Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Cleared for sale in the US:
twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/16738244..
(sorry for the tiktok)
would you eat it?
12 replies
7 replies
5 replies
price is gonna be heavy
nah i mean u could try it but i doubt thats a great food to eat for the rest of ur days
yes
You will eat the bugz
The WEF is pushing this agenda to the entire planet and in a few years you will not be able to afford meat so your source of protein will mainly be bugs and lab grown meat which is already happening
204 replies
Or maybe the government is pushing for change because animal products are the #1 reason for climate change and changing to lab grown meat would have more impact than cutting out fossil fuels. But why would you believe those statistics presented by the best scientist in their respective field when you can just make up stuff that fits into your worldview.
168 replies
0/8
19 replies
14 replies
nt Klaus Schwab
2 replies
are you antisemitic or what does his flag and flair have to do with that lol
7 replies
I never really understood the bug thing lol. feels like people freak out at any attempt to change their diets.
5 replies
2 replies
every flag checks out if you reach far enough
1 reply
its common, people fear the new, they want everything to be exactly as it was in the past but without the bad things (shocker, thats impossible to have and wouldnt even be good)... one of the reason why (right) populist parties have such an easy time gaining votes
hun slapen nog mate, leave them :) hltv bestaat uit 99% grot-mensen
3 replies
42 replies
I never said that? Our ancestors would never be able to eat meat in those quantities because population would control itself if we ate to much. That doesnt happen nowadays because we just breed more. But again you know more than climate scientist from every country in the world with 100 Millions of measuring points who came to this conclusion.
39 replies
Flag + flair = grow a pair. So burning oil, coal and natural gas is okay, but eating meat isn't? Ok m8, I'll restrain myself from personal pleasure of consuming this precious product and will buy Tesla to (((reduce))) the usage of oil and gas, so that in hundreds of years the climate will not change by 1.5 degrees, even if I won't be there.
13 replies
> So burning oil, coal and natural gas is okay
I never said that? I just stated that its useless to do progress towards renewable energies if we dont tackle factors that have way more impact on climate change.
You believe in climate change but dont care because it wont affect you in your lifetime but that does not change the fact that the consequences of the world form climate change will bring many problems like climate immigration or natural disaster and the main cause for that is meat consumption.
Using flag and flair as an argument but being scared of showing yours lol
10 replies
1 reply
1 reply
your existence affects climate change, are you going to do anything about that?
4 replies
2 replies
i don't care about the negligible human impact on climate change, he does.
1 reply
Flag and name
he won't, cuz wussy
Renewable energy???? How much coal iron non recyclable plastic and other materials you need to completely switch? You would need to up production of current mining by at least 40-50 % . It is not so s0mple. It took at least 300 years to get where we are now what you think how long we need to switch? Same with electric cars and shit it's so fucking complicated, plus less developed countries cand to what Western world can thats another problem . How are we gonna say to India for example with straight face that they have to switch to renewable energy when they have more than 700 mil ppl living without electricity it's not realistic for another 200 years
Bro first maybe we should stop cutting down Amazon for planting oil that's a big start 2nd we should stop polluting oceans now that is the biggest problem since all of that works as a filter for emissions. And to add same thing with GMO veggies they are fucking shit taste like shit nutrition like shit. Ask your self why some ppl who don't eat gmo shit live up to 120years. It's not all about meet, we do so much shit but what ever rocks your boat. And no I will not be eating that I can get a cow or pig or anything and farm it my self and buy this shit doing same shit with veggies and I invite you to buy gmo shit and come to Berlin and we make tasting of tomatoes and other stuff that I have original seeds that are not gmo see the difference
14 replies
13 replies
I'm quite sure that's not true. Most land used for animals is non-arable and meant for grazing. Rainforests have much more valuable resources than to be used for agriculture, such as harvesting the trees for oil and rubber, and then using that land for monoculture to harvest more oil and rubber
12 replies
11 replies
ok good argument
10 replies
9 replies
are you replying to the wrong person? I don't see any "harvard studies" and even so, mentioning a prestigious university does not make your arguement ironclad.
And I never said "I doubt that"
8 replies
dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37736808
> Most land used for animals is non-arable and meant for grazing
Provide me one source for that. Modt livestock doesnt live on fields. 80% of cows never see a blade of grass.
I make my arguments based on facts you can find with a simple google search while you say "I'm quite sure thats not true" without providing anything that supports your claim
7 replies
wtf? this is just talking about climate goals and the expected increase of animals production
this means nothing lol
Your "facts" are you just throwing around numbers without any actual context to the information at hand. Ok 80% of cows never see a blade of grass. How important is that information? Cows can live off the byproducts that come from agricultural farming, they don't need to see grass. The reason that is you're able to confine more cows into a more dense space, so the amount of meat you get per land is higher than if you let them graze, which is more efficient.
2 replies
1 reply
you're just saying its a fact that animals don't live off of byproducts. Like where is your proof? If you try and use your head to think instead of jumping on numbers and statistics you'll realize that no farmer that wants to make a profit and keep a sustainable business will feed grains and other foods that could be sold.
Also, waiting for you response on #396, unless you have no argument to retort
data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI..
data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL..
Look at Mongolia for example. Fucking 72.36% of their is agricultural. Now look at arable land. 0.86%.
Not all agricultural land is ARABLE land.
2 replies
eating your natyral food is le bad
9 replies
7 replies
I meant actual meat
Well if we gonna die and get sick from food who gives a fuck about environment I mean I'd rather live long than be sick and pay shit tons to doctors. We still don't know the impact on human body from eating artificial meat. We know everything else artificial is bad from sugar to plants what's the difference for meat
4 replies
2 replies
Yes genetically modified it's not Natural it is modified so you can look that as a product of nature bit product of manso yes they are not same as non gmo plants when it comes to taste nutrition and health
plant based foods are only fiber and toxic and yex they dont exist in nature
+1 absolutely delusional
so basically you don't have ANY alternative, but you still wants people to go on a shit unhealthy diet with what ? bugs and lab meat?
and what for?
man just eat lab made powder, cuz they want to
2 replies
Flair xdd
6 replies
5 replies
How does it feel being a echo?
1 reply
2 replies
1 reply
"In 1917, in order to win Jewish support for Britain's First World War effort, the British Balfour Declaration promised the establishment of a Jewish national home in Ottoman-controlled Palestine." While Palestine State itself was not officially established to the west, it belonged to Ottomans and was recognized as Palestine by vast majority. The territory given to them by UN was nothing but invasion.
Ah yes, the solution is always what the government says.
16 replies
Its what all climate scientist say around the world. Who do you think is more qualified on this topic? All data is available for you public to see. Always trusting the government is just as braindead as always believing the opposite what the government says. Make your own research and built your opinion based on stats and facts.
15 replies
Government will save us, like always I hope it's not the same scientists quality that lied about the vaccine.
youtube.com/watch?v=hp9xhOYlrEA
We must trust.
2 replies
> like always I hope it's not the same scientists quality that lied about the vaccine.
It is not. They have different field of expertise and all hundred millions of data points their opinions are based on are publicly available and go hundred of years back. Its not a rushed product with little time to test and little data. Dont trust but do your own research and stop putting words into my mouth just because science, logic and facts are against you.
1 reply
but there is no data about bugs and that hairy thing on human health in the long term, so it's basically same agenda as pushing covid vax.
why you don't want see that?
"Its what all climate scientist say around the world"
not exactly. it's just that anyone who disagrees is no longer considered a climate scientist. they are now a conspiracy whackjob.
11 replies
10 replies
even better - I'll give you 500.
aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-e..
I'm not getting into some protracted argument about the contents of this letter. I am simply pointing out that not all scientists agree.
9 replies
I was asking for scientific research that lead to the conclusion. If you read the letter there is no data, no statistics nothing. Its just pure opinion.
"There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and
suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as
damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations
destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests."
Wind turbines kill 1.17 Million birds year. Cats kill 365 Million and Buildings 100 Million in the us alone. ( nature.com/articles/486310a )
And again the main reason for the destruction of the rainforest is soy production. Mainly for as livestock food.
But just look at the "climate scientist"
Engeneering Professor Guus Berkout worked as an Engineer for Shell. He has never done any scientific research on climate.
Reynald du Berger is a Professor of Geophysics and has never published anything about climate research.
Richard Lindzen was paid 2.5k a day for consulting by gas and patroleum companies.
The rest are Professors of Maths and other unrelated subjects too.
At least read the links you post my friend.
2 replies
how dare you using arguments based on scientific research :o
1 reply
you know bro is not responding to this one
4 replies
#84 I responded 2 hours before you try using your eyes. Philosophy professors signing a letter with missinformation doesnt mean shit and nobody in this thread could debunk the things I have said with actual arguments based on facts and statistics. Its only "flag" "eat your bugs" "soyboy" or personal insults. Stop relying on your feelings.
2 replies
you can lie with statistics as much as you want,
doesn't mean anything
1 reply
+1
This list becomes very small very quickly once you actually filter out the people who have no expertise in the field. Like sure, those are probably smart people, but in the specific topic they are barely more credible than you and me
ffs one of the guy literally just has "author" as their qualifying factor lmao. In this list there are lawyers, there are economics masters, there is at least one architect, etc.
1 reply
2 replies
Says the kiddo
5 replies
+1 imagine eating lab meat while industry gets off the hook and fills their pockets off this disgusting garbage
1 reply
To be fair, if the meat was healthy and nutrituous, we'd be killing less animals without it effecting our diet. Pretty much all the food we currently eat is cultivated one way or another, it's simply a matter of what kind of label you wanna slap on it.
No one's gonna eat that hairy fake shit on that video. but if it's well done and healthy, it's not such a bad thing. People are already stuffing all kinds of shit down their throats. Cultivated meat isn't necessarily bad. It's simply how people make it sound
Love is love
Germans will soon defend actual pedos. Small step at a Time
4 replies
its sad
they are still occupied
2 replies
It worked before aswell, first it was cleaning factories and streets, the next thing you know ulf is shooting pregnant women in a field..mark my words youll support pedophilia within 5 years
1 reply
lamo
yes, you'll eat ze bugs and eat lab food to reduce climate change while the elites are travelling in private jets and mega yachts ( dicaprio well known climate activist)
genius guy
2 replies
XD
I would be hilarious if he wrote that while listening to taylor swift broadcasting live form her privet jet
1 reply
you will be eating bugs and lab meat while politicians continue to fly their private jets to luxurious restaurants to indulge in delicious expensive steaks. None of the elite/wealthy population wishes to reduce their carbon emissions but rather further impose outrageous policies on the large population of people under them.
i know youre baiting but just in case I'll let you know that I eat raw meat, raw organs and drink blood since I was 7 and my children are doing the same too.
1 reply
flair checks out
how are animals #1 reason for climate change?
Cow goes into field. Farts methane. Methane came from cellulose digestion. Cellulose came from plants. Plants made it with atmospheric CO2.
Methane in the atmosphere oxidises into CO2 and water in like 10 y. That CO2 goes back into the plant and the cycle repeats.
Cow emissions are in a closed circle. You know what isn't in a closed circle? Fossil fuels. Energy production is the #1 reason for climate change.
There was like 50-80 million bison roaming the American steppe for hundreds of years. Did they start the slow accumulating process of rising CO2 or methane (easy to see in the Antarctic ice if real)? Or did CO2 start to rise after the industrial revolution and the beggining of coal burning?
And here is the funny part. Lab grown meat is super energy intensive (much more than a cow who sits and shits on an empty grass field, sterile conditions are very hard to sustain) and very expensive. And animal cell cultures still require animal product (blood serum) and is super expensive to make.
Lab grown meat is worse in literally every aspect compared to normal meat if you look at factors concerning climate change. And by a huge huge margin.
7 replies
Massive+1 now this are actually facts
2 replies
1 reply
#313,
Also I currently study animal cell culture technology as a part of my course.
3 replies
There was like 50-80 million bison roaming the American steppe for hundreds of years. Did they contribute to climate change?
2 replies
bruh, there are 1.5 billion cows alone on this earth at the moment being farmed for food. that is the whole point, we have created an artificially large amount of methane producing animals, at amounts the earth has never seen before, there has never at any point been even close to the amount of ruminants there are today. there are billions and billions of these animals at any given time, that would never in a million years happen naturally, we have taken animals out of their natural life cycle, protected them and bred them into insane numbers
might wanna think about shit before typing it out
Just FYI, lab grown meat has recently been proven to produce more emissions than originally calculated and expected. When experts analyzed the latest data, it is apparently more harmful than the our current meat production model. Given that lab grown meat was ONLY being pushed forward because it was thought to produce less emissions, you can guarantee once this study has been peer reviewed and confirmed, which it will be - lab grown meat will be nothing more than a footnote in a textbook about bad experiments gone wrong.
who told you that cows make more of a effect on the earth than industrial plants
37 replies
iatp.org/emissions-impossible
Its not cows in itself but their food. Most peoples brains have been greenwashed into thinking cows live on fields and only eat grass. But 80%+ of them never see a field and get farmed food. The farming takes up 80% of global agriculture despite providing 30% of calories.
36 replies
I highly doubt farmers are feeding their cows the actuals grain of wheat, corn, etc. Most of the trash from farming, such as corn husks, hay which is a mix of dried plants, etc. Cows aren't picky on what they eat, so they're basically eating the byproducts of farming and the things we normally don't eat.
35 replies
34 replies
They can eat fibrous parts of the crops we produce and upscale calories and nutrients for us where we can absorb them through meat.
And fibrious parts make the larger part of pur crops.
22 replies
21 replies
no its not lol. Try to get the same amount of calories, protein and nutrients from meat compared to plants. Kilo for Kilo, gram for gram, pound for pound, animal products are more nutrient dense
You can't get calories from fibrious parts of the plant. They can. They put the calories into meat. We can get calories from meat.
Nutrients from animal products are more absorbable and more bioavailable.
It's more prudent to set them on fields than in literal industrial plants, but that is another topic.
All in all, lab grown meat just can't compete #313
12 replies
11 replies
Yes, and the science is in #313, not in fraud and false hope they sell to the investors.
10 replies
9 replies
But people making lab grown meat companies have a lot of direct incentives to lie.
Did you even read #313 if you accuse me of choosing my facts?
8 replies
I am on your side that lab grown meat isnt the solution. I am just saying that livestock industry has a big impact on our climate, even more than oil companies and that if you believe in climate change and transitioning fron fossil fuels decreasing the amount of animal farming and thus decreasing the amount of agriculture for livestock is needed
7 replies
When atleast working B12 supplements are made, then we can go harder into vegeterianism. Other than that idk
6 replies
5 replies
Based on what exactly? Animal products are the only source of B12.
Vegan babies (as in, their mother was a vegan for several years) have a significantly higher risk for life threatening B12 deficiencies which nees to be hospitalised.
4 replies
3 replies
So you don't find it in beef livers, eggs, dairy and meat?
2 replies
Do you even read what I am writing? Yes you do find it in the products you mentioned. The animals can produce it naturally if they consume cobalt trough dirt when eating grass. However as mentioned before most animals nowadays dont live on fields and therefor e cant produce B12 naturally. Pesticides and antibiotics also kill the bacteria that is needed to create Vitamin B12. That is why over 90% of the worlds B12 supplements are made for livestock.
1 reply
True for cows, but seafood is still a banger for B12
youtu.be/mqsimz2IAvc
If you can't visualise it.
6 replies
5 replies
And I am saying that they don't include factors as upcycling and fertiliser coming from animals (50% of world fertiliser, other 50% is made in the Haber-Bosch reaction which relies for some reason on natural gas and you know, that is not climate friendly especially when a single gas leak puts more methane into the atmosphere than 10 years of animal hearding in America)
4 replies
3 replies
Maybe GMO increases production capacities, who knows. But yeah, loss of land used for agriculture is massive
2 replies
1 reply
Yep
The data is irrevelant to what I'm saying, there is no mention of upcycling, which is what im mentioning
10 replies
9 replies
"Even with cows upcycling plants by using them more efficiently than us its less effective than planting foods that we could eat."
LOL these are two contradictory sentences. FYI they are not eating the same foods as us, they are eating corn husks, grass, hay, human food leftovers, etc. All countries in some form of another import food. Even if you technically didn't need to import any food, there is still gonna be imported whether you like it or not.
8 replies
7 replies
because the land they use has terrain that is not suitable for growth or the soil is not fertile enough, which is more often than not.
It's laughable to say soy is nutritious for us, because simply compare the nutritional value of soy to say, beef steak or beef liver. It's not even close.
If you want to stop pre-maturing end this conversation because you can't cherry pick your arguments any more that's fine. Just letting you know that you have literally retorted nothing I've said, no valid links, no valid rebuttals, nothing. You say I'm making shit up but you post two links and think you're valid. Get out of that soy echochamber you created from media around you
6 replies
The most grown crops worldwide are wheat and corn. Both need very fertile soil and are mainly used for livestock. Its true that non fertile soil can be used for animals to graze when it cant be used for agriculture. But saying that growing wheat and corn takes less fertile land is literally making stuff up. Try to provide me with one source on that. Other than that the ratio of wheat to meat is 10:1. Even with a third of the land we could grow everything we need. Now take into consideration that other factors like fossil fuels are well known to be harmful for the enviroment but the general public does not know how harmful agriculture is as this thread perfectly shows. So we are not trying to actively get away from that industry like its the case for fossil fuels but even increasing it as its projected to double till 2050. But if one does not have any arguments like you, they resort to ad hominem.
5 replies
where did I say that growing wheat and corn takes less fertile land? That doesn't make sense, and if i did say it, i must have worded wrongly.
Also look at #428 for example, compare the percentage of arable and agricultural land to any country you wish, agricultural land (which encompasses plants and animals) always exceeds arable land. Therefore, there must be SOME, at least some non-arable land that is used for animals.
"Even with a third of the land we could grow everything we need." Agreed, technology has allowed plants AND animals to be farmed very efficiently.
I think the public is aware than you think, considering that the rise in lab-grown meat is pretty big, and the underlying reason for lab-grown meat in the first place is an ethical and environmental issue.
Since we recognize that the meat industry is an issue, it's very unlikely its actually bound to double, as long as meat production modernizes at place that haven't. (dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/livestock/a..)
Firstly, you decided that you wanted to end the conversation because I was making shit up when I clearly wasn't? (#428 , #396 , #402 )
I didn't take anything personal until you started that moment.
4 replies
> Also look at for example, compare the percentage of arable and agricultural land to any country you wish, agricultural land (which encompasses plants and animals) always exceeds arable land. Therefore, there must be SOME, at least some non-arable land that is used for animals.
If we only used non arable land for animals we wouldnt be having this discussion right now. Using that kind of land for animals makes sense but its not whats happening in most 1st world countries.
Since you love the our world in data website so much: ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
2 replies
this makes no sense. Of course if 8 billion people committed to a vegan diet it would make a huge difference.
But that's a stupid hypothetical not only because a small percentage of the world would commit to it, but because 80%+ of the world lives in developing countries.
What you posted is not an argument in the slightest, just a childish "But if we.."
1 reply
Its disproves your "cows upcycle agriculture that we couldn't use for ourselves" argument.
> because 80%+ of the world lives in developing countries.
Isnt that an argument against them eating meat? You could feed the whole world if we ate all plants directly. Its not like people in those developing countries are hunting animals daily to survive. They eat about a third of the amount of meat we do in Industrial countries. Stop acting like its some kind of necessity and not just a luxury product for us.
Finally a smart HLTV user. Thank you. They will comeback with their bar opinions, making statements when they don't know shit about what they are talking about.
But why is lab grown meat bad? If it tastes the same looks the same and is as healthy or healthier what does it matter?
26 replies
There's nothing bad, anyone that says so doesnt know what it is. You can also consider it vegan as it doesnt hurt any animals. All they do is use the same components of a real chicken, but they simply grow the part they need by applying the right genes and nutrients the parts needs. You can have more control over the stuff you ingest and make it healthier than a normal animal.
5 replies
I imagine it will take some time before we reach a good point.
Again that's not true we know that artificial sugar is bad artificial plants are bad there are things in it we can properly digest. What is difference with artificial meat? How long have been tested who tested it who invested in it there is 100000000 milion question and tests that need to be public and transparent before we could eat this. If they did this meat like COVID vaccine thanks but no
3 replies
artificial sugar isn't made from sugar
artificial plants aren't made from plants
artificial meat is made from meat. It's basically just a duplication glitch.
it would be nice to have some more clarity, but it's been approved by the FDA and you can literally search for research papers and stuff online about it
2 replies
Nvm you keep eating that shit you it there in na and stay healthy overweight like 70 % of NA. I'd rather be fit and eat something that man has genetically modified stay safe bro
1 reply
you too bro
Because I dont want something that imitates the real thing
3 replies
And why not? Should it be something else than meat?
2 replies
its trying to be animal meat but it didnt saw real animal in its incubator lab
1 reply
I would argue that the chickens that only become 6 months old and then get slaughtered is also not real meat.
Is as healthy or healthier xdddddddd
5 replies
Ill give you raw chicken then good luck.
4 replies
Bro you are scared of eating 6 months old chicken but ok with lab grown meat lmao get a grip
3 replies
Never said that.
2 replies
Cope
1 reply
bro why are you always so aggressive on these forums man, just chill out for once
Why would I have fake ass meat when I can have the real thing????
also let's be real: lab grown meat during research: here is a perfect 1:1 copy of a delicious chicken meat with the same protein structure and everything
Industrials: so let's see, if we introduce all these cancerous things to the fake meat we can make more money than it'd cost to lobby and keep them legal? Sign me the fuck in!
I'm sorry but I'd rather have good natural products from the farm down the road with animals that grew eating grass and enjoying the sun, feel free to eat your meat ersatz designed by an engineer built in a factory who's owner entire goal in life is reducing costs, I ain't stopping ya
7 replies
Well as i said if its as healthy. Also there are for example chickens that grow very vast in 6 months only to be slaughtered for meat i doubt those chickens have been outside in the sun at all. In the end its about what you are willing to afford for your "meat". profit is always going to be sought after.
6 replies
healthiness of the product is irrelevant.
why would I eat ersatz when I can have real thing?
I know culturally we're moving towards fake everything, where fake people fake being rich and cool and social medias, but i'd rather eat the real thing
it's like vegan fake "meats" everytime my vegan friend is like "aHA you ate the thing I made and it had no meat, you didn't see a difference!"
yeah I did I'm just being polite
if you ever ate good quality meat you'll always be able to tell when someone fakes it.
1 reply
Yeah the vegan meat things are just trying ti be something they arent i agree. I think fake meat could be a good alternative for your regular meat. I imagine it is going to be cheaper else noone will buy it. So it gives you an option to go with cheap meat that is fake and a little more expensive meat that is real. And the most part expensive meat which is good quality. But is the fake meat also vegan or not???
Just because the treatment of some animals are bad doesn't mean in anyway that fake meat is better. Undoubtly a living chicken will outperform a duplicated blob of flesh with questionable taste and texture. Not to mention that chickens lay eggs. Are we trying to replace chickens here? Like why? Chickens are extremely easy to sustain and produce food just by living.
3 replies
My point was that it wasnt natural that those chickens are full grown in 6 months. Maybe even weeks. I forgot which one it was. But will it have questionable taste and texture? I think we arent really replacing the egg laying chickens. Its just that the world is too big for all this meat production since it takes a lot of space.
2 replies
It certainly will. All they are doing is replicating cells in a chemical vat, and they will not be able to replicate the fat marbling, and the tenderness/toughness that comes from a muscle that is seldom or constantly used. Chickens are incredibly good at producing food in relation to the amount of space they take up, you can easily fit 10s of thousands of chickens in one warehouse.
1 reply
Interesting well we will see what the future will hold. I would be willing to try it out at least. Have a nice day.
“If”
well, it’s not. thats why
1 reply
Valid point.
2 replies
avg hltv chatter actually
1 reply
Least obvious "BasedSwissUser" alt
lab grown meat is literally like 100X at least more expensive.
It's just a fraud to get money from investors.
The only unlimited resource is sunlight/energy. Everything else will only go up in price ever. Do you understand why?
I'll stick to just eating animals it's what they're there for.
5 replies
But it's the same. But instead of raising a chicken, they only take the genes for the the parts you want and supply it with the nutrients to grow it in a womb like environment. No life killed, no animal hurt, better product as they can control the taste and the nutrients it provides. There's no reason outside of religion to not eat that.
4 replies
cool for you but not for me bucko
Well there is because I'm not religious and I am not eating that when there are perfectly good animals I could eat instead.
"better product as they can control the taste and the nutrients it provides." lol
it's more expensive and energy intensive and it will speed up climate change.
It needs to get 1000X less expensive to be profitable.
Sterile conditions and growth medium are all very expensive and fun fact, growth medium contains cow blood serum so it's not like they don't hurt animals.
26 replies
Flair and flag
2 replies
+1
+1
+1
Growth medium contains cow blood serum so no animal suffering is a plain lie.
Also lab grown meat is expensive af (1000X above the level for profitability) because of the need for sterility and the expensive growth medium.
It's way less optimised than animal herding and will speed up climate change.
Also it has no realistic capacity for scaling up to the size necessary to meet meat demands (it's literally a bigger pipe dream than fusion energy coming in next year).
This is some first world issue lol. Why are we trying to solve a problem that really doesn't exist? Hypothetically even if lab-grown meat were to become affordable and cheaper than actual meat, what would happen to current cows? Do they suddenly become a byproduct? Cows produce so many goods from their body, Leather, Milk, Meat. Products like bone marrow and Ox tail will never be re-creatable in the foreseeable future, including the fact that lab-grown meat isn't even all that environmentally and economically viable (It takes an immense of energy to grow lab-grown meat, which most likely comes from fossil fuels)
11 replies
10 replies
Cows are still essential to producing their other products. Climate change is a issue but certainly does not involve cows, even so they would be at the very bottom of the list in terms of urgency.
Media and corporations have made you believe that the public and most importantly you hold more effect on the environment than industry and companies. I'm not saying you don't, but the sheer amount of fossil fuels used by them dwarfs anything other problem by far.
9 replies
8 replies
Since it's your argument, can you show me where climate change makes that much of a difference compared to industry? Because I'm not finding it
ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-..
7 replies
Additionally, please watch this video. Even if you're an avid anti-meat person, The video itself is actually entertaining, so I hope you consider watching through.
youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g
2 replies
1 reply
ok mr pro science, then watch the video
3 replies
what is this 30%? are you saying that agriculture makes 30% of the world emissions? You don't add statistics from two different sources to make one. They're not following the same line of logic.
You only mention agriculture is 2nd or 3rd factor when not only looking at CO2, now why the fuck are looking at the 2nd or 3rd factor? Can you explain why not the 1st factor? and more importantly, how much of a gap in difference between the 1st, and 2nd factors? Reality could be that the first factor could easily be the overwhelming majority, like this
ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
2 replies
1 reply
OK, I understand. Therefore, would you be willing to agree that fossil fuels are a more urgent issue than solving this "beef" problem?
+1
2 replies
Not opposed to lab grown meat conceptually, and I hope it works since it likely will be more cost effective and clean, but I don't expect it to be any good for ages.
It took like 30 years for vegetarian meat alternatives to get to a decent place lol.
10 replies
4 replies
I see where your coming from; but myoglobin and heem (synthetic plant blood) taste, feel and effect the meat* differently. Moreover fat distribution and type (synthetic plant fat tastes different) effect taste; on top all of that chemical reactions(meyard reaction) that happened in real meat don't happened in vegan alternatives.
All that to say we're still a long ways away.
2 replies
True some people might taste the difference very well and that will make them not eat that. I dont like the zero sugar drinks because I have very bad after taste that just destroys the whole flavor even tho people around me say that it tastes the same.
1 reply
you really can't tell the difference between vegan meat and real meat? vegan meat doesn't taste awful at all for me but it's nowhere near actual meat
yeah, but it's gonna be an actual meat, not plant based replacement
1 reply
it's pretty hard to get a meat cell culture which requires perfect sterility and really expensive growth medium (with cow blood serum, so animals do get hurt by it) to be more cost effective than letting a cow roam on a grass field almost by itself. (currently it's about 1000X more expensive than the level where it can be profitable)
2 replies
interesting. Can blood serum just be extracted in the same way we draw blood from humans? Or is it required in too high quantities?
I assume that the cost will also reduce a lot with time, especially if it reaches large scale production.
1 reply
It's fetal blood serum (again because of sterility required, the fetus grows in perfect sterility and you can't sterilise cow blood serum in the same way because you can't treat it with heat or filtration as you need the larger proteins which sre present in the serum) so it's taken when cows meant for slaughter were pregnant (i don't know the word in English for animals) the fetus get euthanised and blood is extracted from it.
1 reply
it just frauded investors from their money
u will eat ze bugs
8 replies
6 replies
yes bro go eat your bugs XD
5 replies
4 replies
Fish eggs (roe) is normal in estonia, russia and other post-soviet countries as well. Goes great with white bread and butter and sweet coffee.
1 reply
snails are not bugs, not even close
1 reply
they're worse, you're right
22 replies
8 replies
7 replies
2 replies
1 reply
I dont want to be that guy but I dont care that cows are dying I will eat them no matter what
3 replies
2 replies
"cull the cows now, eat the lab meat later" sounds pretty sane, yeah
4 replies
but growth medium for cell cultures require cow blood serum so...
7 replies
6 replies
But you genuinely need more cows for blood serum per kilo of lab grown meat than for, well, you know, beef.
Cell culture tech is hard af.
5 replies
4 replies
and the point is that you will need several genuine breakthroughs before that, just optimizing the existing tech won't cut it. And I would not bet on it to save us in time. It will probably set us back rather than help as the tech is not nearly ready for what it claims to the investors.
3 replies
2 replies
then "if it gets good enough", it's in no way certain.
1 reply
new slop just dropped
real and not a silicon prop at all
That's gotta be a joke lol. Looks like tumor with pubic hair, no thanks. Also will wait like 40 years to see long term health affects on others before I'd ever consider trying synthetic meat.
4 replies
smart HLTV user
new goyslop is ready
I don't want my food any more altered than it already is. Holy shit I can't stand the human "need for progress." Give it the fuck up man
5 replies
1 reply
2 replies
Its not tho, its made in a lab..
it didnt see any part of an animal fake as most of the girls in la
yea.. theres no hope lmao
3 replies
AI gf would be a relief for many mens,
and happy man = better man
would eat
3 replies
It's not fake or synthetic, think of it like an incomplete fetus in a womb. They only ingeneered it to provide the parts you can eat. No animal harmed, real meat. Artificialy provided with nutrients to grow, just like a prematured baby in an artificial womb.
It's healthier than normal meat as you can control the protein and it doesnt hurt any animal.
2 replies
1 reply
1 reply
This video is bait and is not what lab grown meat is gonna look like. It will just be a regular steak.
What isnt cleared for USA? The amount of shit you guys put the green light on is insane.
no thanks just give me normal meat.
Good:
- no slaughter needed
Bad:
- high energy consumption (climate change) and high costs
- probably high cost of the product as a result
- very early stages and it will take much longer until available internationally
I hope that in 5-10y the production process is made more efficient, the product is safe to consume and as healthy as the animal meat, prices are the same or only slightly higher than animal meat and maybe gouvernments agree on more subsidies.
6 replies
Another bad: probably created with soy protein isolate or some other completely processed garbage protein filler + industrial seed oil (canola oil, vegetable oil etc) causing inflammation.
1 reply
True but it won't be as harmful as taking T1's bloodrush
Is the energy consumption/co2 emissions higher than conventional? With all the forests getting burned down, soy growing for animals, animals eating that shit, farting all over the place to then get slaughtered?
Im curious
1 reply
From what I have gathered it seems a lot worse co2-wise atm. This could change with more efficiency and better sources of energy though.
I hope it'll get better, because if its close to equal to animal meat in efficiency and taste/nutrition, why not eat lab grown?
Debunk of bad sides :
- Animal husbandry is actually increasing climate change way more than lab grown meat will do. Animal husbandry is one of the leading causes of climate change ( source : IPCC report )
- Lab grown meat is in 2023 priced high and overtime with the demand and necessity the price will go under the price of supermarket meat, that's for sure and by a huge margin.
- Yup it will take some time to be available internationally and we can't tell how many years it will take but it's coming 100% in the near future.
1 reply
It will always be 5-10 years away, even more so than fusion.
7 replies
you are aware that most animals you eat come with one or more of the following:
fur, feathers, scales
4 replies
3 replies
of course a vegan wouldn't have the brain power to realize this is faked
2 replies
This guy shows up on my tiktok, he does some super freaky ass like stop-motion shit with "alive" food and homunculus shit. Pretty cool
The amount of carbon emissions created from the process makes it completely futile considering that that's one of the reasons for it's development
Enjoy eating toxins and synthetic meat. It is for sure very good for your body (absolutely not). Agenda2030 by UN and WEF are being pushed faster. They didn't achieve to kill almost 7,5 billions with the vaccines so they gotta push their depopulation agenda into the next level. Good luck y'all!
18 replies
7 replies
Read Agenda 2030 you brainwashed NPC.
6 replies
5 replies
Yea you are a NPC, I bet you are pro LGBTQ and their pedophile desires, furthermore I bet you have been boosted multiple times. Keep obeying your leaders you NPC because you will not make it out alive when this is all over, mark my words, when you're on your death bed you will remind these words.
4 replies
3 replies
You prolly live the Talmud.
2 replies
1 reply
keep on praying, your country will be destroyed and given back to Palestine. Remember, Trump said we are saving Israel for last.
Another retarded conspiracy theorist who thinks every government is made for the simple reason of killing their citizens 😂 Keep it up lad
I'd like to say don't believe every dumb shit you find from the internet but in your case it's a bit too late. Out of pure curiosity I gotta ask: Do you believe all the other shit as well? 5G cancer? Microchips? Rapist aliens?
6 replies
yep. ;) the enormity of what is coming will shock the world
I am a spiritual being in a human body having a human experience. We all have lived before, some of us remember the previous lives and some don't. You all will remember at one point who you were in the past. You will remember all the lives you have lived.
5 replies
Lol, do u remember?
3 replies
I do. We all reincarnate to erase karma from previous lives and to learn lessons. Everyone has a soul plan on Earth. Before birth you decide what you wanna experience on Earth.
2 replies
do u actually believe that?
if so what you were in previous life?
also where comes new life from? it's not like all souls get recycled because populations grow.
also how to know about previous lives?
1 reply
I have been a rapist and a murderer in two of my previous lives. It is the soul that wants to experience such things. Well there are afaik only 2-3 billions with a real soul, the others are a byproduct of clones and mechanically engineered, they are easily identified because they usually lack empathy, feelings and are narcissists.
The best thing to start the spiritual journey is to cleanse your body from toxins and meditation. I have lived in Tibet for 4 years with the Monks. Meditation between 8 to 10 hours a day or even longer is a must. There is a world inside all of you to discover. The world outside is literally a well made matrix of destruction and distraction (porn, games, tv's, electronic entertainment in general) by evil forces. Many people born from the 90s are so called starseeds. They are here for one purpose only: fight the evil forces and help humanity ascend into the fifth dimension. They then will leave the planet again and continue their soul journey on other planets OR if they want they can stay on GAIA. Most of the people on Earth are living in the third dimension (greed, hate, fear) is ruled in 3D. In 5D there is only unconditional love for nature, animals and other human beings and ETs, no wars, no greed, no hate. Only pure love. Earth is shifting into 5D and will erase all negative beings (it is called climate change from the mainstream) the whole Universe is heating up preparing for the great solar flash to wipe out all negativity and enlighten all Humans into the 5D reality. This process cannot be stopped as the whole Universe is a living organism and it is happening every 26.000 years. There are many different beings on this planet that you can't see cause your vision is limited to the 3D reality (cleanse your pineal gland (third eye) so you will be able to see more than what you are used to see). ALL WILL BE REVEALED at one point in the near future. I don't say things such "the enormity of what is coming will shock the world" for fun. The old guard is dying, 1000 years of peace are around the corner for planet earth and humanity.
youre kind of wrong. They dont need to depopulate the world, they need as much worker slaves as possible. Their system wouldnt work without slaves.
Thats why the most anti government thing you could do is quit your slave job and live in nature with your wife and 10 or more children.
1 reply
500 Millions are enough for them. There is a depopulation Agenda called Agenda 2030 and Agenda 2050. It is free to read for everyone who wants to know. Also important book to read is The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab-Rothschild.
1 reply
I'll try it out
I'm really against that, I doubt it can be done to be good and healthy.
Life is a very intricate process with a lot of imperfections, science cannot mimic that.
I am quite a gourmand my self and there are few things were I draw the line, and this is one of them.
There's no substitute for a meat that comes from an animal who had a happy life and actually had
a quick and painless death because believe it or not - stressful life and death ruin the quality of the meat.
I really have doubts that such intricate parts of nature can be replicated.
I'd also consider this an actual animal torture as those cells are a living thing and you are depriving them of any life in the worst way imaginable. On chicken farms where there's 100000000 of them in one building - they can at least enjoy food and have sex.
This is just sick and twisted.
9 replies
Hahaha, i completely agree.
personally i come from a coastal region, we eat plenty fish. When they introduced the cultivated fish like salmon but also tilapia and whatnot, you could tell (and taste) that fish didnt have the luxory of free wild life and was stuffed with anti-biotics, growth hormones etc.
yeah i reckon we should have a dedicated plan for cattle, but what is the exact purpose of this fake, lab grown, never-seen-daylight, weird unnatural stuff anyways?
humanity has been living off of cattle and land forever, surely we can find the harmony back again, as long as moderation is key.
some people like to use arguments of carbon dioxide or climate change in this thread, but thats practically nothing compared to industry imo.
1 reply
people who think we should not farm cows the way we do have 0 understanding of how ecosystem works.
Cows in this number are one of the foundational species for numerous ecosystems, not just as meat for us but also milk and cheese, but it's also their poop that's essentially as valuable because countless ecosystems depend on fertilization. It's not just wheat that grows, that's entire ecosystem that's so rich thanks to cows.
If we move that slide even an inch, consequences could be unthinkable and chances are there'd be dozens of species that could go extinct because of that.
As for CO2, it's nothing compared to industry and constant unnecessary use of vehicles of all sorts.
Wait what?
You’re saying that a bundle of muscle cells is a living organism?
5 replies
flag..... yes, cells form an organism, while it may not be sentient in a way you perceive, cells still communicate with each other.
They eat, they shit.
Only reason to develop this kind of a thing is space exploration where even disgusting piece of meat is better than nothing and we can presumably be pretty efficient at growing them from a mere single cell - saving a lot of storage.
But all in all US is currently trying hard to put out ANY news that aren't certain emails that have been lost. And something as polarizing as this is perfect to entertain you from rioting because your own government is actively protecting.... you know what, I won't use the word.
3 replies
That living organism of yours is as much alive as your leg if you were to seperate it from the rest of your body (haha look, i just did it, now there's 2 of me)
It's incapable of functioning on its own so by definition it's not a living organism
1 reply
I understood that reference at the end 😏
all cells are alive tho.
It absolutely can be done to be good and healthy
The real question is: will it be? Or will industrials get up and be like "yes I shall put this toxic product in my growing vat because it makes the meat grow more and it's cheaper" again, like they do with everything else?
"Lab grown" i will start taking it seriously when its in industrial scale.
9 replies
7 replies
3 replies
2 replies
1 reply
I ate grilled cicadas on a holiday trip it was ok, wouldn't go out of my way to eat some again but wouldn't spit on it either.
but it's not 1to1.
Baby milk formula has been researched for literally 50 years and they are still not even close.
2 replies
1 reply
Baby formula? When mothers can't produce enough milk so they have to substitute it with synthetic or donor milk?
It's a pretty big deal and the point is just to show that even baby formula for milk is above us currently, let alone lab cultured meat.
11 replies
9 replies
it's less expensive and less energy intensive (for climate change)
7 replies
6 replies
This is a catchphrase that they sell to investors. It's based in fraud and false hope, not scientific discovery.
thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat..
This is a pretty good article which sums it up in a non-expert friendly way.
There are also reports made by top experts (the guy was a chemist and pretty favorable to the idea, but he couldn't make the numbers work in the same way) about the projected profitability and currently it needs to be a 1000 times more cost effective before it could reasonably replace any real amount of cows in the field
researchgate.net/publication/348009195_S..
and here is a psot from the telegraph just for the lols telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/12/lab-grow..
5 replies
excellent articles, thanks for posting this!
1 reply
<3
BTW a breakthrough can happen and make all of this invalid, I just don't see it happening any time soon (or in time to combat climate change, even tho in principle even that doesn't make much sense) as none of the major companies are trying to reinvent animal cell culture in any significant way other than "yeeeah suure we will make bigger reactors work this time trust me bro"
I don't really care about articles even if it's written by a scientific. IPCC consist of thousands of scientifics from around the world. Each of these individuals are selected based on their qualifications and scientific credentials.
It is the leading scientific litterature when it comes to solve climate change problems, read it first before reading some randomn articles.
You need facts or studies to prove that lab grown meat will be worse to climate change and good luck with that since as animal husbandry is already one of the leading causes + deforestation. Meaning that we can't keep going with animal husbandry
2 replies
Yeah because lobbying, bribes and people making mistakes (because of groupthink) never happened before.
Dude, all major government bodies say that putting lead in gasoline leads to no harmful side effects, trust me bro, TRUST ME BRO.
This study I made was the most comprehensive one made to date about cost effectiveness so it doesn't lack credentials. You think that IPCC is made of top notch scientist but most of them are just like you. Swayed by the crowd and probably oil money.
And maybe make like one claim how it could be actually doable, other from a "cool, futuristic" catchphrase. How is it gonna be optimised? How are you gonna make cheaper medium and better bioreactors? Will you simulate blood vessels?
If the IPCC was a real organisation, they would include this, but they just went off of corporate deadlines and plans (which are never met in lab grown meat, which you would know if you read the article) for production increases.
Walk the talk mister.
+1 as nature intended
Looks like a hairy ball bag.
If it tastes good and isn’t particularly bad for my health, then yes of course I will eat it
extra pubes on mine thanks
I would love to try it out.
The thing is there's meat and meat.
High quality beef from animals that lived their whole life outside with good care and 0 stress will be highly different from the shoe sole they serve you at mcdonalds. Will lab grown meat be able to reach high standards in terms of taste, texture, juice, etc ... ?
Also are they trying to replicate just beef or all the most common animals like porc, chicken, duck, etc ... ?
1 reply
for sure, and i reckon you wont get high quality from lab grown meat.
its the same with supermarket and butcher quality meat: lab grown meat is only viable if its mass production. therefore this is poor mans meat for plebs.
People feeling personally attacked by scientific research and insulting me even in DM will never not be hilarious to me.
iatp.org/emissions-impossible
Animal product industry having more impact on the enviroment than oil companies
Go off boys.
13 replies
2 replies
1 reply
Lab grown meat requires massive industrial apparatus to produce, chemical inputs etc which also have their own environmental effects, whereas real meat requires a cow and some grass.
Carbon impact assessments general disfavour pastoral agriculture by not including the many inputs required for agrarian agriculture in their studies (which is somewhat fair, it would be hard to do, because the knock on effects have knock on effects, but it leads to misleading results)
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.21.5..
People who can't accept that some idea's however great in theory, however backed up by scientific research, may not hold up in reality, or may pose challenges unthought of and were just wrong, will never not be hilarious to me.
Nobody is saying animal industry isn't harming environments, but fact of the matter is, lab grown meat won't help, it'll only make it worse.
8 replies
7 replies
6 replies
5 replies
absolutely correct. there is 0 reason to go away from fossil fuels.
that statement doesn't mean there isn't reasons to go towards renewables however. you just can't go and remove fossil fuels as an energy source when renewables are nowhere near ready to replace them like ppl are trying to do now.
If renewables were ready to support the world, sure, but it's not even close rn. we NEED fossil fuels to even make renewables an option.
4 replies
3 replies
But horses are cheaper than cars most of the time? Why would we ever transition?
Don't you see how silly it sounds?
Just because something works, and works fine, doesn't mean you don't reach for improvements and progress. But similarly, just because you achieve progress, doesn't mean you entirely stop using things that used to work just fine.
Besides, finite resource vs infinite resource, math isn't that hard.
2 replies
1 reply
First of all, a car is not more energy efficient than a horse.
Secondly, people from cultures such as Inuit that have been eating whale blubber for centuries cannot extract more energy from vegetables than they can from meat - unless they retrain their bodies over years and years, which research has proven is very stressful and harmful for their bodies. Some cultures have had vegetable rich diets for centuries such as European cultures where you hail, obviously you have a different diet from an Inuit. Not all parts of the world offer the same food sources. Your viewpoint is extremely narrow, and it's extremely hard to grasp how you think eating animals is inefficient given that vast amount of data that disproves it. But then again, you think cars are more energy efficient than horses so, lol.
if youre happy for this, i hope you enjoy bugs and the future of eating more stuff that's going to kill you in the end. the people who are happy about this are the same people who got the covid vax, had a heart attack, and said "no it can't be from this". morons. enjoy your lab grown meat and future 4 eyed children.
1 reply
im actually surprised by all the people that appear to be interested in lab grown meat. i dont htink this generation knows the difference anymore and they will just consume whatever is advertized on their phone.
1 reply
What gave it away?
That photo looks like something I cooked. And I would eat it too.
I would bet real money that # 281, being american, is eating more manipulated foods than I am. Sure he´s enjoying his lab grown food without a second thought. Never wondered why US veggies are twice as big as european ones? Freeedom (from regulation)
No thanks
because I am veg
That's not lab grown meat lmfao
random tik tok tweeted by a parody account and everyone assumes it's true, yeah I know some of you know this is a "joke" of some sort but I see you ones who didn't, become smarter asap
That's like eating a cancer, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Not ever happening lol. Growing up eating my culture's food as shown me to appreciate how delicious animals can be, and not only just the cuts. Things like the bone marrow and Ox tail are extremely delicious and much more nutrient dense than the majority of vegetables out there. To eat lab-grown meat is disrespect to the taste of cows and my GRANDMOTHER'S COOKING.
No thanks,i will eat real meat
The problem with lab grown meat is that it's a solution to an invented problem and not a real problem. I love meat and I want meat to be available to people, but I'd rather people ate less and more high quality meat. I'd rather see that farming practises became more humane and sustainable. There's nothing wrong with killing animals for meat but the way it's done today is absurd. So even if we assume that lab grown meat can be cheap and carbon friendly, it still solves a problem that we shouldn't have in the first place.
LOL imagine eating this sh*t
is there anything more adorable than a baby lab burger eating a pickle?
could be really good and healthy and nutritious wise. if they bother to put effort into it but i guess they will just make it as unhealthy as possible.
LUL id rather eat my nails
By the type of photo selected you can see the poster is biased against.
Now playing
Elisa Esports
17160 viewers
Top streams
All(44)
Casters(24)
Streamers(14)
Organizers(6)
Elisa Esports
(17160)
Elisa Viihde
(4068)
gaules
(3102)
olofmeister
(2918)
EPL
(2807)
Maincast
(1893)
EPL
(1750)
kennyS
(1242)
ESL TV
(1103)
peacemaker
(938)
TaZ
(850)
Meta
(502)
Maincast (YouTube)
(490)
Laski
(474)
ROOT
(471)
ESL TV B (YouTube)
(454)
KRL
(450)
cogu
(436)
FlipiN
(372)
nak
(358)
zonixx
(304)
flusha
(249)
bt0
(240)
the real fer
(236)
gaules TV
(230)
JoJo
(194)
1mpala
(186)
Astralis
(180)
Pinnacle Esports (YouTube)
(134)
yxo7
(128)
Segalson
(95)
hdstr
(72)
Compass
(59)
draken
(58)
SGL
(48)
HenricoM
(43)
BAC9CKOPOCTb
(38)
viridian
(37)
Enkanis
(32)
Maincast 2
(14)
Evarizta
(11)
BTSBrasilFPS
(5)
mucha
(4)
KevinMPV
(2)
