Printed meat - an interesting addition to the debate

ZenBadger

Just read this BBC News - Printed Beef? and it got me thinking. Is it really a good use of dwindling resources to create magic meat from tanks of gunk when there are perfectly good non-meat dishes out there to eat? Personally I don't eat meat because I hate the taste and it makes me feel quite ill (apparently I lack certain enzymes that make digesting meat more efficient), but I'm guessing that there is a sizable group of people out there who eschew the burger because of the cruelty inherent in the process who might be interested. Would a more skillful use of this technology be weaning people off meat gradually while cutting the cruelty almost instantly. Not sure what we would do with all those cows though.

So how do you feel about printing a nice cruelty-free sirloin out for Sunday lunch?

federica

I too don't eat meat, and although I like to add the moral grounds, I too, have a problem adequately processing the protein. So I'm not as virtuous as I'd like to think I am, because truth be known, I actually enjoy the taste, and I DO miss it....

That said, there are experiments everywhere, attempting to genetically produce meat in laboratories, which have proven successful. (We've discussed them on this forum before....)

it's now a question of presenting that meat to people in a way that will comfort them to know they are eating the absolutely bona-fide genuine article - it's just that an animal didn't have to die to produce it.

Zayl

My goodness that looks absolutely vile.

BhikkhuJayasara

well this is one step closer to what you see on star trek when you order up some food hehe. I process meat quite well and continue to eat meat although when/if I become a monk i'm ok with Tofu and stuff like that.. I'm pretty adaptable.

as long as the printed food isn't worse then the processed food we eat today already, I'll take it.

something like this may also be good for the planned mission to mars. One of their issues is figuring out food for the 2 year journey.

black_tea

I see no ethical issue in this since an animal didn't have to be slaughtered. That is providing of course that the techniques to make it don't cause any kind of weird health or environmental problems I suppose. It doesn't sound appealing to me though. I recently gave up meat completely after eating a fairly low meat diet for several years, and I find that eating food that showcases veggies at their best and tastiest to be vastly preferable to seeking out meat substitutes. But it could be much more difficult to give up meat if one was going from eating it at every dinner time -- in that case perhaps having an option like this could be beneficial.

Zayl

My question is thus. Is it alive? I mean, I'm not asking if it is aware of course, it is just a strip of muscle. But I mean, does it still count as alive?

person

Printer ink is sooo dang expensive. :buck:

novaw0lf

Along with reading, I watched the video. Before it got even thirty seconds in, my mind immediately began picturing cloning techniques in the future. Regenerative medicine, food, toys, weapons, and other materials...I foresee this completely shaping the next era of human civilization.

On the bright side, technology such as this will save and prolong lives, and stop animal cruelty; on the dark side, this technology will drastically affect the economy put many people out of work, and the prolonging and saving of life will multiply an already exponentially increasing population on every continental plate. This means that our natural resources will drain at an even higher rate. I feel that bio-printing is the inevitable next step for the human race, but it will also mean that with so many mouths to feed as populations increase, we are being pushed even closer to an inevitable climax of war and peace.

For example: nationalist egos are becoming overbearing, if any of you have been paying attention to the news recently; the Diaoyu Dao incident has been a major political conundrum here in China, that I believe isn't getting nearly as much public coverage in the west. People have lost their homes in riots, their businesses, and their vehicles.

Space on this planet is running out, and so are natural resources. Necessity is the mother of invention, and like a scale, as the weight of the human race upon the earth begins to swell and swell...something else (as per the natural laws of the universe) has to give.

From the first-person view of morality, this is a wonderful opportunity to end animal cruelty; from the bird's-eye view of morality, this is absolutely terrible for the planet. This is a conundrum: we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The only answer is to expand, but to where?

Since America no longer has an official space program because of its debt, space activity has been divided among private contractors. I only hope that there's some kind of terraforming technology also in the works, lest this wonderful new technology may seem like a wonderful addition to human life on a massive scale, would actually be an unexpected aid in mankind's undoing.

vinlyn

novaw0lf said:

...

Since America no longer has an official space program because of its debt, space activity has been divided among private contractors. I only hope that there's some kind of terraforming technology also in the works, lest this wonderful new technology may seem like a wonderful addition to human life on a massive scale, would actually be an unexpected aid in mankind's undoing.

Although not as vibrant as it once was, NASA remains very active. What has diminished substantially is NASA's manned space program.

novaw0lf

Where is their funding coming from?

vinlyn

novaw0lf said:

Where is their funding coming from?

The same place it's always come from...just less.

novaw0lf

I'll have to do more research. I thought I had a more reliable source of information.

vinlyn

Suggest you go to Wikipedia. There's a very nice graph there that shows the level of federal funding for NASA for the space program since its inception. What has been pretty well shut down is manned space exploration at this time.

novaw0lf

There is a reason why Wikipedia isn't allowed as a primary source by many college professors in America. Though, Wikipedia has been making serious reforms to its policies in order to become a more respected and reliable source of global information.

Cinorjer

Eh, soy hamburgers, soy milk, soy bacon..."soylent green is people" might not have been such a fantasy. Considering the consumers in the US just threw a fit over something called "pink slime" being used in mass produced fast food burgers, getting people to accept meat created from a huge tank of slime?

As for non-suffering meat, I believe vegetarians also tout the health benefits of nonmeat diets, so it's probably going to take a vegetarian version where algae filled tanks print out fake carrots and beans before they buy into it.

webster26

I couldn't believe this when I saw it! Meat, from a printer?! Witchcraft surely!

ZenBadger

Cinorjer said:

Considering the consumers in the US just threw a fit over something called "pink slime" being used in mass produced fast food burgers, getting people to accept meat created from a huge tank of slime?

Yes, I would want to know where the raw cells came from as well as all the organic components used in the printer, and how they were produced. I'm guessing that such a machine would have to have a refrigerant to keep the raw materials safe and a heater to make it all grow and so on. The energy requirements would seem to be considerable.

vinlyn

novaw0lf said:

There is a reason why Wikipedia isn't allowed as a primary source by many college professors in America. Though, Wikipedia has been making serious reforms to its policies in order to become a more respected and reliable source of global information.

Then just forget it. You just want to believe what you believe. Go spend hours doing your own research and then eventually come down to the basic facts which are accurately posted on Wikipedia.

No one ever said Wikipedia is an exhaustive research tool. But we're not doing exhaustive research here.

Perhaps you'll believe NASA, the White House, and the Office Of Management & Budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/nasa.pdf

novaw0lf

vinlyn said:

novaw0lf said:

There is a reason why Wikipedia isn't allowed as a primary source by many college professors in America. Though, Wikipedia has been making serious reforms to its policies in order to become a more respected and reliable source of global information.

Then just forget it. You just want to believe what you believe. Go spend hours doing your own research and then eventually come down to the basic facts which are accurately posted on Wikipedia.

No one ever said Wikipedia is an exhaustive research tool. But we're not doing exhaustive research here.

Perhaps you'll believe NASA, the White House, and the Office Of Management & Budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/nasa.pdf

Whoa there buddy...sensitive, much? No, I do not want to believe just what I want to believe. My statement was a compliment for wikipedia, not an insult. And I noticed you said "we", do you work for wikipedia?

You totally misread what I wrote.

There -is- a reason why Wikipedia isn't allowed as a primary source by many college proffessors, this is true...but I didn't say it wasn't reliable. Pay attention to the syntax of my English.

I wouldn't have said: "Wikipedia has been making serious reforms to its policies "

or "I'll have to do more research. I thought I had a more reliable source of information. "

if you were actually reading what I wrote, you'd realize that I was having more faith in Wikipedia than -my- sources.

Chill out.