68

lab grown meat is a vaguely EA/rationalist/self IDed neolib meme. in theory it will save the environment (ok) and prevent suffering (yay) in a way that concentrates capital (double yay) and involves a lot of tech magic (triple yay).

hot luigi is a big fan apparently. seeing this discussed reminded me of this excellent article which shreds the concept of mass produced lab grown meat. I haven't really seen this circulate much over the years, but it is really a masterwork of grift dissection. please enjoy

archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20241208141305/https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-scale/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] o7___o7@awful.systems 2 points 1 day ago

The riff-raff have brought us a graft grift.

[-] V0ldek@awful.systems 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Very good read, but throughout I can't help but say to myself "ye so the issue is scale. AS ALWAYS"

This is a tale as old as time. Fusion energy is here! Quantum computers will revolutionise the world! Lab-grown meat! All based on actual scientific experiments and progress, but tiny, one-shot experiments under best-case conditions. There is no reason to think it brings us closer to a future where those are commonplace, except for a very nebulous technical meaning of "closer" as "yes, time has passed". There is no reason to think this would ever scale in any way! Like, there is a chance that e.g. fusion energy at any meaningful scale is just... impossible? Like, physically impossible to do. Or a stable quantum computer able to run Doom. Or lab-grown meat on a supermarket shelf. Every software engineer should understand this, we know there are ideas that work only when they're in a limited setting (number of threads, connections, size of input, whatever).

The media is always terrible at communicating this. Science isn't fucking magic, the fact that scientists were able to put one more qubit into their quantum computer means literally nothing to you, because the answer to "when will we have personal quantum computers" is "what? how did you get into my lab?". We have no idea. 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Likely never? Which number can I pull out of my ass for you to fuck off and let me do my research in peace? Of course, science is amazing, reading about those experiments is extremely interesting and cool as all fuck, but for some fucking reason the immediate reaction of the general public is "great, how quickly can we put a pricemark on it".

And this leads to this zeitgeist where the next great "breakthrough" is just around the corner and is going to save us all. AI will fix the job market! Carbon capture will fix climate change! Terraforming Mars will solve everything! Sit the fuck down and grow up, this is not how anything works. I don't even know where this idea of "breakthroughs" comes from, the scientific process isn't an action movie with three acts and a climax, who told you that? What even was the last technological "breakthrough"? Transistors were invented like 70yrs ago, but it wasn't an immediate breakthrough, it required like 40yrs of work on improving vacuum tubes to get there. And that was based on a shitton of work on electric theory from the XIX century. It was a slow process of incremental scientific discoveries across nations and people, which culminated in you having an iPhone 200 years later. And that's at least based on something we can actually easily observe in the natural world (and, funnily enough, we still don't have a comprehensive theory of how lightning storms even form on Earth). With fusion you're talking about replicating the heart of a star here on Earth, with lab grown meat you're talking about growing flesh in defiance of gods, and you think it's an overnight thing where you'll wake up tomorrow and suddenly bam we just have cold fusion and hot artificial chicken?

I hate how everyone seems to be addicted to, I don't know, just speed as a concept? Things have to be now, news is only good if it arrives to me breaking in 5 minutes, science is only good if it's just around the corner, a product is only good if it gets one billion users in a month. Just calm the fuck down. When was the last time you smelt the roses?

If you keep running through life all the roses are gonna burn down before you realise.

[-] V0ldek@awful.systems 2 points 3 hours ago

Also I'm sorry but

Why the discrepancy? A footnote in the CE Delft report makes it clear: the price figures for macronutrients are largely based on a specific amino acid protein powder that sells for $400 a ton on the sprawling e-commerce marketplace Alibaba.com.

this is exactly the sort of magical thinking I'm talking about "it will scale because we can order tons of the stuff off Alibaba" just what the fuck are you smoing mate, this can't be good faith analysis

[-] swlabr@awful.systems 28 points 5 days ago

Techbros: “I’m hungry for that Lab Grown Meat!”

Labs:

[-] JFranek@awful.systems 15 points 5 days ago

Man I don't need to be reminded of the sorry state of meat alternatives.

It's bitterly funny to me that fashoid governments started banning cultivated meat as if the economic and technical issues weren't enough. Ignorants terrified of threats they made up in their head as always.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 5 days ago

count another yay for how magic tech could (meaning: won't) solve major problem without people using it being inconvenienced in any way (giving up meat)

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 22 points 5 days ago

"Friedrich argued that investor buy-in was the de facto proof that cultivated meat has legs. Major meatpackers, prominent venture capital firms, the government of Singapore: You could trust that these stakeholders had done their due diligence, and they wanted in."

Ow god it is a scam. This was a reaction to researchers saying "we dont see it".

Investors as a general class are usually pretty terrible at staying in their lane and not listening when actual subject matter experts disagree with the guy with a good story. I think the only reason they have any reputation otherwise (compared to e.g. physicists' disease) is survivorship bias.

[-] mountainriver@awful.systems 19 points 5 days ago

Great article.

I have long suspected that it was a dead end, because at most you get a slurry that you then have to process. We already have that, the slurry is just made of vegetables. Growing animal cells in a way is way more complex then mashing peas or beans and make processed food from that.

Or you know, be unafraid to try tofu.

[-] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 5 days ago

This is not a good take. Even if the tech is further away than the optimistic takes of the industry that doesnt make it impossible, and "at best" you could definitely have more than a slurry. There are mang current scientific studies revolving around growing human organs in a lab. Eventually we will be able to grow meat that is essentiallt indistinguishable from the 'real thing'. And yes, while everyone should just go vegetarian, they arent going to. So the sooner we get to that point, the better.

[-] fnix@awful.systems 5 points 4 days ago

You should read the article first.

[-] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I did. The articles conclusions are that its currently impossible to produce lab grown meat at such a scale that it could replace a large porton of the meat industry and still be viable economically as a short term investment. Im not denying that, and i dont care about investor returns. I dont think any industry should be privatized anyway, and especially beneficial scientific research that could shape the future. But the point is the technology is here, and will continue to get cheaper and more efficient, and in the meantime any meat consumption that is replaced is a good thing, even if its not all at once. The whole article reads like an investment prospectus, not a critique of the technology itself which is how its being presented.

[-] mountainriver@awful.systems 10 points 5 days ago

"We can't get people to eat less meat and more vegetables, therefore we must invest billions so that we can get to the logical endpoint: million dollars steaks!"

"Or at least, that is what we told them. Now, feast on the most expensive meat yet as we now can literally eat up the planets resources!"

Evil laughter as the billionaires twirl their mustaches and salivates.

[-] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 17 points 5 days ago

I just want to have a chance to get some for myself even if it's super over priced I'll go for it, my whole life meat has been my favorite type of food, either gmo me a plant that can make fat and gristle or I'm stuck with lab grown stuff

I just want a non destructive way to enjoy my favourite thing

[-] beastlykings@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

You could always move out to the country and raise your own cows, just a few, for the milk and occasionally meat. Get some chickens too, for endless eggs.

Farm a small plot of land to feed them.

Get a big freezer, resign yourself to eating meat monthly instead of weekly or daily, and you'll be set for life with minimal impact on the environment.

[-] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago

eggs are alright but I just can't get the same thrill(not exactly the right word) out of cooking vegetable stuff, baking can have a bit of fun trying something new but meat is way more interesting to make good food with

I don't think I could really get into full butchery, I'm fine with cutting up meat but killing and dressing is a bit much for me but I guess that's where I could hire someone out

[-] swlabr@awful.systems 16 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

tired: lab grown meat

wired: worm filet mignon

hired: eat the rich

[-] S13Ni@lemmy.studio 12 points 5 days ago

It's very easy, just eat vegetables.

[-] uhmbah@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago

Dammit. Is there another link?

"Sorry. This snapshot cannot be displayed due to an internal error"

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 4 days ago

try again later, both work for me

[-] uhmbah@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Yep. Thanks!

[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 13 points 5 days ago

carbon capture you can eat

[-] S13Ni@lemmy.studio 7 points 5 days ago

Carbon capture is just another techno fix that will never scale up to our needs.

[-] fnix@awful.systems 3 points 4 days ago

Indeed an amazing piece of journalism, a gripping read throughout! Thanks for the share.

[-] Zwiebel@feddit.org 12 points 5 days ago

I eat very little meat these days, and I'd be happy to have lab-grown as an option. Even if it's more expensive and not produced at the same scale

[-] sc_griffith@awful.systems 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

at least make a pretense of having read the article instead of very obviously reacting to the headline jfc

[-] Idontevenknowanymore@mander.xyz 11 points 5 days ago

I read the article and nothing there contradicts the commenters opinion.

[-] swlabr@awful.systems 6 points 5 days ago

That’s the power of not saying anything interesting, you can’t contradict it

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 5 days ago

The article itself does mention that creating cultured meat is already possible, just that the limits of the technology presently known for doing it make creating it at the same cost as regular meat infeasible. Which technically doesn't contradict with what the person you replied to said, because the commenter didn't exactly say how expensive or niche they expected it to be, so even something like a hundred dollar hamburger that doesn't replace a significant fraction of food consumption but does exist as a novelty luxury for someone that had the money to spend on animal protein once in a blue moon, fits.

[-] sc_griffith@awful.systems 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

fwiw the post this is replying to originally didn't have the phrase "instead of very obviously reacting to the headline," I edited that in later. without the edit I think it does come across like I thought zweibel was contradicting some specific point in the article. not true, b/c they didn't address the article at all

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 5 points 5 days ago

Did that locker just say "but it was technically correct"?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 5 days ago

i had a bit of hope that this "cellular agriculture" from luigi's twitter would be growing hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria or something of that nature, but no it's a bad grift

[-] maxenmajs@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

In short, lab-grown cannot realistically replace a significant portion of the meat industry, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it's far too expensive and doesn't scale well because so much active machinery is required at each step in the manufacturing process. There are also issues regarding infected vats and if the cells' nutrition compares to that of natural meat.

At least it's possible in theory? I'm glad we're that far. But it clearly isn't going to happen at a large enough scale for lab-grown meat to start appearing at grocery stores.

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

In many people's minds lab-grown meat is a fact, and a reason to condemn everybody who isn't eating it. It has become a belief system - like thinking Tesla invented all of modern technology. If the companies disappear because investors got tired of flushing money down them, the default reason will be a conspiracy engineered by evil meat lords.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 7 points 5 days ago

like thinking Tesla invented all of modern technology

You mean the Croatian scientist or the company founded by Eberhard and Tarpenning?

[-] swlabr@awful.systems 10 points 5 days ago

Nah my neighbour, Steve Tesla. He’s real smart. Found a way to get free cable

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

You can probably work that out - one of them is much more often credited with inventing all of modern technology.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 days ago

In my social bubble, neither really is. Honestly. Dead serious.

[-] roaminchemicals@mastodon.social 7 points 5 days ago

@sc_griffith Sobering. Making meat from scratch sure sounds like a hard problem. But what if, hear me out, we acquire whatever meat we can find that can't afford to sue us, deconstitute it into our bio reactors, and then sell the resultant slurry on a prescription basis?

[-] sc_griffith@awful.systems 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

this could result in the funniest possible outcome which is the revolutionary PeopleMeat turning out to be just scrap animal meat b/c PeopleMeat isn't actually economically viable

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 9 points 5 days ago

Soulent green is animal meat! Animal meat! The people have to know.

[-] maol@awful.systems 4 points 5 days ago

Ahh I remember this article, it removed my illusions about lab grown meat. Thanks for bringing it back

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
68 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1481 readers
358 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS