- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@derp.foo
- technews@radiation.party
You must log in or register to comment.
This article seems to take the stance that since lab-grown meat might not be adopted by everyone, that it won’t solve the entire climate crisis and therefore takes away from other potential solutions.
I hate that kind of all-or-nothing sensationalism. Who’s claiming that lab-grown meat will “solve” climate change to begin with? Is it not worth pursuing things that will help regardless?
It’s a rather bizarre argument, essentially saying “it’s not the whole solution so it’s not a solution at all”
The article dismisses lab grown meat because the technology might cost $450m to build one 10,000 metric ton per annum producing factory, claiming it won’t work because of economies of scale. But they clearly have no understanding of economies of scale. There is economies of scale in the building of factories and reactor production too. One novel reactor is expensive and difficult to maintain, but a global chain of 100s of factories become much cheaper to build individually and maintain as you have a whole supply chain and supporting infrastructure built out.
A good example of this is Apple’s Vision Pro. The 1st iteration of this technology will be prohibitively expensive for most people. But by starting production Apple is stimulating the building of factories and infrastructure to build all the component parts at scale. Version 2 will be cheaper per unit, as will Version 3. The production capacity will increase reducing cost, even if the components iteritively get more advanced and complex from generation to generation. It’s an expensive proposition for investors up front, but the long term potential to scale up is what makes it so powerful.
A “bio-reactor” to make meat is the same - the more you build, the more you invest in the supporting infrastructure, the cheaper it gets. There will be a risk barrier to starting, but it’s crazy to dismiss the whole thing based on the projected cost of the first industrial scale factory. This is similar to Fusion power; the ITER fusion reactor in France is crazily expensive but the idea is the lessons learnt and the build out of the supportive infrastructure is what will move Fusion from a lab experiement to a real world source of power.
The reality is there is no one single solution to climate change, it will by multiple different things happening together that will improve the climate situation. Lab Grown Meat will help reduce methane from animals, while renewable energy will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, and Electric Vehicles with renewables will do the same and so on.
It’s a rather bizarre argument, essentially saying “it’s not the whole solution so it’s not a solution at all”
Lawdamercy, can you please say it louder for the people in the back whinging that they refuse to vote for Biden because his Climate Bill wasn’t perfectly everything all at once? In the face of the Republican denialist obstructionism, it’s pretty fucking miraculous. The ultimate solution to climate change is going to be a patchwork quilt of a million different tiny solutions
I’m in the same school of thought of not dismissing things that would actually change many of the problematic issues that all have contributed their part to create the predicament we find ourselves in. If it’s not just another greenwashing to profit off climate change awareness, then let’s do it.
But it is a predicament. While I think we should do everything constructive to stop damaging the environment, I don’t think this with the illusion that there are solutions, but just that we should do the right things regardless of their effectiveness.
I think the article is worried government will be distracted by cultured meat possibilities and use it as an excuse not to do anything about the problem of the current cattle industry. Politicians might think a little subsidy for fake meat is all they need to do and not actively discourage cattle (which is hard politically).
I hate when people make random predictions. Show me a single person who a hundred years ago would’ve believed than one day everyone will be driving a car. It just seemingly doesn’t scale.
Same, assuming technology never advances sure they might be right. But if I know my history right, I have good reason to believe technology might continue advancing to allow for some cool shit to be built. Wild guess I know
I don’t think you guys are grasping the crux of the argument—it’s not that lab grown meat is impossible, just that it’s unlikely to become widespread as quickly as needed to strongly mitigate climate change. Seems like a compelling argument to me.
Similar to fusion power—very cool and likely to have important implications someday. But we need to make radical changes in the coming decades, so technology that isn’t close to commercialization today probably won’t save us.
We probably would have fusion power if we’d funded it at the consistency we needed. Just like this, as long as it receives funding it will continue to make progress.
I’m not so sure. For example, everyone thinks of solar panels as having beaten expectations and that’s true. But they don’t remember that it took over 50 years from their invention before they went into widespread use. Same with the internet–the changes it brought seemed rapid but in reality there was slow, steady progress over many decades until finally it was ready and swept the world.
I think we’re still in that early phase for fusion. There are interesting experiments being done, and I think maybe in a few decades we might have some early plants that can actually make power. But there’s still a LOT of work to be done. Even with higher funding, there’s a lot to do. It certainly could be expedited to some extent though.
There’s 8.1 billion people on the planet.
We can do more than one thing at a time.
Of course. Let’s pursue it, I think there are other benefits as well. But we should be clear eyed that until it’s ready we also need to pursue other approaches like reducing meat consumption, emissions, land use, etc.
The longer the wait the less it will be a benefit in the long term, so putting it off is like putting off planting a tree because it will take decades to grow.
Sure, it will be a tail end solution to go with the rest and not be the silver bullet now. Bit adopting it now will pay off in the long run and we can use the enthusiasm to prop up other solutions that have faster effects.
I don’t disagree, but again, I don’t think the author is saying that lab grown meat is bad or shouldn’t be researched. Just that we absolutely need to pursue alternative strategies because the problem is so urgent and it’s far from being ready.
The only solution that can happen in the timeframe desired is geoengineering. Everything else is going to take multiple decades at least.
I don’t think that internet is going to be much more than a casual toy that people will eventually grow tired of. Too niche.
No one said it’s too niche. If you predicted the internet would revolutionize society in 1970 you were right but not if you thought it would solve the Cold War.
I was half remembering a quote from someone back in the 80s that pops up as a repost every so often.
Edit: it was Clifford Stoll in Newsweek 1995. Pretty funny how wrong he got almost everything.
I resent the attitude that just because it won’t save our bacon, we shouldn’t work to reduce or (gasp!) eliminate as much non-human suffering that is driven by human consumption as is possible. Not to mention the benefits it would have for food security and easing actual human suffering. Such a simultaneously provincial and technocratic/elitist position to take that demonstrates what a bunch of bastards we humans are. Sheesh!
Source is sketchy AF
