Vegans of Lemmy, would you eat lab-grown meat?
Vegans of Lemmy, would you eat lab-grown meat?
The main reasons I've seen from vegans for not eating meat seem to be all about the morality of eating a sentient animal, the practices of the modern meat industry, and the environmental impact of it. And don't have anything to do with the taste of meat.
Since lab-grown meat doesn't cause animal suffering, and assuming mass production is environmentally friendly, would you consider going back to eating meat if it were the lab-grown kind?
You're viewing a single thread.
It's a lot of effort to solve an issue that's already solved by being vegan so eh, I'm pretty indifferent to it at least at face value. If it can compete with a vegan diet in terms of climate and ecosystem impact then I'll support it but I've no interest in it personally. I don't really have any justification for not being interested, I'm just not.
I'd be much more interested in seeing artificial cheese made from proteins created by yeast or bacteria tbh.
Growing plants outdoors takes a lot of water, and growing them indoors takes a lot of energy for the lighting.
Since lab grown meat won't need all that light, energy costs might be lower, but maybe the energy to keep the growth happening at the right temperature will be quite high. You could offset some of that though with where its grown. Ultimately if we can do it close to room temperature that would be ideal, but I have no idea what the requirements are.
Overall though it might be exceptionally environmentally and climate friendly in it's own rights, not just compared to raising the animals to kill them.
The energy for lab grown meat has to come from somewhere - thermodynamics is always king. You can provide it via sugars/carbohydrates which the cells can motabolise, but you've got to put energy into making the sugar/carbs which is easiest by just growing some sugarcane/potatoes/etc. There's more steps for meat vs plant and it's very unlikely you can make 100 calories of lab meat with lower total system energy input than 100 calories of plant matter. (N.B., I'm a chemist, not a astronomical biologist, so if an expert refutes me and my assumptions, Place more trust in them)
Oh you're right about the food for it. I wasn't thinking about that. I can't see any way they'd get those to parity even if it was room temperature.
Edit: Oh just a thought, but if we were able to somehow able to get the nutrients from things we were going to compost. But I have a feeling that's not how that would happen, and that they wouldn't be the proper nutrients for growing. Maybe way out in the future though like in Back To The Future, Mr. Fusion garbage fuel! Fresh meat from waste!
That's certainly the hope, but I don't think that's the way it's going so far. The little I've read about it suggests it's going to use a considerable amount of energy, there's probably going to be a lot of research on the environmental impact. Other considerations include water usage, raw materials and waste, and at this stage it's too early to say what those are going to be like.
I'm honestly not keen on just hoping it'll work out, especially when capitalism is involved. It'll be great if it does and I'm legitimately hoping for that, but there isn't a great track record with this kind of stuff. Especially with the meat industry basically funding laws to stop it from being available in the first place.
I guess I'm worried about it being another failed magic bullet, and I'm just sitting here completely fine without it.
Greenhouses aren't lit, usually. What are you talking about?
I was thinking indoor hydroponics. Vertical farming.
Way less water than traditional growing. Like 90% less or something like that, but the LEDs aren't cheap and use a lot if power. Also a lot less space.
Depends on where you live. The further north you go, the less sun you have. And most people in developed countries live quite up north.