Comments on In Vitro Meat
The original post can be found on my friend Arun's site by clicking here. I'm not responding to the post so much as going with it in a new direction.
As Arun puts it, its "meat grown on trees" to keep things simple. They artificially culture meat so that it does not rely on killing the animal in order to get to its insides. There are a number of pros and cons, including how it doesnt take the life of a cow to get steak, but also that its not natural so there may be other problems associated with it.
The wikipedia article above has all the issues surrounding this creation covered pretty well. I want to talk about some other possible advantages and disadvantages to Meat grown on Trees.
The population of the world is well over 6 billion people. Its slated to grow at astronomical paces as birth rates exceed death rates globally. Although many developed nations have reached low stable population growth rates, most countries (notably the third world including many places in Asia and Africa) have a predominant number of young people as their core population. Sure, we have countries like Italy which have negative population growth rates, but the majority of the countries are experiencing positive growth. This isnt neccesarily only a bad thing, at the most fundamental level it means people are living longer then ever before, made possible by technological advances.
This population growth brings problems of its own, especially as resources are inequally distributed and many people cannot feed themselves. As the population keeps rising, the world (not in the next two years but over a long term) will eventually encounter some form of food shortage or the inability for institutions to get food to those who need it at an acceptable rate. The time frame we are talking about spans several hundred years, long after our time but the problem is foreseeable. Perhaps we can do something about this:
Suppose that Scientist Samuel S. Smith Sr. perfects this technology of In-Vitro meat, the real question that arises, beyond the moral ones as to whether vegetarians or vegans will have problems with it, is whether we can actually feed people on it and help alleviate some of the problems of starvation. Can we actually feed this cultured meat to hungry people to people at a low price. (Let's assume economies of scale and say that if governments like the US, Canada, Britain and others all mass produced this in labs to send off to more needy areas, costs of production will be sufficiently low and subsidized by private charities that currently bring food to the hungry).
The other issues that arise with it, is how this works out with issues related to genetically modified foods. In so far as we can control the exact types of omega fatty acids inside to change the nutritional levels, we can fine tune the meat to specifications beyond our imaginations. Will this bring a feasible solution to malnutrion? Again, we'll assume that the technology can be perfected so that you wont get cancer by eating the meat.
Then there's the final issue I'll talk about tonight, plain economics. As substitutes for expensive or seasonal meats like Crabs, lobster or some types of steak arise, you could easily be asked at McDonald's or Red Lobster "In Vitro? or Regular? Oh, and you want fries with that?" As costs of meat production decline (and we'll assume that in-vitro tastes as good as real meat) ranchers may suffer some business losses. This would force them to either shift to vegetable farming, or grow their own "meat gardens" Either way, this could bring some dramatic changes to the face of the agricultural industry, worldwide. This would also prevent natural disasters from harming economies. Suppose you are a coastal fisherman, and hurricane Charlie rocks your island. If you cant get out for several days to fish, you're in some serious trouble. Having in-vitro seafood prevents you from being affected by natural variations in output. You being the supplier and the consumer, both are prevented from unnatural spikes in prices. Long run stability in food prices could mean long run stability in economies worlwide, helping promote worldwide prosperity.
Let's not get too ahead of ourselves though, this is like the dream of a hydrogen economies in the late 1970's. We have a ways to go for this to work, but it does look a little promising, at the very least. This isnt the problem/solution of 2006. This is the problem/solution of 2206.
As Arun puts it, its "meat grown on trees" to keep things simple. They artificially culture meat so that it does not rely on killing the animal in order to get to its insides. There are a number of pros and cons, including how it doesnt take the life of a cow to get steak, but also that its not natural so there may be other problems associated with it.
The wikipedia article above has all the issues surrounding this creation covered pretty well. I want to talk about some other possible advantages and disadvantages to Meat grown on Trees.
The population of the world is well over 6 billion people. Its slated to grow at astronomical paces as birth rates exceed death rates globally. Although many developed nations have reached low stable population growth rates, most countries (notably the third world including many places in Asia and Africa) have a predominant number of young people as their core population. Sure, we have countries like Italy which have negative population growth rates, but the majority of the countries are experiencing positive growth. This isnt neccesarily only a bad thing, at the most fundamental level it means people are living longer then ever before, made possible by technological advances.
This population growth brings problems of its own, especially as resources are inequally distributed and many people cannot feed themselves. As the population keeps rising, the world (not in the next two years but over a long term) will eventually encounter some form of food shortage or the inability for institutions to get food to those who need it at an acceptable rate. The time frame we are talking about spans several hundred years, long after our time but the problem is foreseeable. Perhaps we can do something about this:
Suppose that Scientist Samuel S. Smith Sr. perfects this technology of In-Vitro meat, the real question that arises, beyond the moral ones as to whether vegetarians or vegans will have problems with it, is whether we can actually feed people on it and help alleviate some of the problems of starvation. Can we actually feed this cultured meat to hungry people to people at a low price. (Let's assume economies of scale and say that if governments like the US, Canada, Britain and others all mass produced this in labs to send off to more needy areas, costs of production will be sufficiently low and subsidized by private charities that currently bring food to the hungry).
The other issues that arise with it, is how this works out with issues related to genetically modified foods. In so far as we can control the exact types of omega fatty acids inside to change the nutritional levels, we can fine tune the meat to specifications beyond our imaginations. Will this bring a feasible solution to malnutrion? Again, we'll assume that the technology can be perfected so that you wont get cancer by eating the meat.
Then there's the final issue I'll talk about tonight, plain economics. As substitutes for expensive or seasonal meats like Crabs, lobster or some types of steak arise, you could easily be asked at McDonald's or Red Lobster "In Vitro? or Regular? Oh, and you want fries with that?" As costs of meat production decline (and we'll assume that in-vitro tastes as good as real meat) ranchers may suffer some business losses. This would force them to either shift to vegetable farming, or grow their own "meat gardens" Either way, this could bring some dramatic changes to the face of the agricultural industry, worldwide. This would also prevent natural disasters from harming economies. Suppose you are a coastal fisherman, and hurricane Charlie rocks your island. If you cant get out for several days to fish, you're in some serious trouble. Having in-vitro seafood prevents you from being affected by natural variations in output. You being the supplier and the consumer, both are prevented from unnatural spikes in prices. Long run stability in food prices could mean long run stability in economies worlwide, helping promote worldwide prosperity.
Let's not get too ahead of ourselves though, this is like the dream of a hydrogen economies in the late 1970's. We have a ways to go for this to work, but it does look a little promising, at the very least. This isnt the problem/solution of 2006. This is the problem/solution of 2206.
posted by AC at 8:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home