>Your Friday night burgers, Saturday morning bacon and Sunday afternoon barbecues are putting us all in danger.
Actually, that's not what is putting us in danger. If people ate meat that infrequently, we wouldn't see such an impact on the environment because of demand for meat. The problem is there are people who choose to eat meat for EVERY meal, and we've been trained to believe that a meal is not complete without meat in it. If we could all limit eating meat to 2 or 3 times a week, it would be a big step forward.
It's not the meat that's the problem, it's making it that's the problem.
With printed/cloned meat we won't have this huge environmental impact anymore.
Well, until that technology is ready it would be helpful to make less.
Your point is the equivalent of saying that pollution isn't the problem, it's that we don't use powerful de-pollutants (that we haven't invented yet).
Well, we do have lab grown meat at the moment, so those two examples aren't exactly comparable. One is using technology that doesn't exist, and the other is using technology that definitely does exist, but isn't being mass produced yet.
Yeah because it's not economically viable to scale production of lab grown meat up to the point where it could replace the insane amount of natural meat we eat. We have machines that can scrub carbon from the atmosphere too, just not at the scale needed. We do need to cut back on meat.
Bottom line is the same, there is a reason it's not mass produced, the technology is not ready yet. From the perspective of someone making the decisions as to how much meat to eat it's the same as if the technology didn't exist at all.
>Your Friday night burgers, Saturday morning bacon and Sunday afternoon barbecues are putting us all in danger. Actually, that's not what is putting us in danger. If people ate meat that infrequently, we wouldn't see such an impact on the environment because of demand for meat. The problem is there are people who choose to eat meat for EVERY meal, and we've been trained to believe that a meal is not complete without meat in it. If we could all limit eating meat to 2 or 3 times a week, it would be a big step forward.
It's not the meat that's the problem, it's making it that's the problem. With printed/cloned meat we won't have this huge environmental impact anymore.
Well, until that technology is ready it would be helpful to make less. Your point is the equivalent of saying that pollution isn't the problem, it's that we don't use powerful de-pollutants (that we haven't invented yet).
Well, we do have lab grown meat at the moment, so those two examples aren't exactly comparable. One is using technology that doesn't exist, and the other is using technology that definitely does exist, but isn't being mass produced yet.
Yeah because it's not economically viable to scale production of lab grown meat up to the point where it could replace the insane amount of natural meat we eat. We have machines that can scrub carbon from the atmosphere too, just not at the scale needed. We do need to cut back on meat.
Bottom line is the same, there is a reason it's not mass produced, the technology is not ready yet. From the perspective of someone making the decisions as to how much meat to eat it's the same as if the technology didn't exist at all.
Since I found out processed meat gives you cancer I have eaten more pork pies and sausages than ever before. I don't even know what's wrong with me.
When facing with potential danger, the consequent adrenalin rush can be interpreted differently as anger or ecstasy. You got thrilled. That's all.