or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's Brin funds $332K lab-grown beef hamburger, looks to make meat a sustainable resource
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's Brin funds $332K lab-grown beef hamburger, looks to make meat a sustainable resource - Page 3

post #81 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by baeder View Post

The idea of eating the synthetic muscle (can one really call it beef?) creeps me out. Almost as much as the fact that he can't be bothered to take off the Google Glasses to talk about it.

This is not synthetic in the same way that quorn or other 'meat substitues' are trying to approximate beef or other meats from different base ingredients (ever heard of a 'tofurkey' or 'facon'? Eugh - look them up); the point of this exercise was to determine whether or not it was possible to produce something that was authentically beef - genetically identical and made of real cow muscle cells. There are several different laboratories around the world researching along similar lines, the google-funded team is just the furthest ahead at the moment, and there is some really exciting progress being made. Overcoming the difficulty of interspersing muscle cells with fat cells would help to address the difference in taste that was noted with this burger, and there's the possibility of adding 'healthy' fats instead such as omega 3 fatty acids (although I realise that therein lies an entirely different debate).

On the subject of the google glasses, isn't the point that you would wear them all the time? Can you imagine Tim Cook removing his iWatch for interviews in the future? I know you were only saying that it creeped you out, but you can hardly blame Brin for taking advantage of the opportunity to get some public interest - this story will reach many people that don't bother to keep up with tech news, who will never have head of google glass before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhikl View Post

Vegans and those swayed by crazy govt guidelines like the food pyramid, let them eat such franken-foods. The swathing of land to grow monocultures of grains, beans/legumes, nuts and seeds is doing more to damage land than raising animals that continually fertilise the lands they graze on.

Are you freakin serious?

First, let me say that I respect what you went on to say about the need to be aware of what we feed our children, who are unable to make nutritional choices for themselves. Whilst I think that point has nothing to do with this issue specifically, it is an important thing to remember. The abundance of over-processed foods with poor nutritional value is definitely a problem today but, unfortunately, these types of food are often very cheap and many people don't have the luxury of choice when it comes to how much to spend on their food. Maybe you read this article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/is-the-mcdouble-really-the-cheapest-most-nutritious-and-bountiful-food-that-has-ever-existed-in-human-history/article13484686/
If not, I'd recommend it.

Anyway, back to your ridiculous comment about vegans, 'franken-foods' and the difference in damage to land from vegetarian diets vs. meat.

Vegans would obviously not be able to eat this product, seeing as it is made of cow. Vegetarians could raise an interesting debate, seeing as this in-vitro meat has never been part of a whole animal that was slaughtered to produce the meat, but that's something to be discussed as and when this technology advances to the point where it is realistic to adopt for large-scale production.

Beef production (just beef) "uses about 60 percent of the world’s agricultural land but produces less than 5 percent of the protein and less than 2 percent of the calories that feed the global population."
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/beef-production-threatens-climate-health-1371.html

This report comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists (who have also raised concerns about in-vitro meat - no one-sided arguments here) and outlines some of the problems with the international beef industry. I really recommend that you read the full article and report if you have the time. I've no idea where you got your information from to state that growing grains, beans, nuts and seeds is more damaging to land than raising animals, but I'm pretty sure that you're wrong. This new technique for 'beef' production could drastically reduce the amount of land needed to produce meat for an ever-increasing global market, something that is becoming more and more important as the population and, therefore, demand for food increases. I would have thought that, with your concern for our children, this would be something that you could appreciate.

In general, I think it's important that we all try to keep an open mind about advances like this. We might not like it, but this and similar technologies may become necessary to feed the global population. I know that a much simpler solution would be for everybody to alter their diet to take in more vegetables and alternative sources of protein, but that's probably not very realistic. Who's up for making the switch to eating insects? Now there's an efficient source of protein for you!

Sorry for the long post. I had to create an account to comment on this, but it's something I feel strongly about and I was interested to see it covered on AI.
Edited by weejock - 8/6/13 at 4:04am
post #82 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This is really misleading though.  

 

All the advertisements for the process like this one show hamburger that looks just like hamburger, but every report by anyone who has seen it or eaten it, describes it as "grey," "slimy," and that it tastes "not very much like beef."

 

This is really just false advertising.  Synthetic meat is just not very likely to be a replacement for real meat for a long time.  

 

Like most Google projects ...this is more "pie in the sky" than it is meat on your barbecue. 

Wonder how much in the way of harmful chemicals and processes will be required.  Then, in comparison with existing farming techniques, how much more devastation will it unleash.  Also, how much power will this require?  If we have to build a new coal plant for every 10 pounds of meat, I'm not sure we'll have that much in the way of carbon offsetting. Plus, if it is energy intensive, how does this help deal with the coal mining company practice of mountaintop removal?

 

This is biggest problem with modern Western culture.  It's based upon externalized costing.

post #83 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Wow, look at all the ignorant technological luddites in this forum. This isn't even GMO, it's essentially just culturing muscle tissue, the same way you culture skin cells for burn victims.  What's more fake, cultured muscle tissue, or cows pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormone and fed minced up brain matter from other cows, you've been eating for decades,

 

This story has nothing to do with AI, or mobile, the only reason it was linked on this site was to give zealots another stupid reason to try and bash Google. If Steve Jobs had been behind this, everyone would be falling to their knees praising how genius it is.

 

It's so sad to see people's derangement and bias on one particular issue (favorite company X phone vs opposing company Y), turn into blanket and knee-jerk opposition to anything.

 

 

The basic facts of the matter is, eating meat is a tremendous waste of two scarce resources: land and water. Telling people not to eat meat is like telling them not to drive cars. This project is the meat equivalent of an electric car. It's an attempt to preserve  a way of life without preserving the environmental damage.

 

(And honestly, someone who buys a wasteful and disposable product like a mobile phone or tablet which are constantly obsoleted every 2-3 years should not be criticizing meat eaters for environmental damage, given the toxic waste and human worker suffering produced by buying tech toys)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


You can't be so loosely put together that you would post this stuff seriously, as if you were trying to contribute to a real discussion...
... your posts are a mess. You make no sense. You are either being paid to post something, anything, negative, or you need to lay off the meth.

if you disagree with a poster, and claim his pretty straightforward posts makes no sense, that its a mess, try putting your fingers in your ears and make loud lala noises..im sure that way you can 'win'

 

I dont care for google practices either, but blind hatred of anything one of the founders is involved in is sad and pathetic. I enjoy my apple products, the way they work, and the way they well designed. I like Apple - they have been a decent company, with decent convictions, and long may it continue that way.  Im shocked at how easily some previously good contributors on this forum have suddenly become sad trolls

post #84 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

True that. People have no idea how gross factory farm livestock have become.

 

I'm fairly sure that chicken nuggets are actually raised exactly in nugget form now; no eyes or beak; and their feather turn into a golden batter just before it's time for them to roll into paper bags with large "M"s on the side.

 

Actually, it's AMR meat.  Automated Meat Recovery.  As described, it's basically taking all the gristle and tendons and such, pulverized and mixed with colouring(s) and seasoning(s) then pushed through a strainer/sieve to remove bone.  The paste is then shaped, battered, then deep fried.  Then it's deep frozen, shipped, then refried before consumption.

 

This is also how TV dinner meats are made.  And the term here meat is used lightly because a good percentage of it may not be meat at all (cereal fillers).  Most canned meats are done this way as well.

 

And people keep saying "we don't know about CAFO operations" so how can you say how bad this cultured meat product actually is.

 

It's bad.  It's no better than factory farming.  Just offers up a plausible improvement that will likely turn out to be worse than the problem as most commercialized science is biased to do.  You don't think these people are going to public offer up anything that would make this technology look bad, did you?

post #85 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by weejock View Post

This is not synthetic in the same way that quorn or other 'meat substitues' are trying to approximate beef or other meats from different base ingredients (ever heard of a 'tofurkey' or 'facon'? Eugh - look them up);
In general, I think it's important that we all try to keep an open mind about advances like this. We might not like it, but this and similar technologies may become necessary to feed the global population. I know that a much simpler solution would be for everybody to alter their diet to take in more vegetables and alternative sources of protein, but that's probably not very realistic. Who's up for making the switch to eating insects? Now there's an efficient source of protein for you!

I don't understand why people look down on meat substitutes. They make the conversion to vegetarianism easier and provide healthier and nutritious alternatives to meat even for habitual meat eaters. And many of these substitutes are not bad at all, they are just based on different ingredients and spices. I had home-made tofurkey for Thanksgiving last year and it was quite delicious. It was no meat, obviously, but that doesn't make it less tasty. If you want to be open minded about food, then you have to embrace these alternatives as well, it's by no means bad food.

 

Moreover, just because this lab meat could become the meat of the future doesn't mean that conventional meat suddenly disappears. Just as there is 'organic' meat now, there will be conventional meat too for those than can afford it if the lab meat takes off. It may also be that more people consider other eating habits and become pescetarians or vegetarians instead, these are on the rise too.

post #86 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I propose everybody eat an Apple a day instead.

That would be more fruitful.

Exactly. Maybe with billions of dollars spent in research we could find a way to take part of an apple, grow it in our back yard and make more apples … oh, wait a minute ...
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #87 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Wow! I'm gobsmacked at how seriously misinformed a number of you people really are.

Do you realize that the vast majority of the "meat" you eat now is so far removed from animals as to be considered coming from a different species of animal altogether?

Unless you're slaughtering yourself or get it from a local farm where you KNOW that it hasn't been injected with steroids, antibiotics and assorted "juices"... in addition to being manipulated at packaging time to be "just a bit redder and looking fresher"... you are NOT eating meat at all!

[.....]

 

Which is why I don't eat meat. My main reaction to this article is to the Brin photo... I feel like saying... take the f**king google glass of your face douchbag.

post #88 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by KALLT View Post

I don't understand why people look down on meat substitutes. They make the conversion to vegetarianism easier and provide healthier and nutritious alternatives to meat even for habitual meat eaters. And many of these substitutes are not bad at all, they are just based on different ingredients and spices. 
I had home-made tofurkey for Thanksgiving last year and it was quite delicious. It was no meat, obviously, but that doesn't make it less tasty. If you want to be open minded about food, then you have to embrace these alternatives as well, it's by no means bad food.


Moreover, just because this lab meat could become the meat of the future doesn't mean that conventional meat suddenly disappears. Just as there is 'organic' meat now, there will be conventional meat too for those than can afford it if the lab meat takes off. It may also be that more people consider other eating habits and become pescetarians or vegetarians instead, these are on the rise too.

I agree with you but I have a feeling this particular approach is akin to making horseless carriages with running boards (as the first cars did) simply because people assumed they would need them. The assumption here is to make food of the future it has to be beef or some animal we eat now. It is a reasonable assumption for sure as no doubt running boards were on cars at first, but perhaps we need to think outside the box.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #89 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I agree with you but I have a feeling this particular approach is akin to making horseless carriages with running boards (as the first cars did) simply because people assumed they would need them. The assumption here is to make food of the future it has to be beef or some animal we eat now. It is a reasonable assumption for sure as no doubt running boards were on cars at first, but perhaps we need to think outside the box.

As the professor responsible for this project pointed out, this is but one possible solution. It may very well be that next year another option comes up and that this lab meat may never take off. But the assumption that our unsustainable lifestock can be replaced by lab-produced meat is nevertheless a reasonable one, as meat has been eaten by humans since time immemorial and is not going to disappear from many people's plates anytime soon. Whether lab meat is the future all depends on further research and commercialisation prospects.

post #90 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Why don't they try to clone fish or chicken?

They aren't as damaging to the environment:



"In New Zealand, where cattle and sheep farming are major industries, 34 percent of greenhouse gases come from livestock."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm

Red meat is a high demand food so it's good to have a sustainable way to provide it:


Quote:
Originally Posted by nht 
When Gates or Brin or Cook does something cool with their money I applaud and ignore the petty tech rivalries

Google also invested in some form of quantum computer:

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/google-dwave/

"On the largest problem sizes tested, the V5 chip found optimal solutions in less than half a second, while the best classical software solver required 30 minutes to find those same solutions. This makes the D-Wave computer over 3,600 times faster than the classical computer in these tests."

http://www.gizmag.com/d-wave-quantum-computer-supercomputer-ranking/27476/

They also invested in renewable energy for their data centers:

http://www.bloomenergy.com/customer-fuel-cell/google-renewable-energy/

and Apple uses this too:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57424037-76/apple-data-center-helps-fuel-bloom-energy-move-to-east-coast/

I like to see large companies investing in new technologies like this too.
post #91 of 127
This story was posted on the wrong website. It has nothing to do with Apple. It has nothing to do with Apple competition. It has nothing to do with computing or portable personal devices.

That rant over, here's another: the concept is one I've been hoping to see developed since at least 2005 when I became vegetarian. I know that most of humanity despises the idea of veganism and is hostile to vegetarians. I know that the animal product industries are horrific and unsustainable and wasteful. So alternative sources for bulk meats and other animal products are required.

At the same time, I'm also worried a bit about the current mock meats I eat; humanity didn't evolve to process isolated vegetable proteins. Or anything isolated, for that matter. I consume lots of soy protein isolate because I am still habitualised to meat eating (which I will never do again). I wonder if cultured meat would be better or worse.

My betting chips are on "worse." But I'm hoping to be wrong.

Either way, it won't gain any traction in my lifetime. Like most other "game changing" technology plans, I'll be dead before there's any real large scale progress in anything good.
post #92 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by netrox View Post

so... what does it have to do with Apple?


An Apple a day...

post #93 of 127
Waiting for IDC to estimate market share in 5 yrs. Apple better release an iMeat substitute or they are doooomed.
post #94 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker View Post

Still, even without that, I'm not sure I'd want to eat that. Sort of could be Son of Pink Slime.

 

I was just wondering how this was any different than pink slime.  lol.gif

 

Insert Soylent Green or "To Serve Man" joke here.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #95 of 127
I think this perfectly sums up Google!!!
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

…know-nothing, instant gratitude, obsessed with triviality...

See, this is what makes me upset about a lot of funding, because we left the Moon and never went back, for example.
Quote:
Google could announce a cure for cancer…

I don't trust my address to Google; why would I trust them to operate on me?
post #97 of 127

If we want sustainable beef, we could rethink our farming practices instead of figuring out another way to create another food-like substance that will likely give us more disease. Watch this TED talk by Allan Savory. We could really increase our beef production, and make it better for us and our environment: http://www.savoryinstitute.com/2013/03/current/ted2013-standing-ovation-for-allan-savory/

 

I think pursuing this isn't necessarily a bad thing... for instance, if we are sending people to Mars, they will have to eat something, and I'm guessing it's not easy to ship a cow with them.

post #98 of 127

Five dollars says that the people who think this is a good idea are part of the same group who rail against Monsanto (those against engineer food) and think ethanol (those against using land resources for food) is a good idea.

Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #99 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinbc View Post
.... if we are sending people to Mars, they will have to eat something, and I'm guessing it's not easy to ship a cow with them.

This is a good point. Seriously.

post #100 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by weejock View Post

This is not synthetic in the same way that quorn or other 'meat substitues' are trying to approximate beef or other meats from different base ingredients (ever heard of a 'tofurkey' or 'facon'? Eugh - look them up); the point of this exercise was to determine whether or not it was possible to produce something that was authentically beef - genetically identical and made of real cow muscle cells. There are several different laboratories around the world researching along similar lines, the google-funded team is just the furthest ahead at the moment, and there is some really exciting progress being made. Overcoming the difficulty of interspersing muscle cells with fat cells would help to address the difference in taste that was noted with this burger, and there's the possibility of adding 'healthy' fats instead such as omega 3 fatty acids (although I realise that therein lies an entirely different debate).

Yeah there's work to be done with the taste:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/first-lab-grown-burger-is--like-a-protein-cake--143413831.html#PxMyITb

“Even if I had closed my eyes, I would have known the difference - it was crunchy, like a cake, and the texture was... surprising,” says Austrian food researcher Hanni Ruetzler.

Food writer Josh Schonwald says, “You mentioned the word cake - that’s what it was like... an animal protein cake.”

The burger looks much like a traditional one - a perfect pink disc with colour added from beetroot juice. In a frying pan, it sizzles like the real thing – although the way it goes brown is slightly artificial, like a frozen supermarket burger. It also seems to lack the smell of the real thing.

The burger has “lived” in a dish for three months - “shorter than it takes to grow a cow”.

The technology could be used to create anything from pork to chicken. More than one trillion cells can be grown from one cell taken from a cow, Post says - enough for ten tonnes of meat.

Current technology behind it could make beef at around $70 a kilo, Post says. He hopes that the price will come down as they research the subject further.

One of the problems Post’s project faces is that no one knows precisely what makes beef taste good.

“"Fat is important - and I think iron adds to the taste,” says Post. “But in meats there are 400 peptides, 400 aromatics - we don't know which one of those are important.”


If they get the taste and smell right and get the costs down, it could take off in a big way because of how quickly they can turn around the supply.
post #101 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

if you disagree with a poster, and claim his pretty straightforward posts makes no sense, that its a mess, try putting your fingers in your ears and make loud lala noises..im sure that way you can 'win'

I dont care for google practices either, but blind hatred of anything one of the founders is involved in is sad and pathetic. I enjoy my apple products, the way they work, and the way they well designed. I like Apple - they have been a decent company, with decent convictions, and long may it continue that way.  Im shocked at how easily some previously good contributors on this forum have suddenly become sad trolls

You missed the part where I said he is either a paid negative poster here or he has a drug problem that affects his ability to hold a two-sided conversation. And sure enough, he is now banned. I have no inside info as to why, but I imagine he was using a troll-associated address. He was consistently obstructionist. Sorry you didn't catch that.

I didn't say a word about Sergey Brin because I realize he's trying to do some good with his money. I have a lot of reservations about the wisdom of this project. If you watch the video, it's partly a commercial for the practice of beef-eating, which I find repellent. Millions of Indian vegetarians are right and the cow should be revered as a sacred animal, in my view. The focus should be on the obscene aspects of eating ground-up cow. Nobody wants to hear this stuff. Better to say nothing. Leave Mr. Brin to figure it out on his own since he certainly wouldn't be affected by anything I said here.

Same with that infuriating Google Glass. The reason that people instantly hate it so much when they see it on someone else is that it breaks a neurologically based rule about how we process faces, one of our deepest perceptual circuits. We respond positively to symmetrical faces and are helplessly repelled by asymmetry in faces. Glass breaks symmetry. I can't believe that Mr. Brin didn't figure this out on his own, or that no one in the Glass project saw it.

So, would you call my attitudes to Google's projects 'blind hatred'?
Edited by Flaneur - 8/6/13 at 8:18am
post #102 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


You missed the part where I said he is either a paid negative poster here or he has a drug problem that affects his ability to hold a two-sided conversation. And sure enough, he is now banned. I have no inside info as to why, but I imagine he was using a troll-associated address. He was consistently obstructionist. Sorry you didn't catch that.

I didn't say a word about Sergey Brin because I realize he's trying to do some good with his money. I have a lot of reservations about the wisdom of this project. If you watch the video, it's partly a commercial for the practice of beef-eating, which I find repellent. Millions of Indian vegetarians are right and the cow should be revered as a sacred animal, in my view. The focus should be on the obscene aspects of eating ground-up cow. Nobody wants to hear this stuff. Better to say nothing. Leave Mr. Brin to figure it out on his own since he certainly wouldn't be affected by anything I said here.

Same with that infuriating Google Glass. The reason that people instantly hate it so much when they see it on someone else is that it breaks a neurologically based rule about how we process faces, one of our deepest perceptual circuits. We respond positively to symmetrical faces and are helplessly repelled by asymmetry in faces. Glass breaks symmetry. I can't believe that Mr. Brin didn't figure this out on his own, or that no one in the Glass project saw it.

So, would you call my attitudes to Google's projects 'blind hatred'?

SO he is banned - maybe a troll - i know not nor care - but most of his posts in THIS thread have been clear, and reasonably well written, and they made a very good point. The blind hatred was not particularly directed at anyone, but at a majority of the negative haters on this site. I don't support the concept of leaving Brin to sort it out on his own - he may or may never read any articles here, but if anything encourages home to spend money on decent scientific endevours, that may play a small part in our future well being - then so be it.

I do like meat - two of my sons were strict vegans, now they remain vegetarians, to the point that if something may contain dairy, they will eat it. They successfully  encouraged me to eat much less meat... ITS BAD!!!!! and what i do eat i try to get from local producers. But I love a good steak now and then.

To all those saying its a bad idea - and its going to be bad for us cos its filled with chemicals - WAIT - we are still at proof of concept here - and seriously - we are not ALL going to become vegans any time soon - we have to stop wasting so much water and LAND for cows to graze. I visited an abattoir in my teens - disgusting - made me think - there has to be a better way in this technological age - and Brins just one of many that are helping progress some decent ideas.

 

As for glass - and sadly any article about Brin always seems to use a stock photo of him wearing the creepy goggle..... I for the most part hate where its going. Surely - for a surgeon, or military specialist, or a whole host of people - such hardware, with the right software could be very positive. The regular public - in public or in private meetings recording stuff like this is a future i dont want to be in.

As for the asymmetry, its rooted deep into our brains, its why so many otherwise talentless people exist in Hollywood, earn so much more, and are so much more 'respected' by the masses. In old war movies the nasty german officer always wears a monocle....

 

Is culture meat the answer to the land, water and killing of so many animals - or is the answer cutting down on meat? Maybe there will be more than one solution - but give Brin some credit for at least trying to help humanity, even if its a very small way.

 

One last thing - The British medical journal Lancet reported a study of 20,000 Indian patients and found that 60 per cent of the world’s heart disease patients are in India, which has 15 per cent of the world’s population.

post #103 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by KALLT View Post

I don't understand why people look down on meat substitutes. They make the conversion to vegetarianism easier and provide healthier and nutritious alternatives to meat even for habitual meat eaters. And many of these substitutes are not bad at all, they are just based on different ingredients and spices.
I had home-made tofurkey for Thanksgiving last year and it was quite delicious. It was no meat, obviously, but that doesn't make it less tasty. If you want to be open minded about food, then you have to embrace these alternatives as well, it's by no means bad food.

I didn't mean to sound negative about meat alternatives, I'm just less fond of the ones that imitate specific, identifiable animal products e.g. a turkey, bacon or fish-free prawns. Personally, I eat a lot of quorn but cook mainly with the mince, pieces or sometimes sausages or fillets; none of it is imitating a specific meat but I can use it in many recipes that I used to make with various meats.

I've managed to get a lot of my friends to try out meat alternatives, with much success. I'm not on a mission to convert them all to vegetarianism (I still eat real meat, just rarely) but there are so many recipes you can make that taste just as good with a meat substitute, not to mention all the fantastic things you can do with just vegetables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I like to see large companies investing in new technologies like this too.

Thanks very much for those links; some very interesting reading there. I agree that it's always encouraging to see big, influential companies investing outside of their core business areas. We'll never continue to make world-changing scientific discoveries unless there are people willing to invest in research just to see what happens.
post #104 of 127
Initially this does seem rather creepy. But its a very important development. The green house gas released in huge quantities by the global beef industry is methane, which is something like 20 to 100 times more potent than CO2 as a green house gas. With beef production increasing (about one third of the Earth's land area is currently given over to livestock already!) to meet huge demand this is a very scary scenario that will rabidly increase the rate of global warming. Which doesn't just mean the melting of the ice-caps and rising sea levels. But much more dangerous - the permanent melt-off of the Siberian permafrost, resulting in untold millions more tons of stored Siberian methane evaporating and being released into the atmosphere. Resulting in an unrelenting vicious cycle of global warming that will accelerate out of control, eventually turning Earth into something more reminiscent of Venus than our current nice temperate planet...and all that entails.
Edited by 1983 - 8/6/13 at 9:41am
post #105 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I didn't say a word about Sergey Brin because I realize he's trying to do some good with his money. I have a lot of reservations about the wisdom of this project. If you watch the video, it's partly a commercial for the practice of beef-eating, which I find repellent. Millions of Indian vegetarians are right and the cow should be revered as a sacred animal, in my view. The focus should be on the obscene aspects of eating ground-up cow. Nobody wants to hear this stuff. Better to say nothing. Leave Mr. Brin to figure it out on his own since he certainly wouldn't be affected by anything I said here.

 

I too have reservations about the wisdom of trying to make artificial cow/hamburger. Anyone in their right mind would be working on BACON. Humankind can live forever without hamburger, but wouldn't last a generation without BACON. What was Brin thinking???

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #106 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I too have reservations about the wisdom of trying to make artificial cow/hamburger. Anyone in their right mind would be working on BACON. Humankind can live forever without hamburger, but wouldn't last a generation without BACON. What was Brin thinking???

You don't mess with bacon.
post #107 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

 

I too have reservations about the wisdom of trying to make artificial cow/hamburger. Anyone in their right mind would be working on BACON. Humankind can live forever without hamburger, but wouldn't last a generation without BACON. What was Brin thinking???

Agreed - there are so many recipes saved by bacon! and Pigs are so much smarter than cows - (see Animal Farm) If I had a spare $350K I would invest in cultured bacon.

post #108 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

And what type of Apple?  A Macintosh?   

 

They haven't come up with an iPad Apple did they?  

They're actually called McIntosh applies ;)

post #109 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

. . . One last thing - The British medical journal Lancet reported a study of 20,000 Indian patients and found that 60 per cent of the world’s heart disease patients are in India, which has 15 per cent of the world’s population.

Well, you'd want to know the vegetarian vs. carnivore factor in that study. And if vegetarian, the amount of ghee or hydrogenated fat, etc., in the diet. Otherwise, it's meaningless for our point here.

Good point about the monocle on the villains. I suppose twisted faces are in the same Hollywood bag. And Alfred E. Newman.

The treacherous thing about Glass is that it further exacerbates the split-brain problem that plagues our civilization. Notice that they tend to put it over the right eye, meaning they're addressing the detail-obsessed, holistically challenged left brain. This is a disaster in the making. They should have made it binocular. Sergey Brin is the kind of guy who would wear toe shoes in public.
post #110 of 127

Think about star trek.  The food replicator.  That's the future.

post #111 of 127
Umm, and the meat we are eating today is not sustainable exactly WHY?

Has anyone besides me ever been in a real airplane? You know, you go to the airport, you go through security, you sit in a REAL AIRPLANE with a REAL PILOT and you go down the runway really, really fast and you fly?

And has anyone ever looked out that little window? Tell me, did you see cityscapes from horizon to horizon? No? Golly, wonder what could be done with all that ground beneath you? Maybe some of that land could be "farmed"? Perhaps some of that land could raise "cattle", "pigs" and "chickens"? You know, the stuff from what we actually get real "meat". Here's a hint - "real meat" tastes exactly like "real meat". Just like mankind has been eating for millennia.
post #112 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen View Post

Think about star trek.  The food replicator.  That's the future.

Well, I don't know if the Star Trek replicator used stem cell research....

 

I have to taste it, pass it through my lower intestine and see if it's any good.   Remember those Lays WOW potato chips that caused intestinal issues with Olestra? Yeah, eat some Lay's WOW potato chips and then an hour later you're in the john saying WOW.  Maybe that's where they got the name from.

post #113 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar View Post

Umm, and the meat we are eating today is not sustainable exactly WHY?

Has anyone besides me ever been in a real airplane? You know, you go to the airport, you go through security, you sit in a REAL AIRPLANE with a REAL PILOT and you go down the runway really, really fast and you fly?

And has anyone ever looked out that little window? Tell me, did you see cityscapes from horizon to horizon? No? Golly, wonder what could be done with all that ground beneath you? Maybe some of that land could be "farmed"? Perhaps some of that land could raise "cattle", "pigs" and "chickens"? You know, the stuff from what we actually get real "meat". Here's a hint - "real meat" tastes exactly like "real meat". Just like mankind has been eating for millennia.

you know i have - well after city cities and towns, and urban development, there is TONS of space..... much of it not easily made into farmland, (water soil etc) but lots of trees and, if we find a way of producing more water (yes there is a worldwide shortage) we can keep cutting down the trees....

this is from worls wide preservation foundation - they have some interest in sustainability...

 

...deforestation emits 2.9 gigatons of carbon annually, more than a quarter of all human caused emissions31. A steep reduction in animal agriculture would therefore rapidly reduce these emissions and the associated soil carbon loss that occurs when forests are cleared to pasture then grazed32.

In Brazil, where deforestation rates are highest, pressure on forests to make way for grazing lands and feed crops is immense. Brazil has 200 million cattle, and plans to double this number. Already, 65-70% of all Brazilian forest clearing is directly for cattle ranching and a further 20% for livestock feed crops33 

post #114 of 127
No way I'm going to eat that. Ever.

"Vat-grown beef"? You've got to be kidding.

Next up, Soylent Green. Yeah!

I mean, if you'll eat the VGB, why not the SG?

Synthetic Meat. Wow.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to purge my diet of anything containing HFCS (including crystallized fructose), Hydrogenated oils, Aspertame and anything-GMO. It's a surprisingly and increasingly difficult battle. Even more difficult is avoiding the ubiquitous, exponentially increasing "chemical additives". I'm REDUCING, not increasing my consumption of meats as a primary protein source, beef in particular (aside from the fact that the way it's produced in "large scale factories" now is so utterly heinous).

How can I remotely consider putting "synthetic meat" into my body, when I'm already doing battle AGAINST 'synthesized foods' on so many fronts?

ALL I want are Organically grown fresh fruit, vegetables, grains, seeds, and nuts. Organically raised (e.g. grass fed) fowl, livestock, and wild (and sustainably) caught seafood.

If Brin would put the same kind of time, energy and money into these concepts, we might have something to applaud.

Synthetic, lab-grown meat? Not so much...
post #115 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

No way I'm going to eat that. Ever.

"Vat-grown beef"? You've got to be kidding.

Next up, Soylent Green. Yeah!

I mean, if you'll eat the VGB, why not the SG?

Synthetic Meat. Wow.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to purge my diet of anything containing HFCS (including crystallized fructose), Hydrogenated oils, Aspertame and anything-GMO. It's a surprisingly and increasingly difficult battle. Even more difficult is avoiding the ubiquitous, exponentially increasing "chemical additives". I'm REDUCING, not increasing my consumption of meats as a primary protein source, beef in particular (aside from the fact that the way it's produced in "large scale factories" now is so utterly heinous).

How can I remotely consider putting "synthetic meat" into my body, when I'm already doing battle AGAINST 'synthesized foods' on so many fronts?

ALL I want are Organically grown fresh fruit, vegetables, grains, seeds, and nuts. Organically raised (e.g. grass fed) fowl, livestock, and wild (and sustainably) caught seafood.

If Brin would put the same kind of time, energy and money into these concepts, we might have something to applaud.

Synthetic, lab-grown meat? Not so much...

And who's stem cells are they using???????  

 

Maybe it will create chunks of guys like Sergey Brin in our stool.  

post #116 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Funny the responses to someone trying to help humanity. What has Apple or Tim Cook been working on that helps humanity?

 

Do you REALLY believe that this multi-billionaire, standing there ogling you with his omnipresent Google Glass, is funding the development of "synthetic hamburger meat" to "help humanity"?

 

Oh, you poor misguided soul...

post #117 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

And who's stem cells are they using???????  

 

Maybe it will create chunks of guys like Sergey Brin in our stool.  

 

Ew.

 

But it's a good question. Is the cow they derived the stem cells from a genetically modified variety? 

 

e.g. Test tube sheep clones providing stem cells for vat-grown "synthetic ground lamb meat"?

 

ew….. seriously.

 

 

I can see the advertising now… some frothy commentator and a "babe" fawning over a 'burger' saying, "I can't believe it's not BEEF!"

 

*gag*

post #118 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This is a good point. Seriously.

 

Why would we take any kind of meats on a mission to Mars? There are so many fine, lighter weight and nutritional alternatives for the protein and nutritional sources we would need for a long trip like that. 

 

Things like Kalbasa… and Italian Sausage… chicken tenders and corn dogs, ooh, Oscar Mayer Bologna and Armour Knackwurst!

 

Who needs processed, synthetic meats!? Oh, wait...

post #119 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

Agreed - there are so many recipes saved by bacon! and Pigs are so much smarter than cows - (see Animal Farm) If I had a spare $350K I would invest in cultured bacon.

 

Charm School for Pigs?

post #120 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporlo View Post

They're actually called McIntosh applies ;)

 

Correct. A Macintosh (sp variant of Mackintosh) is actually a long, waterproof coat. A raincoat basically.

 

But the riff on the apple name is a good one nonetheless :))

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's Brin funds $332K lab-grown beef hamburger, looks to make meat a sustainable resource