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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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. <span style="line-height:1.231;">And many of these substitutes are not bad at all, they are just based on different ingredients and spices. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">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.</span>
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
Comments
FaceTime
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
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
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by weejock
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.
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 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
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.
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:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netrox
so... what does it have to do with Apple?
An Apple a day...
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker
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.
Insert Soylent Green or "To Serve Man" joke here.
See, this is what makes me upset about a lot of funding, because we left the Moon and never went back, for example.
I don't trust my address to Google; why would I trust them to operate on me?
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinbc
.... 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.