Lab grown baby meat

[Anonymous No.16103136]

It is widely known that animal baby meat tastes better than its adult counterpart.
That got me thinking.
Would it be possible to emulate that "fresh out of the oven" flavor using lab meat?
If so, how would it be achieved?

[Anonymous No.16103143]

>>16103136
No, because it's not part of a living animal. Meat is so much more than just a series of protein cells.

[Anonymous No.16103279]

>>16103136
Lab grown "meat" is not actually meat. Stop calling it meat. This is harmful misinformation.

[Anonymous No.16103320]

>>16103279
I assume you're the kind of guy who'd say that synthetic diamonds aren't real diamonds?

[Anonymous No.16104904]

Lab grown meat is a crock of shit. It's damn near impossible to scale up or make economical.

[Anonymous No.16104936]

>>16103320
I assume you're the kind of guy who owns nothing and is happy.

[Anonymous No.16104945]

>>16104936
There are things in this world that you cannot take with you on your last day on earth.

[Anonymous No.16104988]

>>16104945
>doesn't own anything in death
>didn't own anything in life
damn imagine wasting all that time and nothing to show

[Anonymous No.16105017]

>>16103143
>Meat is so much more than just a series of protein cells.
This. Veins, sinew, differentiated muscles. None of that is present in lab grown meat. It's literally just a bunch of muscle cells. There's no nutritional value to it. Meat has hundreds of different kinds of slightly different cells. That's g
real food. An uniform sad piece of non differentiated meat is basically disgusting.
>>16103279
Honestly just forcing cells to grow. It genuinely sounds like cancer. Like that would unironically be their goal right, self reproducing undifferentiated growths. In fact they're incentivised to turn off those genes that prevent unfettered growth.
I hope they go through with it though. I don't care anymore and I will just never eat it. They can make it cheap and I'll just eat real beef.

[Anonymous No.16105032]

>>16104988
nice tweet, but you haven't really argued in favor of ownership. i guess the value is self-evident to you, so idk what to ask really.

[Anonymous No.16105046]

>>16105032
>value of ownership is not self-evident
If it isn't to you, then I'll take ownership of your body. My first idea would be to castrate you and force you to eat your own boiled testicles. Then I'll bash your head in until you become so brain damaged that you stop understanding that you are a person.
I'm sure that somewhere along this process you'll come to value ownership too! And if you don't, well after I'm done, you won't have to, because you'll be unable to.
Seems to me that ownership allows a person to create rules, set boundaries, and interact on his own terms with other entities. You can pretend like that's all rubbish but I'll refer you back to my first point. Either you own your sissy fag body, or I'll claim ownership and destroy it for funsies. That doesn't make evil btw, it's quite literally my property so I can do what I want with it.
In fact you're the one who's evil for not protecting your property. You're immoral.

You know you don't have a single counterargument.

[Anonymous No.16105078]

>>16105046
>Either you own your sissy fag body, or I'll claim ownership and destroy it for funsies. That doesn't make evil btw, it's quite literally my property so I can do what I want with it.
frankly i don't see why ownership would prevent this, or why a lack of ownership would lead to this.
why wouldn't you claim ownership anyway? if you decide to do something like this, why would me claiming ownership be any sort of obstacle?
if it isn't an obstacle, then some warlord with no accountability can brutalize people without them even realizing, so what does it matter?
i think a blacklist of behaviors rather than a whitelist is better at preventing that sort of scenario, IE we treat what you described as inherently evil. punishing atrocity rather than trying to uphold boundaries directly seems more effective on a large scale.
i can see how if property/ownership is inherently GOOD, that i would be immoral for not protecting it, but i don't see why that's true in the first place.
i admire your rhetoric, hopefully i'm not misunderstanding or overlooking anything.

[Anonymous No.16105081]

>>16103136
I believe lab meat is the future for homogeneous slop like; sausage, hamburgers, meatballs, lunchmeat and nuggets. I doubt they'll grow a well-structured steak in the next 60 years. But that's perfectly fine. Especially if they could offer the novelty of dodo-mammoth-panda hybrid burgers.

Like anything else, if there isn't money going into R&D, procedures won't become optimized and cheaper. Likewise economy of scale requires demand before it can drive down prices.

[Anonymous No.16105131]

>>16105078
>punishing atrocity rather than trying to uphold boundaries directly seems more effective on a large scale.
no it doesn't.
>we treat what you described as inherently evil.
You know that no one does this. They only pretend to. You lose.

[Anonymous No.16105141]

>>16105131
>You know that no one does this. They only pretend to.
i know there are plenty of petty fuckheads, but is that really the majority of people?

[Anonymous No.16105152]

>>16105141
lmao 1960's was peak Europe. And even in that almost bizarre higher leveled civilization we were at best at 50:50. Consider now the other peoples with their less civilised cultures.
Tell me, just honestly, do you actually think that 1 out of 2 random Indians will attempt to help you in a serious and dangerous situation?
You know the answer. It's utterly fucked lmao

[Anonymous No.16105164]

>>16105152
yeah, i see what you mean.
i don't think the fact that they wouldn't help in a dangerous situation is due to something inherent to humans, i think it's environmental/brutality, but it doesn't make much practical difference.
we've got our work cut out for us, which i guess is better than being without purpose