artificial chicken?
I hate how everyone seems to be addicted to, I don't know, just speed as a concept? Things have to be now, news is only good if it arrives to me breaking in 5 minutes, science is only good if it's just around the corner, a product is only good if it gets one billion users in a month. Just calm the fuck down. When was the last time you smelt the roses?
If you keep running through life all the roses are gonna burn down before you realise.
Why the discrepancy? A footnote in the CE Delft report makes it clear: the price figures for macronutrients are largely based on a specific amino acid protein powder that sells for $400 a ton on the sprawling e-commerce marketplace Alibaba.com.
this is exactly the sort of magical thinking I'm talking about "it will scale because we can order tons of the stuff off Alibaba" just what the fuck are you smoing mate, this can't be good faith analysis
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?
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