If it was really indistinguishable from normal meat then I would feel a little disappointed that they hadn't taken the opportunity to make it more consistently tender, remove gristly bits, not have inconvenient bones, and so on. If it was like meat but with the annoying misfeatures fixed then I'd pay a premium for that.
If they could produce it at a lower resource cost than ordinary meat but then charged more for it than ordinary meat, I would probably feel that was excessive profiteering! (And no doubt they'd use their patents to go after anyone who tried to set up in competition and actually pass the savings on to the customer.)
Surely resource cost and financial cost are not the same thing. I think the cost we're talking about here is, in specific, the cost to the ecosystem which meat-eating causes (though people disagree hugely about the magnitude of this). It's wholly possible there will be a point where the artificial meat is much better in terms of resource usage but must worse in terms of financial cost.
Depends entirely on the meat and the farming method... and the current reports are pretty varied -- amount of water is a factor of two out between reports which is larger than the difference reported for most types of meat (beef seeming to be the stand out exception).
The initial reports on meat production CO2 used some dodgy methodology but it does seem likely there's an effect.
If you converted those tables to calories not weight then things look quite different -- e.g. calories/litre of water then chicken and pork comes out better than soybeans which turn out to be pretty poor. Out of all of them milk turns out to be absolutely excellent as does potatoes and wheat.
So I guess if we took it all seriously we would not avoid meat per se, but would avoid (or minimise) beef and soybeans taking instead chicken, eggs, milk, wheat, pork...
I don't drive, never have. I'm doing a degree in mechanical and energy engineering *specifically* to end the fossil fuel industry. It's either pedal or natural power
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
If they could produce it at a lower resource cost than ordinary meat but then charged more for it than ordinary meat, I would probably feel that was excessive profiteering! (And no doubt they'd use their patents to go after anyone who tried to set up in competition and actually pass the savings on to the customer.)
no subject
no subject
the environmental cost of meat is bloody silly. The waste of fresh water alone would make your eyes bleed.
animal slaughter is unpleasant, but curiously not my main concern. I'd go synthetic just to make the process less intensive
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
The initial reports on meat production CO2 used some dodgy methodology but it does seem likely there's an effect.
If you converted those tables to calories not weight then things look quite different -- e.g. calories/litre of water then chicken and pork comes out better than soybeans which turn out to be pretty poor. Out of all of them milk turns out to be absolutely excellent as does potatoes and wheat.
So I guess if we took it all seriously we would not avoid meat per se, but would avoid (or minimise) beef and soybeans taking instead chicken, eggs, milk, wheat, pork...
no subject
no subject
(If you don't have an SUV buy one.)
no subject
:)