Would you eat lab-grown meat? Why or why not?

Did you say the same about GMOs and GEOs?

If rather have a 100% lab grown beef burgers than a 10% beef 20%wheat 70% onions burger that we have today at mcdonald’s

There are thousands of ingredients in our food that has only been around for the last 20-30 years, do you live solely off food you grow in your own allotment?

>What nutritional benefits would it offer over normal beef?

How does zero risk of prion disease sound?

No thanks, keep your processed slop

Attached: ew.png (250x202, 8K)

beef contains vitamin A because cows can convert stuff in grass into it, grain-feed beef has way less vitamin A, how would they do this with lab grown meat?

Can't wait to eat bald eagle, bengal tiger or polar bear.

Shit will be wild.

Could we grow human tissues and consume those?
Wouldn't that be the best way to get the proper nutrients to build more in our own bodies?

I'd sooner learn to hunt and go to all that effort than eat that fake shite

We evolved not to eat ourselves, because the tribes who didn't do that (in winter climates) survived longterm more often. More trust. So anytime someone got a mutation in their diet that caused issues when eating human meat, they still had progeny without issue. Anytime someone mutated the a more favorable digestive system to eat human meat, it did not do them any good for future survival to parenthood because they didn't use it. Repeat for 50,000 generations.

>BBQ-ing some lab-grown dick-meat for hot-dogs

That’ll probably be expensive as fuck, might as well go black market and eat some philipino who couldn’t pay his debts. To unethical for any major lab to produce for purposes other than organ transplants

Only if it has very similar micros/macros and taste.

Inferior to real meat in both taste and nutrition. No
>plagueofstrength.com/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is/
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529694/#!po=57.9365
>suppversity.blogspot.de/2016/10/latest-study-shows-that-33-gkg-high.html
>ajcn.nutrition.org/content/42/1/127
>breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health

Attached: 1500562164774.jpg (580x326, 53K)

Just eat plants

Attached: fullsizeoutput_1af1-uai-2880x3508.jpg (2880x3508, 1.68M)

Well, it's either lab-grown meat or insects like a third world street shitter...

If it is actually nutritionally equal to real meat and cheaper, than yes. Assuming I was confident that aren't going to be long-term effects on health.

sometimes yes, as long as they dont make it with cholesterol and a ton of saturated fat but i guess they have to add saturated fat to make it taste similiar to meat.

EW gross no. i'll stick to real life tendies thank you very much.

Attached: main_pink-slime.jpg (840x565, 56K)

If it tastes and costs the same I couldn't care less.

I'm vegetaria so I'm pretty hyped desu

The biggest issue that lab grown meat is trying to address is climate change. This has nothing to do with bullshit animal morality. It doesn't take anything more than not being medically retarded to realize how fucking stupid such a concept is, and no one would invest millions into developing something like this upon such a stupid principal.

Lab grown meat uses less resources and pollutes less than alternatives. Since no one wants to go vegetarian or drive an electric car for some fucking reason, this is supposed to satisfy your need for meat without threatening the survival of the species, which if you ask me is a completely fucking pointless cause fuck all you fucking faggots, i hope you all die and me especially

This real human bean gathers rain water to drink and lives without the fruits of scientific discovery to survive. Just fucking kidding you're retarded.

it is impossible for fake meat to ever replicate real meat but so many idiots like people who fall for the 'fats and cholesterol are bad' misinformation will fall for it that it will be impossible or nearly impossible to get the real stuff. just like what's happened to real dairy in the US. real farms which are the only source of real food will vanish for 99 percent of people

>it is impossible for fake meat to ever replicate real meat
How so?

Yeah that's actually good. The human population cannot be sustained with "ReAl FooOd" (you've never constructed a coherent thought in your life). We can continue with real food, but we will run out and everyone will starve to death so its whatever man, suck my fucking dick homo juesus christ

Not him but meat is a pretty complex substance with various bacteria and enzymes. I don't think it would be the same until we have the technology to grow an entire cow from scratch.

The human population can be sustained with food, the African population can’t.

>Would you eat lab-grown meat?
yeah
>Why ?
I am vegan

Tell me why processed meat will definitely be so healthy then user? Just artificially feeding and growing cells into clumps of meat offers very little nutritional value and who know what negative effects it will have

If they can make it so it's cheaper, leaner and more nutritional than regular meat, while tasting on par or better it's not going to be a hard sell.

youtu.be/NxvQPzrg2Wg

>Just artificially feeding and growing cells into clumps of meat offers very little nutritional value

It’s the same nutrients. They’re just in isolation instead of in the form of corn and grass.

>and who know what negative effects it will have

The same process is used to grow replacement tissues for burn victims. It’s safe.

Lot of fake meat shills itt

none of it even looks like real meat yet. Going to stick to steak until this stuff improves at lot, at the moment it's just another meme

Attached: e3ce4eb1741bd76cc083424453c0e3f39d147f9b.jpg (600x750, 88K)

no, it's impossible to recreate the nutrition with current science

None of this even looks like a real argument yet. Looks like your brain is gonna have to improve a lot, at the moment you're just another meme.

>1500 ad
>its impossible to recreate the flying abilities of birds with current science
>less than 500 years later
>science allows humans to literally fly to the moon

>Not converting grass into meat like how a cow does
Not interested

Fuck off vegan.

Obviously I'm not retarded

Unless it were critically different in some way

Yes but only if:
>has the same or better nutritional value
>it's high in protein
>same taste
>is commercially available at a reasonable price

I'm not even vegan. I literally just ate an egg, 5 minutes ago. I just think that if global temperatures rise past a certain point, it will threaten the survival of all of humanity on a scale worse than any we have ever seen. There is lots of evidence for this. There is also clear and obvious evidence that a diet rich in meat contributes to such problems. Imagine how much effort and resources it takes to raise a 2000lb animal such as the fucking cow. All the food given to the cow could instead just be fucking eaten, isn't that a mind blowing idea. Blow me . The end.

oh boy! I can't wait to eat holo-meat in 500 years!

>I just think that if global temperatures rise past a certain point
How high? temperatures have been much higher in the past at differing CO2 levels.

>All the food given to the cow could instead just be fucking eaten
You know cows can live off grass alone right?

i cant wait for your miserable existence to be eventually converted into compost

>temperatures have been much higher in the past at differing CO2 levels.
skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

thank you stefan-senpai... n-not an argument

Assuming they don't have to add all the hormones or S O Y they add to beef now, I'd eat it. Makes me suspicious that one of the forefront companies pioneering it is in Israel however.

If it's nutritionally the same or better, tastes the same or better, and costs the same or less, sure. I don't fucking care.

Every single time this question comes up in real life, everyone gives the above answer. Anyone that says anything else in this thread is randomly assuming where it will fall in those three categories or sperging for (((you)))s.

I know what the greenhouse effect is you sped.
That doesn't negate the observations.

Humans can also live off of things that are not meat although i don't expect you to care or be not enough of a bitch to try eating more than what your mom introduced to you when you 5 or whatever.

Additionally, even though temperatures have been different in the past at different CO2 levels has no effect on the fact that
1. There are higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere than at any point in human existence
2. This will cause the temperature of the earth to increase
3. The increased temperature of the earth will cause massive flooding, more dangerous weather, food shortages, disease, death blah blah blah who the fuck actually gives a shit about this what the fuck, science never gave me a bitch to suck my dick. I have literally never had a girl suck my dick, do you understand me you fucking piece of shit faggot.

You too, faggot. Enjoy eating bull's nipples for protein.

Attached: ishygddt steiner.png (238x211, 8K)

You sure do a lot of assuming. That stick is really jammed in there huh?

That looks like fucking shit no thanks

did you actually read?
it's not just explaining the greenhouse effect you bimbo...

You sure do a lot of not sucking my dick, what the fuck is your god damn problem

Attached: 1428623660556.jpg (327x305, 57K)

You're missing the whole point, why would I eat bulls nipples if its more costly to raise a bull to maturity for nipple harvesting when there are other sources of protein.

I mentioned temperature, you then started babbling about CO2. I've no reason to read your shitty blogposts

>Being this mad

>just eat starch

I mean yeah its gonna suck, but Is everyone dying of starvation gonna suck less?

>Being this incapable of formulating a reply to my post that doesn't mention my sexual insecurity and actually addresses the points I made.

like a top-tier retard you stated
>temperatures have been much higher in the past at differing CO2 levels.
So i sent you 3 relevant, thoroughly cited "blogposts" that discredit the moronic opinion you are repeating

Unironically if I could get my needed nutrients from flavored holograms I’d be happy

I mean so what my first sexual experience was with a man, is this really relevant to the topic at hand? Im trying to discuss the implications of eating meat and how it negatively affects the whole of humanity in its current state

Your blogposts are opinion. Only one of which addresses "CO2 higher in past"
>relevant

Did I say higher CO2? I said temperature was higher, got another blog post about that?
You'll also notice I've not made any claims about CO2, yet you're still assmad about something

If it tastes the same, is cheaper and healthier, I would.

Giant tortoise man, legendarily good meat

It could potentially be better than actual meat, because you could produce it in a controlled environment with no need of pumping a cow with antibiotics and such

clearly you're too spastic to make such an incredibly basic link as follows:
>temperatures have been much higher in the past at differing CO2 levels
implies a lack of correlation between temperature and CO2,
hence: skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
The "opinion" is grounded in multitude of scientific literature which is all cited for your convenience. sorry it's not neatly condensed into a flashy youtube video.

Holy shit, didn't even think about that, can't wait to eat a fucking t rex

>implies a lack of correlation between temperature and CO2,
It doesn't.
Were temperatures higher in the past at differing CO2 levels or not?

Or just admit that you misspoke when you said temperature when you meant CO2

Safe? Tasty? Cheap?

Sure, why not.

Attached: 1549524489754.jpg (1065x1600, 282K)

>cuckgesatz
fuck off

>It doesn't.
So you agree that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels? Ok.
>Were temperatures higher in the past at differing CO2 levels or not?
Jesus christ, CO2 is not the ONLY driver of climate. There can and have been multiple factors over time. This is elementary shit, mate. So yes, there will have been variations in temperature and CO2 levels at various points in time. This does not negate the fact that CO2 is currently the dominant driver of climate change.

Were temperatures higher in the past at differing CO2 levels or not?

>So yes, there will have been variations in temperature and CO2 levels at various points in time.
I don't know off the top of my head, but it's possible. It would be nice if you could give an example but I'll say yes for the sake of argument.
>CO2 is not the ONLY driver of climate.
>There can be multiple factors at play.
>This does not negate the fact that CO2 is CURRENTLY the dominant driver of climate change.

Attached: last_400000_years.png (410x325, 60K)

That was easy huh?

It's very difficult for you to think about more then one think at a time isn't it?
>The fact that other climate-influencing factors in the past may have been more dominant than CO2, does not negate the fact that CO2 is currently the dominant driver.
Do you understand this statement or are you really that dense?

You keep assuming my opinions on things and then getting mad about it.

>The fact that other climate-influencing factors in the past may have been more dominant than CO2, does not negate the fact that CO2 is currently the dominant driver.
I didn't state anything to the contrary to this

Ok, so what's your point with this statement now that we've established it does not negate the fact that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate change today?

What statement?
You thought you found a 'Denier' and were going to put le epic smackdown like some r/atheism fedora tipper.
Yet you just got mad over nothing

Yeah i did assume you were a denier.
You realise just because there are certain natural phenomena science hasn't yet explained does not mean you can insert God as an explanantion. "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information

>You realise just because there are certain natural phenomena science hasn't yet explained does not mean you can insert God as an explanantion. "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information
Who are you talking to?

>evolution is only a theory
fucking hell, another one of these retard.
This phrase rests on the common use of "theory" to mean what scientists call a "hypothesis," i.e., is something that is possible but not proven. Science, however, uses "theory" in a much different sense, namely as a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or observation. This sets it at a significantly higher level of reasoning than "wild and unproven guess," which is what is implied when this argument is mentioned. Also unlike "wild guesses", scientific theory is among the best explanations for phenomena, and scientists who successfully create new theories will often be famous. As Sheldon Cooper once said, "Evolution isn't an opinion, it's fact."[26] Note that creationists don't say that gravity is "only a theory." And if anyone says you can't directly observe evolution, send them to Professor Lenski.

I'm being rused aren't I

Name two.

Temperature is dependent on CO2.