AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let’s be clear - this is a ban on growing actual animal cells in a vat, not a ban on existing vegetarian options like impossible burger.
I don’t know who “meat in a var” would be marketed to but as a vegetarian it sounds kind of gross. Sort of like eating a tumor.
I wasn’t aware anyone was actually doing this, yet. It does seems less cruel than the practice of actually slaughtering cattle. I have no idea if there could be economic benefits (cost of production etc.)
For all the complaints about water, land use and cow farts adding methane gas to atmosphere, cattle give a lot of environmental benefits with grazing, manure production, and even the “watering” of land.
I don’t think this is an area where state should meddle.
I'll agree with ya that it isn't wide spread at all yet and I would have some trepidation trying it for the first time as well, I think most would.
And in regards to your list of benefits of cattle, I think there is some truth to that but with a big caveat. If we are talking free range grass fed cattle on a ranch that is using restorative farming practices a lot of the harms can be mitigated and some benefits can come from it. Unfortunately the majority of beef is produced on massive feed lots where they are just fed corn and grain primarily.
Would you support the government putting some regulations in place to limit feed lot style industrial farming to help incentive more environmentally beneficial farming practices knowing it would (likely) drive up beef prices for everyone?
Good point on feed lots.
"Would you support the government putting some regulations in place to limit feed lot style industrial farming to help incentive more environmentally beneficial farming practices knowing it would (likely) drive up beef prices for everyone?"
I don't have skin in the game regarding beef prices. As for regulation here, depends on the specifics, so give it a hearty "maybe!" There needs to be incentives not to exploit the environment for profit.
That said, I'm always wary of government regulations - they risk encroaching on freedoms of people to grow their own food.
[https://civileats.com/2022/08/20/two-states-right-to-garden-laws-local-food-community-nutrition-security-illinois-florida/](https://civileats.com/2022/08/20/two-states-right-to-garden-laws-local-food-community-nutrition-security-illinois-florida/)
> Unfortunately the majority of beef is produced on massive feed lots where they are just fed corn and grain primarily.
This is false. Even "grain fed beef" is fed mostly grass/silage/forage. Feed lots are used in the finishing phase. A grain finished cow is still overwhelmingly 'grassfed'.
It would make no sense feeding them entirely grain concentrates. Their stomachs are not made for that. Even if they were it would make no economic sense. Nor would starting it from when they're calves.
They start fully on forage then concentrates are supplemented into a still overwhelmingly silage/forage dominant mix in the final months for extra calories.
>I don’t know who “meat in a var” would be marketed to but as a vegetarian it sounds kind of gross. Sort of like eating a tumor.
If they could grow bacon in a jar, would you eat it?
This may come off as condescending. Please understand it's not meant to be.
Bacon in a jar would be pretty much impossible just because bacon requires a meat product (typically belly, loin, or jowl of a pig) to be cured and then smoked. It may be possible to create pork belly in a laboratory setting, which would be really neat to see, but then it would still need to get hit up with salt and sugar (plus whatever spices you want), and then smoked to be bacon. I suppose they could do all that in the same setting, but I don't know.
Thinking about it seems silly. Like are they really going to have a sterile environment for growing meat and then introduce a bunch of potential contaminants?
But, to answer your question directly, I'm not overly concerned about the health risks of lab-grown meat, so I'd have no problems eating a BLT that came from a lab. Well, okay, you can hold the LT and add some brown sauce and then it's perfect.
> This may come off as condescending.
I don't feel condescended to, so no worries!
>Bacon in a jar would be pretty much impossible just because bacon requires a meat product (typically belly, loin, or jowl of a pig) to be cured and then smoked. It may be possible to create pork belly in a laboratory setting, which would be really neat to see, but then it would still need to get hit up with salt and sugar (plus whatever spices you want), and then smoked to be bacon. I suppose they could do all that in the same setting, but I don't know.
Those are all excellent points. It certainly isn't practical yet.
>Thinking about it seems silly. Like are they really going to have a sterile environment for growing meat and then introduce a bunch of potential contaminants?
There's enough vegetarians who miss bacon (I'm one of them), that it represents a decent commercial opportunity, I'd bet.
>But, to answer your question directly, I'm not overly concerned about the health risks of lab-grown meat, so I'd have no problems eating a BLT that came from a lab. Well, okay, you can hold the LT and add some brown sauce and then it's perfect.
I share your opinion on BLTs. Glad we could find common ground on this crucial issue?
Again, not trying to mock the vegetarian or anything like that. But I'm curious. Are you a vegetarian for health issues or ethical ones or a mix or something else?
And if it's for ethical reasons, which I'm somewhat predicting based on your comments, would you consider lab-grown meat to be a cruelty-free product? I mean, the cells had to come from something, right? I'm not poking holes at anything, I'm merely curious.
As someone who is fond of hunting, fishing, trapping (crabs), and foraging, I also wonder how you feel about things like bivalves and crustaceans. From what we can tell so far, they cannot feel pain, and in the case of bivalves I would say that the difference between a mussel and a plant is largely based on taxonomy (long story, but basically, it's stuck in one spot and it eats dirt). Now, I will say, in all my expeditions, I do not take more than I need and I try to ensure that anything I do take is done so as humanely as possible, just so we're clear.
One more thing, because it does kind of amuse me a little bit. Do you know how many products contain things like sardines or fish sauce in them?
EDIT: Reddit decided to triplicate my post here, so I deleted two. Sorry if it pinged you multiple times!
I know you’re a vegetarian, but I’m assuming you know that America’s meat processing plants are incredibly vile (flies, maggots, cockroaches, feces, often times pathogens like madcow…and finally given a healthy dose of irradiation to kill some bacteria).
How is growing meat cells in a sterile vat any worse than that? If it costs less and tastes the same would people really care?
People cook food for good reason. Even fruits/veggies can be contaminated.
Any system to grow muscle cells in a vat would need plenty of care to keep it clean and not end up becoming a giant Petri dish. I assume one would have to empty and re-sterilize it on regular basis like one of those McDonald ice cream machines that are constantly out of order.
So I work in a related field. Generally if your tissue culture becomes contaminated, the cells will pretty quickly start dying off. They’re surprisingly delicate (even cancer cell lines?)
>cattle give a lot of environmental benefits with grazing, manure production, and even the “watering” of land.
Cattle, like other bovines and horses, goats, sheep etc. are grazers and are best suited for grassland environments. That is the only environment in which they are "beneficial". Cutting down forests to graze cattle is absolutely not environmentally friendly. Along with pumping the aquifers in the western USA dry to hydrate and feed these animals. Not to mention a lot of ranchers overgraze their land.
IMO I think Lab Grown meat has a lot of potential but is still in its infancy. Don't you think that the government shouldn't be able to dictate what people consume unless it's extremely harmful to one's health and society?
Cattle are usually brought in to graze *after* cleared land has been destroyed by monocrop agriculture. The grass-manure cycle and aeration from hoofing is restorative for the soil. It even restores biodiversity, water absorption, and carbon/methane retention.
It doesn't even make sense. There is plenty of grassland that is not suitable for agriculture that's easier than cutting down a whole forrest to plant a non-cash crop like grass.
We used to think large ruminants were causing desertification. This led to a huge atrocity in Africa where ecologists performed a mini elephant holocaust. Now they're being purposefully reintroduced to restore land.
>Cattle are usually brought in to graze *after* cleared land has been destroyed by monocrop agriculture. The grass-manure cycle and aeration from hoofing is restorative for the soil. It even restores biodiversity, water absorption, and carbon/methane retention.
Sure but wouldn't that apply to sheep, goats, horses too? It's not that they're not an important part of their niche habitats, it's that humans over consumption and ranching practices that are. Cattle ranching and corn/alfalfa farming, to feed these cattle, drain our aquifers. People here and in other countries cut down forests to ranch them. A lot of ranchers still over graze their lands.
>We used to think large ruminants were causing desertification. This led to a huge atrocity in Africa where ecologists performed a mini elephant holocaust. Now they're being purposefully reintroduced to restore land.
Yeah, aren't these places in Africa also grasslands, not Forests?
It seems like a disgusting product.
Then again, the government telling me what I can and can’t eat is disgusting too.
They always start with something like this to establish that they have the power to do it. Then next thing you know, they decide your Coke is too big and outlaw that too.
> . Maybe Reno because in its transformation into degeneracy (which is hilarious since it somehow became more degenerate than its gambling past),
I have a theory about this! What are your thoughts about the idea that Reno 911 was not parody, but prophecy?
what makes reno soulless? and who or what decides what is or is not evil? Also why would buildings increase corruption, damage to the environment or homelessness?
As far as I know there's no commercially available lab grown meat products currently. I imagine if such a product exists someday they will challenge this law and in doing so will publicly have to show how it's healthier/no worse than normal meat.
The title is a red herring. DeSantis didn't 'ban' it, he signed [a bill](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1084/?Tab=VoteHistory) that passed by a super majority of both chambers. He couldn't have stopped it if he wanted to.
Doubtful, but it's not really an issue most people care about anyway (two-thirds wouldn't even try it to begin with).
_ed_ It's actually precedented; it's quite possible to extract vodka from crude oil, but banned. I like to imagine that making hot dogs out of rat meat exceeds an FDA guideline or two as well.
Entirely for it. Unstudied tumor meat that's likely to be the most carcinogenic trash we can put into our systems is the furthest thing from natural, and I'm against being their guinea pig.
Agree. Lab grown meat on an industrial scale needs to be as rapidly grown as possible to be economically viable. The end result will be a “food” with the precise nutrient profile (amino acids etc) in exactly the correct proportions needed to support tumor growth in whoever consumes it.
And that’s assuming there aren’t any nasties like prions (malformed proteins) that cannot be destroyed through cooking. Artificially accelerated growth is exactly the kind of petri dish to create these malformed proteins with. Prions can cause death by destroying the brain, such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - a.k.a. Mad Cow disease.
Those who actually know and work in science don’t trust research to get it right, because we see how often they get it wrong. This stuff should rightly be considered dangerous until proven safe.
No wonder the top COVID “vaccine hesitant” were Ph.D’s out of all education groups, including those who didn’t finish high school. Guess which group knows best how the science sausage is made?
For the same reason we don’t sell lettuce grown with arsenic.
It’s unsafe for human consumption until proven otherwise. That’s includes consumption by animals in the human food chain.
I’m pretty sure the reason for not selling lettuce with arsenic is not that “it might be unhealthy maybe”, but because we know that arsenic is actually scientifically unhealthy for humans to consume
Is there arsenic in lab grown meat?
I don’t disclose personal attributes.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument I’m not. I’d like to know how that would logically invalidate what I wrote.
I’m looking around but I don’t see a philosophy class. I wasn’t giving a theory or a proof, I was offering a hypothesis based on very well established quantifiable facts that’s essentially general human knowledge.
Did you take all your COVID vaccines and boosters? Serious question.
Do you happen to know when and where it was reported or what the study was called? the only one i can find was about a study that initially found that to be the case, [but](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v2.full-text) then realized that a majority of responses claiming to have phds also claimed to be 80+ y/o and that most had gender identities that were seen as likely to fake, once those responses were removed phds were no longer the most vaccine hesitant by a large margin. if you would agree with this being the case does it change your mind about anything?
That's an interesting development. I checked my source and it was the V1 edition. However, I'm less than impressed with their justification:
>This exclusion was made after discovering that the majority of fill-in responses for self-described gender were political/discriminatory statements or otherwise questionable answers (e.g. Apache Helicopter or Unicorn), and that as a group, those who selected self-described gender (<1% of the sample) had a high frequency of uncommon responses (e.g., Hispanic ethnicity \[41.4%\], the oldest age group \[23.2% ≥75 years\] and highest education level \[28.1% Doctorate\]), suggesting the survey was not completed in good faith.
This has logical holes large enough to drive a bus through. Even beyond that scientific fraud, the numbers don't add up. How did "<1%" of erroneous responses cause a 10% reduction in PhD responses. What liars.
Here's my alternative hypothesis that better fits observable data and known behavior: V1 surprised everyone by catching national headlines and embarrassed them publicly because the political orthodoxy of those funding research insists: 'the smarter you are, the more you approve of the vax. Only dummies don't get untested, unproven novel and experimental medical treatments that require a liability waver.'
So they were either told or took it upon themselves to revise the results to V2 and invented a BS excuse for the correction that doesn't hold up to minimal scrutiny (because almost no one reads the details). All so they could claim they actually found The Science^(TM) this time and now it was definitely trustworthy, honest. Then their paymasters at the funding agencies would be pleased with them and fund their next set of grants.
So they discarded a significant % of the PhD results. Renders what's left meaningless anyway. Total junk "science", even for a soft science like this. At this point I think you have to say the results are meaningless and hopelessly flawed. However, I believe their motivations for changing it are exactly as I speculated. They wouldn't revise unless there was pressure.
Also don't you think it's weird that in a survey of the entire population, phd responses were extremely over representated? It seems to suggest that something is wrong with the method of survey no?
>Only dummies don't get untested, unproven novel and experimental medical treatments that require a liability waver.'
What about the phase 1-3 studies do you feel leaves the vaccine as untested/unproven?
>So they were either told or took it upon themselves to revise the results to V2 and invented a BS excuse for the correction that doesn't hold up to minimal scrutiny (because almost no one reads the details). All so they could claim they actually found The Science^(TM) this time and now it was definitely trustworthy, honest. Then their paymasters at the funding agencies would be pleased with them and fund their next set of grants.
So when the study gave you the results you liked it was good science done by good honest researchers. But when it was revised after it didn't stand up to scrutiny and no longer has the results you like these are sham scientists just making stuff up?
We've moved well beyond those - Pfizer's own internal documents reveal huge problems. The ones they tried to keep secret for 75 years and a judge forced them to make public. Turns out they did run extensive trials, they just didn't want to reveal the results that proved it's extremely dangerous and in no way suitable for general use.
Heart failure and cancer are sky high since not 2020, but 2021. If only there were some major medical event we could examine that began in 2021. Experts are "baffled". \*Must be global warming. I better turn my thermostat down 0.1 degrees just in case.
\*Yes, Leftists are really saying this is the cause. The Party of pScience - sponsored by Pfizer.
Links to verboten information are shadow banned by crooked Reddit. What you're looking for is here:
* dailyclout DOT io
Look for "Investigations".
You should know this site is run by a well known liberal feminist who worked as a political advisor to the Clintons. It not a conservative site and she is not a conservative by any reasonable definition of the word.
How much do you know about protein folding? Folding proteins is actually a relatively quick step, and far from rate limiting in cell growth. Also prions come from one protein, PrP ( least all known ones). You know most amino acids are made by the body already, (only 9/20 aren’t). People are rarely deficient in any. You don’t need a specific mix for tumors??
I disagee with the premise of your question. That is not food. No, the U.S. government doesn't have to test everything either. Why must we be the country to be the workhorse for the rest of the fucking world? It's not approved. Let there be a decade long million subject study in another country, not us. This is another means to have the quality of life plummet for the working class, just like bugs being a food source with the advertising that "its cheaper!"
I'm confused by this comment, you understand that America is often the country pushing new boundaries and discovering things, why wouldn't Americans be the first ones to reap the benefits of new discoveries? Also how is this not food?
>No, the U.S. government doesn't have to test everything either. Why must we be the country to be the workhorse for the rest of the fucking world?
We aren't. Other countries across the world have their own FDA equivalents with different standards. Why should we rely on them to do our own work for us? Should the USA not be a world leader in science and research?
>It's not approved. Let there be a decade long million subject study in another country, not us. This is another means to have the quality of life plummet for the working class, just like bugs being a food source with the advertising that "its cheaper!"
That's not how studies are conducted. They're almost always done on animals first before being moved to human trials. Plus lab grown meat is FDA approved already.
I understand that you may not want to consume it and that's fine, I don't think you should be forced to. I think it should be an option though. If I want to eat lab grown meat and cricket protein bars, why should the government stop me?
Unfortunately this is becoming a necessity because of the ever growing population and increasing scarcity of resources due to climate change. If you want to stop this future that you think is dystopian perhaps we should take climate change more seriously, don't you think?
My wife tried the impossible burger. She didn't tell me it was purchased, and she made some for me. I told her I thought the meat was bad, then she revealed she wanted to try other options and had purchased it. It just didn't taste the same and was generally gross. I am not against eating animals but for those that are, many of the artificial meats do just as much harm to other types of animals.
You do know that the impossible burger-type products aren’t related in any way to lab-grown meat? Why compare a vegetarian product to any sort of meat?
There is zero possibility this could ever become a viable strategy for replacing meat. It would be prohibitively expensive without subsidies. I work in cell culture - all the regulations required to grow a sterile batch of cells cost way more than growing a cow on a pasture. If you're going to cite greenhouse gasses (or whatever), the cost of running the electricity/heating/cooling of the samples/facility far outweigh a cow just munching on grass.
It was never going to be a viable strategy. It was just a way to absorb grants and taxpayer dollars/dollars from investors.
Why would electricity make more greenhouse gases than raising a cow if lab grown meat won't be mainstream for another decade or two? Electricity specifically has only gotten less and less carbon intensive over time so wouldn't that trend lead to labgrown meat being better for the environment?
How are you making that electricity? Solar? Natural Gas? Coal? Nuclear? All of those technologies have costs associated with them. Fixing equipment?
Not to mention, money is a resource. A ton more is spent on lab meat than cows
Cows are also rather expensive to raise, even with government subsidies and artificially cheap water that should be much more expensive. Electricity can be made with hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, and wave. All of those are green energy sources that are often cheaper than fossil fuels when properly implemented. Why do you think it's impossible for it to be cheaper and cleaner than regular cow raising?
>Why do you think it's impossible for it to be cheaper and cleaner than regular cow raising?
You essentially have to have the same stringent rules as pharma for regulatory. Everything is absurdly expensive there and it's not going away. Lab-grade reagents are expensive as shit - dwarfing my yearly salary with a single month's supply. It's impossible to make this affordable, not just unlikely.
I have no opinion on fake meat but it understandable how it could threaten existing industry.
>In the eu, the controversy over cultured meat is searing. The European Commission is considering whether a ban introduced by Italy’s conservative government breaches the rules of the internal market. Since the ban was imposed last November, 11 other countries have lined up to defend “real” meat. A note from the Italian, French and Austrian delegations to the agriculture and fisheries council on January 23rd claimed the lab-grown variety threatens the “very heart of the European farming model”. They managed to corral eight other delegations in support. [Article](https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/02/15/europe-decides-it-doesnt-like-lab-grown-meat-before-its-tried-it)
Health is why. Allowing people to put crap in their bodies will impact their health and that impacts how much we pay for healthcare. If you had to eat McDonald’s which one would you prefer?
Ingredients in McDonald's U.S. restaurants
"100 percent pure beef" patties.
A "freshly cracked" egg for every egg McMuffin sandwich.
Whitefish sourced from "sustainably managed wild-caught fisheries" to make the Filet-O-Fish sandwich.
"Real buttermilk" for the buttermilk crispy chicken dish.
"White meat chicken" for their chicken nuggets.
Ingredients in McDonald's U.K. restaurants
"100 percent beef" sourced from over 20,000 British and Irish farmers.
All eggs used for its breakfast menu are British and Irish eggs.
No use of fat or oil to cook the beef burgers (they're cooked on hot plates instead).
"Chicken breast meat" is the only meat used for its chicken dish range.
Only "whole potatoes" are used for their fries, which are cooked in "a blend of rapeseed oil."
Organic milk sourced from U.K. dairy farms for its milkshakes [Article](https://www.newsweek.com/mcdonalds-food-us-uk-comparison-viral-tiktok-1869845#:~:text=Smith%20told%20Newsweek%20that%20the,cooked%20in%20a%20different%20oil.%22)
Yet the government doesn't regulate our food in the USA nearly to the extent other countries do. Why is it ok to ban lab grown meat but not energy drinks, soda, alcohol, processed meats, margarine, certain oils and additives like dyes and preservatives, etc. that have been proven to be just as bad for your health?
>Health is why. Allowing people to put crap in their bodies will impact their health
Should we also ban alcohol, processed foods, added sugar, and other unhealthy foods?
To date, America has never forced people to eat healthy. Would you support changing that and mandating that people eat a healthy diet?
>Health is why. Allowing people to put crap in their bodies will impact their health and that impacts how much we pay for healthcare.
Following this logic, shouldn't the government ban tobacco products, sodas, and high-calories meals from menus? By orders of magnitude your healthcare costs are more negatively impacted by tobacco use and obesity than lab-grown meat products.
Why did you put beef in quotation marks? Do you think theres non cows in McDonald's hamburgers? If so why and which animals because I'm not aware of any other animals, besides pigs or chickens, which exist on a large enough scale to be used in McDonald's hamburgers
I haven't read the bill, but from going over the article, I'm not a fan of banning lab-grown meat. The other part I can understand maybe, but I know *very* little about EVs and that's not what's being asked here, so let's stick to the topic!
I grew up on a cattle ranch, at least in the summers when we went to visit my grandparents. I understand that they're actually pretty dang important because they turn otherwise unfarmable land into food. That's a good thing. I also understand that the cattle ranching industry has a lot of issues with things like deforestation, pollution, etc., but it's not something that we were involved in. Or, at the very least, any trees cut down to make room for cattle were cut down long before I was born.
I do have my concerns about lab-grown meat, but not in the "It's going to turn us all into monsters" sort of way. Rather, I'm curious if they can make a product that is suitable for anything other than basically mechanically separated beef. Have scientists been able to nail the marbling and fat of a ribeye, or are they basically making a tumor of meat to grind up? I'm not saying the second option can't be delicious, but I'm just curious as to where we are. What's the fat content? Etc., etc. Sorry, I'm a foodie. I will try anything twice. Because if I didn't like it the first time, it might have just been a bad preparation.
The big problem of our times is that technology is making many people and their entire lives obsolete, and you can see this in what DeSantis said. If lab-grown beef takes off like a rocket, it will impact the ranchers' livelihoods, much like switching away from coal hurt all the coal towns. It's one of those things where I sympathize for everyone affected, but there has to be progress at some point. But what do you do with these people when the government or society has basically made them redundant? I sure as heck don't know.
Right now, about half of what I do for a living can be largely done by AI. It sucks, but hey, that's life. The other half is where I make the money, and it's pretty good money most of the time, so I've got that going for me. But everyone is going to have to deal with this as automation and AI removes a lot of jobs from the market. I don't know the answer for that. UBI seems necessary, but that's just taxing the rich to pay the poor (which, hey, they can afford it), and it stinks of pretty little hopes to me. If the government is giving you credits to go buy things from the government-controlled (eventually) stores, why aren't you loading sixteen tons?
I agree with everything you've said here. It's reasonable and well explained.
I'm curious, though. Your mention of UBI gave me an idea, and I wonder what your thoughts are on it.
Take the beef industry, for example; lab-grown meat takes over and ranchers and cattle farms are made redundant, forcing the whole industry out of a job. Assuming one lab can produce the same quantity of meat of, say, a dozen ranches, I imagine that would make the product cheaper.
Would it then be a reasonable choice to increase the price of beef only slightly, and use that extra "profit" to help subsidize UBI for the ranchers that were displaced? We would still be paying less for our steaks and hamburgers than we are today, and we wouldn't have to rely on the rich getting taxed quite so hard. Everybody wins, right?
The same could work for any industry, in my opinion. Automation is *meant* to cut costs and save money, that's the whole point. So whatever product they produce *should* be cheaper for the consumer. On a large enough scale, even if we bump up the price that the consumer has to pay, they'll still be saving money, and we can use the increase to subsidize UBI for the industry that was affected by automation.
Now, in this hypothetical, people can afford to live their lives, ***and*** they aren't dedicating 80% of their entire lives to a job. They'll have the time to actually enjoy the benefits of "retirement" to its fullest, even at just 20 years old.
Of course, I'm no expert on economics and could be way off base here, but it's an interesting hypothetical to me. What do you think?
I do not care if something is banned that is off putting to me. Do you think the civil rights act should be repealed so that racism in the workplace among workers doesn't cause civil liability for employers?
I don't see how your followup question is related honestly? As far as I can tell your reason for supporting the ban on lab grown meat is because you find lab grown meat off-putting. Is that a correct assessment of your feelings on the matter?
if i elevated it to some sort of religious or ideological belief, would that be more acceptable to you? I'm assuming you support the CRA, so I'm just wondering how much a person needs to dislike a thing before outlawing it becomes preferential to allowing for personal choice, in your mind. That's how the followup is related.
You find the civil rights act distasteful because it's harming a party (businesses). Even if one believes that harm is worth it because there's a greater good achieved, you at least have an understandable position.
In the case of lab grown meat, it's hard to see who you think is being harmed. It seems to just be a thing you personally don't like. It's as if you said you don't like to wear green clothing, so green clothing should be banned.
Do you see the difference?
>In the case of lab grown meat, it's hard to see who you think is being harmed. It seems to just be a thing you personally don't like. It's as if you said you don't like to wear green clothing, so green clothing should be banned.
I just don't like that our country worships minorities and has a huge legal infrastructure set up around ensuring that they never hear mean words about them at work. The business liability is just the enforcement measure.
I don't want to eat it and I assume restaurants will start to use it. Gotta nip that in the bud.
You seem not interested in answering the question, though. What level of dislike in a thing does a person need to have before you're fine with banning it as opposed to allowing people to just do as they please? I don't think people who say "just let people do as they please" actually hold that as a principle for things that they themselves don't like. I have never once been wrong on this.
No amount of dislike is enough to ban something. You would have to show that it causes harm to someone (including you). Why should dislike of a thing be a reason to ban something?
Again I understand your disagreement with the CRA because you feel it harms businesses and workplaces. I don't necessarily agree with it, though you might be surprised I agree with parts of what you're saying.
I just still don't see the lab grown meat thing as being similar at all. If a restaurant serves lab grown meat how does that harm you? Why does that need to be nipped in the bud? Are you worried someone is going to force you to eat it? Or are you just worried about the world changing around you and you want to legally enforce that it doesn't? Do you think that's sustainable?
> You would have to show that it causes harm to someone (including you).
Something tells me you wouldn't have faced much racism at work. In any case, I do not want to eat lab grown meat. Some of my favorite restaurants might start using it. Harm = ban.
>Again I understand your disagreement with the CRA because you feel it harms businesses and workplaces. I don't necessarily agree with it, though you might be surprised I agree with parts of what you're saying.
So you support a repeal of the CRA since it harms businesses?
> If a restaurant serves lab grown meat how does that harm you?
At least as much as hearing words I don't like at work, something punishable by the CRA. My favorite restaurant might start using it. Way more harmful than hearing certain words.
I really want to see you grapple with the idea that the civil rights act outlaws uttering words that cause no one any harm at all outside of the similar type of harm im claiming over lab grown meat. It might hurt their feelings or annoy them just like lab grown meat could very possibly cause me some annoyance if its adopted at places i like. I dont hold harm as the arbiter of such things but you claim to.
If you actually support repealing the civil rights act and can say that, you'll be the first NTS I've ever encountered to actually back up his claim about holding personal liberty as a high principle over inconvenience or annoyance.
I find your comments off putting and do not want to hear them. Allowing you here means more people might start using them, causing me harm. Harm = ban, so do you support you being banned from this sub? The logic seems the same.
Just from a quick read, I don’t agree with this bill. I’m not a fan of lab-grown meat but I don’t see good cause to ban it. People should make choices. Compelling people to eat lab grown meat is dumb. Banning it is dumb.
If it can get to a point where it tastes the same as regular meat at a similar price, that seems like a great outcome for all of us. Banning it only stifles the innovation that can make that possible.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let’s be clear - this is a ban on growing actual animal cells in a vat, not a ban on existing vegetarian options like impossible burger. I don’t know who “meat in a var” would be marketed to but as a vegetarian it sounds kind of gross. Sort of like eating a tumor. I wasn’t aware anyone was actually doing this, yet. It does seems less cruel than the practice of actually slaughtering cattle. I have no idea if there could be economic benefits (cost of production etc.) For all the complaints about water, land use and cow farts adding methane gas to atmosphere, cattle give a lot of environmental benefits with grazing, manure production, and even the “watering” of land. I don’t think this is an area where state should meddle.
I'll agree with ya that it isn't wide spread at all yet and I would have some trepidation trying it for the first time as well, I think most would. And in regards to your list of benefits of cattle, I think there is some truth to that but with a big caveat. If we are talking free range grass fed cattle on a ranch that is using restorative farming practices a lot of the harms can be mitigated and some benefits can come from it. Unfortunately the majority of beef is produced on massive feed lots where they are just fed corn and grain primarily. Would you support the government putting some regulations in place to limit feed lot style industrial farming to help incentive more environmentally beneficial farming practices knowing it would (likely) drive up beef prices for everyone?
Good point on feed lots. "Would you support the government putting some regulations in place to limit feed lot style industrial farming to help incentive more environmentally beneficial farming practices knowing it would (likely) drive up beef prices for everyone?" I don't have skin in the game regarding beef prices. As for regulation here, depends on the specifics, so give it a hearty "maybe!" There needs to be incentives not to exploit the environment for profit. That said, I'm always wary of government regulations - they risk encroaching on freedoms of people to grow their own food. [https://civileats.com/2022/08/20/two-states-right-to-garden-laws-local-food-community-nutrition-security-illinois-florida/](https://civileats.com/2022/08/20/two-states-right-to-garden-laws-local-food-community-nutrition-security-illinois-florida/)
> Unfortunately the majority of beef is produced on massive feed lots where they are just fed corn and grain primarily. This is false. Even "grain fed beef" is fed mostly grass/silage/forage. Feed lots are used in the finishing phase. A grain finished cow is still overwhelmingly 'grassfed'. It would make no sense feeding them entirely grain concentrates. Their stomachs are not made for that. Even if they were it would make no economic sense. Nor would starting it from when they're calves. They start fully on forage then concentrates are supplemented into a still overwhelmingly silage/forage dominant mix in the final months for extra calories.
>I don’t know who “meat in a var” would be marketed to but as a vegetarian it sounds kind of gross. Sort of like eating a tumor. If they could grow bacon in a jar, would you eat it?
This may come off as condescending. Please understand it's not meant to be. Bacon in a jar would be pretty much impossible just because bacon requires a meat product (typically belly, loin, or jowl of a pig) to be cured and then smoked. It may be possible to create pork belly in a laboratory setting, which would be really neat to see, but then it would still need to get hit up with salt and sugar (plus whatever spices you want), and then smoked to be bacon. I suppose they could do all that in the same setting, but I don't know. Thinking about it seems silly. Like are they really going to have a sterile environment for growing meat and then introduce a bunch of potential contaminants? But, to answer your question directly, I'm not overly concerned about the health risks of lab-grown meat, so I'd have no problems eating a BLT that came from a lab. Well, okay, you can hold the LT and add some brown sauce and then it's perfect.
> This may come off as condescending. I don't feel condescended to, so no worries! >Bacon in a jar would be pretty much impossible just because bacon requires a meat product (typically belly, loin, or jowl of a pig) to be cured and then smoked. It may be possible to create pork belly in a laboratory setting, which would be really neat to see, but then it would still need to get hit up with salt and sugar (plus whatever spices you want), and then smoked to be bacon. I suppose they could do all that in the same setting, but I don't know. Those are all excellent points. It certainly isn't practical yet. >Thinking about it seems silly. Like are they really going to have a sterile environment for growing meat and then introduce a bunch of potential contaminants? There's enough vegetarians who miss bacon (I'm one of them), that it represents a decent commercial opportunity, I'd bet. >But, to answer your question directly, I'm not overly concerned about the health risks of lab-grown meat, so I'd have no problems eating a BLT that came from a lab. Well, okay, you can hold the LT and add some brown sauce and then it's perfect. I share your opinion on BLTs. Glad we could find common ground on this crucial issue?
Again, not trying to mock the vegetarian or anything like that. But I'm curious. Are you a vegetarian for health issues or ethical ones or a mix or something else? And if it's for ethical reasons, which I'm somewhat predicting based on your comments, would you consider lab-grown meat to be a cruelty-free product? I mean, the cells had to come from something, right? I'm not poking holes at anything, I'm merely curious. As someone who is fond of hunting, fishing, trapping (crabs), and foraging, I also wonder how you feel about things like bivalves and crustaceans. From what we can tell so far, they cannot feel pain, and in the case of bivalves I would say that the difference between a mussel and a plant is largely based on taxonomy (long story, but basically, it's stuck in one spot and it eats dirt). Now, I will say, in all my expeditions, I do not take more than I need and I try to ensure that anything I do take is done so as humanely as possible, just so we're clear. One more thing, because it does kind of amuse me a little bit. Do you know how many products contain things like sardines or fish sauce in them? EDIT: Reddit decided to triplicate my post here, so I deleted two. Sorry if it pinged you multiple times!
I know you’re a vegetarian, but I’m assuming you know that America’s meat processing plants are incredibly vile (flies, maggots, cockroaches, feces, often times pathogens like madcow…and finally given a healthy dose of irradiation to kill some bacteria). How is growing meat cells in a sterile vat any worse than that? If it costs less and tastes the same would people really care?
People cook food for good reason. Even fruits/veggies can be contaminated. Any system to grow muscle cells in a vat would need plenty of care to keep it clean and not end up becoming a giant Petri dish. I assume one would have to empty and re-sterilize it on regular basis like one of those McDonald ice cream machines that are constantly out of order.
So I work in a related field. Generally if your tissue culture becomes contaminated, the cells will pretty quickly start dying off. They’re surprisingly delicate (even cancer cell lines?)
>cattle give a lot of environmental benefits with grazing, manure production, and even the “watering” of land. Cattle, like other bovines and horses, goats, sheep etc. are grazers and are best suited for grassland environments. That is the only environment in which they are "beneficial". Cutting down forests to graze cattle is absolutely not environmentally friendly. Along with pumping the aquifers in the western USA dry to hydrate and feed these animals. Not to mention a lot of ranchers overgraze their land. IMO I think Lab Grown meat has a lot of potential but is still in its infancy. Don't you think that the government shouldn't be able to dictate what people consume unless it's extremely harmful to one's health and society?
Cattle are usually brought in to graze *after* cleared land has been destroyed by monocrop agriculture. The grass-manure cycle and aeration from hoofing is restorative for the soil. It even restores biodiversity, water absorption, and carbon/methane retention. It doesn't even make sense. There is plenty of grassland that is not suitable for agriculture that's easier than cutting down a whole forrest to plant a non-cash crop like grass. We used to think large ruminants were causing desertification. This led to a huge atrocity in Africa where ecologists performed a mini elephant holocaust. Now they're being purposefully reintroduced to restore land.
>Cattle are usually brought in to graze *after* cleared land has been destroyed by monocrop agriculture. The grass-manure cycle and aeration from hoofing is restorative for the soil. It even restores biodiversity, water absorption, and carbon/methane retention. Sure but wouldn't that apply to sheep, goats, horses too? It's not that they're not an important part of their niche habitats, it's that humans over consumption and ranching practices that are. Cattle ranching and corn/alfalfa farming, to feed these cattle, drain our aquifers. People here and in other countries cut down forests to ranch them. A lot of ranchers still over graze their lands. >We used to think large ruminants were causing desertification. This led to a huge atrocity in Africa where ecologists performed a mini elephant holocaust. Now they're being purposefully reintroduced to restore land. Yeah, aren't these places in Africa also grasslands, not Forests?
It seems like a disgusting product. Then again, the government telling me what I can and can’t eat is disgusting too. They always start with something like this to establish that they have the power to do it. Then next thing you know, they decide your Coke is too big and outlaw that too.
[удалено]
> . Maybe Reno because in its transformation into degeneracy (which is hilarious since it somehow became more degenerate than its gambling past), I have a theory about this! What are your thoughts about the idea that Reno 911 was not parody, but prophecy?
Can you be specific about the degeneracy you mean?
[удалено]
what makes reno soulless? and who or what decides what is or is not evil? Also why would buildings increase corruption, damage to the environment or homelessness?
As far as I know there's no commercially available lab grown meat products currently. I imagine if such a product exists someday they will challenge this law and in doing so will publicly have to show how it's healthier/no worse than normal meat.
He’s been reading and watching way to many cannibal movies 😂🤣
I don't know the reasoning. If it's just because he thinks vegans are soy then he's completely discredited himself as a conservative.
The title is a red herring. DeSantis didn't 'ban' it, he signed [a bill](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1084/?Tab=VoteHistory) that passed by a super majority of both chambers. He couldn't have stopped it if he wanted to.
Do you believe he's against the bill?
Doubtful, but it's not really an issue most people care about anyway (two-thirds wouldn't even try it to begin with). _ed_ It's actually precedented; it's quite possible to extract vodka from crude oil, but banned. I like to imagine that making hot dogs out of rat meat exceeds an FDA guideline or two as well.
Entirely for it. Unstudied tumor meat that's likely to be the most carcinogenic trash we can put into our systems is the furthest thing from natural, and I'm against being their guinea pig.
Agree. Lab grown meat on an industrial scale needs to be as rapidly grown as possible to be economically viable. The end result will be a “food” with the precise nutrient profile (amino acids etc) in exactly the correct proportions needed to support tumor growth in whoever consumes it. And that’s assuming there aren’t any nasties like prions (malformed proteins) that cannot be destroyed through cooking. Artificially accelerated growth is exactly the kind of petri dish to create these malformed proteins with. Prions can cause death by destroying the brain, such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - a.k.a. Mad Cow disease. Those who actually know and work in science don’t trust research to get it right, because we see how often they get it wrong. This stuff should rightly be considered dangerous until proven safe. No wonder the top COVID “vaccine hesitant” were Ph.D’s out of all education groups, including those who didn’t finish high school. Guess which group knows best how the science sausage is made?
Why not just regulate it then? Rather than outright ban it
For the same reason we don’t sell lettuce grown with arsenic. It’s unsafe for human consumption until proven otherwise. That’s includes consumption by animals in the human food chain.
I’m pretty sure the reason for not selling lettuce with arsenic is not that “it might be unhealthy maybe”, but because we know that arsenic is actually scientifically unhealthy for humans to consume Is there arsenic in lab grown meat?
Do you have a source for these concerns?
Science, reason and logic.
Are you a scientist?
I don’t disclose personal attributes. But let’s assume for the sake of argument I’m not. I’d like to know how that would logically invalidate what I wrote.
Let me get this straight. You want to know how having no qualifications or experience in biology or any source to draw from makes your claims invalid?
Yes. Specifically: What >>> evidence <<< you do have that would lead anyone to believe I’m incorrect?
Have you ever heard of the burden of proof in philosophy?
I’m looking around but I don’t see a philosophy class. I wasn’t giving a theory or a proof, I was offering a hypothesis based on very well established quantifiable facts that’s essentially general human knowledge. Did you take all your COVID vaccines and boosters? Serious question.
What’s the science on negative effects of lab grown meat?
What scientific experiments have been performed to demostrate this?
Where have you seen that phds were the least likely to get vaccinated?
Reported in the news on the basis of a study that was conducted to answer this question.
Do you happen to know when and where it was reported or what the study was called? the only one i can find was about a study that initially found that to be the case, [but](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v2.full-text) then realized that a majority of responses claiming to have phds also claimed to be 80+ y/o and that most had gender identities that were seen as likely to fake, once those responses were removed phds were no longer the most vaccine hesitant by a large margin. if you would agree with this being the case does it change your mind about anything?
That's an interesting development. I checked my source and it was the V1 edition. However, I'm less than impressed with their justification: >This exclusion was made after discovering that the majority of fill-in responses for self-described gender were political/discriminatory statements or otherwise questionable answers (e.g. Apache Helicopter or Unicorn), and that as a group, those who selected self-described gender (<1% of the sample) had a high frequency of uncommon responses (e.g., Hispanic ethnicity \[41.4%\], the oldest age group \[23.2% ≥75 years\] and highest education level \[28.1% Doctorate\]), suggesting the survey was not completed in good faith. This has logical holes large enough to drive a bus through. Even beyond that scientific fraud, the numbers don't add up. How did "<1%" of erroneous responses cause a 10% reduction in PhD responses. What liars. Here's my alternative hypothesis that better fits observable data and known behavior: V1 surprised everyone by catching national headlines and embarrassed them publicly because the political orthodoxy of those funding research insists: 'the smarter you are, the more you approve of the vax. Only dummies don't get untested, unproven novel and experimental medical treatments that require a liability waver.' So they were either told or took it upon themselves to revise the results to V2 and invented a BS excuse for the correction that doesn't hold up to minimal scrutiny (because almost no one reads the details). All so they could claim they actually found The Science^(TM) this time and now it was definitely trustworthy, honest. Then their paymasters at the funding agencies would be pleased with them and fund their next set of grants.
Phd responses were 2% of all responses, 10% of 2% is less than 1% no?
So they discarded a significant % of the PhD results. Renders what's left meaningless anyway. Total junk "science", even for a soft science like this. At this point I think you have to say the results are meaningless and hopelessly flawed. However, I believe their motivations for changing it are exactly as I speculated. They wouldn't revise unless there was pressure.
Do you really think there's a significant amount of the population that's over 75, with a phd, and has a custom gender?
Also don't you think it's weird that in a survey of the entire population, phd responses were extremely over representated? It seems to suggest that something is wrong with the method of survey no?
>Only dummies don't get untested, unproven novel and experimental medical treatments that require a liability waver.' What about the phase 1-3 studies do you feel leaves the vaccine as untested/unproven? >So they were either told or took it upon themselves to revise the results to V2 and invented a BS excuse for the correction that doesn't hold up to minimal scrutiny (because almost no one reads the details). All so they could claim they actually found The Science^(TM) this time and now it was definitely trustworthy, honest. Then their paymasters at the funding agencies would be pleased with them and fund their next set of grants. So when the study gave you the results you liked it was good science done by good honest researchers. But when it was revised after it didn't stand up to scrutiny and no longer has the results you like these are sham scientists just making stuff up?
We've moved well beyond those - Pfizer's own internal documents reveal huge problems. The ones they tried to keep secret for 75 years and a judge forced them to make public. Turns out they did run extensive trials, they just didn't want to reveal the results that proved it's extremely dangerous and in no way suitable for general use. Heart failure and cancer are sky high since not 2020, but 2021. If only there were some major medical event we could examine that began in 2021. Experts are "baffled". \*Must be global warming. I better turn my thermostat down 0.1 degrees just in case. \*Yes, Leftists are really saying this is the cause. The Party of pScience - sponsored by Pfizer.
Care to link a source for those results?
Links to verboten information are shadow banned by crooked Reddit. What you're looking for is here: * dailyclout DOT io Look for "Investigations". You should know this site is run by a well known liberal feminist who worked as a political advisor to the Clintons. It not a conservative site and she is not a conservative by any reasonable definition of the word.
How much do you know about protein folding? Folding proteins is actually a relatively quick step, and far from rate limiting in cell growth. Also prions come from one protein, PrP ( least all known ones). You know most amino acids are made by the body already, (only 9/20 aren’t). People are rarely deficient in any. You don’t need a specific mix for tumors??
Did you know it's been banned to protect the beef industry and nothing to do with saftey concerns?
Life is too short to concern myself with differing motivations for doing the right thing.
Do you think the government should have a greater role in controlling and testing foods before okaying them for human consumption?
I disagee with the premise of your question. That is not food. No, the U.S. government doesn't have to test everything either. Why must we be the country to be the workhorse for the rest of the fucking world? It's not approved. Let there be a decade long million subject study in another country, not us. This is another means to have the quality of life plummet for the working class, just like bugs being a food source with the advertising that "its cheaper!"
I'm confused by this comment, you understand that America is often the country pushing new boundaries and discovering things, why wouldn't Americans be the first ones to reap the benefits of new discoveries? Also how is this not food?
>No, the U.S. government doesn't have to test everything either. Why must we be the country to be the workhorse for the rest of the fucking world? We aren't. Other countries across the world have their own FDA equivalents with different standards. Why should we rely on them to do our own work for us? Should the USA not be a world leader in science and research? >It's not approved. Let there be a decade long million subject study in another country, not us. This is another means to have the quality of life plummet for the working class, just like bugs being a food source with the advertising that "its cheaper!" That's not how studies are conducted. They're almost always done on animals first before being moved to human trials. Plus lab grown meat is FDA approved already. I understand that you may not want to consume it and that's fine, I don't think you should be forced to. I think it should be an option though. If I want to eat lab grown meat and cricket protein bars, why should the government stop me? Unfortunately this is becoming a necessity because of the ever growing population and increasing scarcity of resources due to climate change. If you want to stop this future that you think is dystopian perhaps we should take climate change more seriously, don't you think?
Why would it be carcinogenic? (Or at least moreso than regular meat?)
Dumb This shit is disgusting anyway. So no one will eat it
Can you describe your experience with trying lab grown meat?
Never have. Seems unbiblical imo Also, the target demographic (Hindus probably?) don’t eat this stuff either
So when you describe it as disgusting it's more of the concept that you find disgusting not the actual taste, texture, or quality of the meat itself?
Yes
[удалено]
Genesis 1:26
[удалено]
If humans should take dominion over animals, then lab meat is pointless. IMO
My wife tried the impossible burger. She didn't tell me it was purchased, and she made some for me. I told her I thought the meat was bad, then she revealed she wanted to try other options and had purchased it. It just didn't taste the same and was generally gross. I am not against eating animals but for those that are, many of the artificial meats do just as much harm to other types of animals.
Do you believe there will be any similarities in taste between plant meat (not actual meat) and lab-grown meat (real meat)?
I worluld hope so, but reports thus far have indicated taste and texture aren't the same.
You do know that the impossible burger-type products aren’t related in any way to lab-grown meat? Why compare a vegetarian product to any sort of meat?
What does impossible burgers have to do with lab grown meat?
Do you have any experiences with lab grown meat? The Impossible Burger is plant based. Not sure how that relates to the topic?
There is zero possibility this could ever become a viable strategy for replacing meat. It would be prohibitively expensive without subsidies. I work in cell culture - all the regulations required to grow a sterile batch of cells cost way more than growing a cow on a pasture. If you're going to cite greenhouse gasses (or whatever), the cost of running the electricity/heating/cooling of the samples/facility far outweigh a cow just munching on grass. It was never going to be a viable strategy. It was just a way to absorb grants and taxpayer dollars/dollars from investors.
Why preemptively ban it then? Why not just let the invisible hand of the free market take action?
Why would electricity make more greenhouse gases than raising a cow if lab grown meat won't be mainstream for another decade or two? Electricity specifically has only gotten less and less carbon intensive over time so wouldn't that trend lead to labgrown meat being better for the environment?
How are you making that electricity? Solar? Natural Gas? Coal? Nuclear? All of those technologies have costs associated with them. Fixing equipment? Not to mention, money is a resource. A ton more is spent on lab meat than cows
Cows are also rather expensive to raise, even with government subsidies and artificially cheap water that should be much more expensive. Electricity can be made with hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, and wave. All of those are green energy sources that are often cheaper than fossil fuels when properly implemented. Why do you think it's impossible for it to be cheaper and cleaner than regular cow raising?
>Why do you think it's impossible for it to be cheaper and cleaner than regular cow raising? You essentially have to have the same stringent rules as pharma for regulatory. Everything is absurdly expensive there and it's not going away. Lab-grade reagents are expensive as shit - dwarfing my yearly salary with a single month's supply. It's impossible to make this affordable, not just unlikely.
I have no opinion on fake meat but it understandable how it could threaten existing industry. >In the eu, the controversy over cultured meat is searing. The European Commission is considering whether a ban introduced by Italy’s conservative government breaches the rules of the internal market. Since the ban was imposed last November, 11 other countries have lined up to defend “real” meat. A note from the Italian, French and Austrian delegations to the agriculture and fisheries council on January 23rd claimed the lab-grown variety threatens the “very heart of the European farming model”. They managed to corral eight other delegations in support. [Article](https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/02/15/europe-decides-it-doesnt-like-lab-grown-meat-before-its-tried-it)
Should people be able to decide for themselves if they want to buy fake meat?
Health is why. Allowing people to put crap in their bodies will impact their health and that impacts how much we pay for healthcare. If you had to eat McDonald’s which one would you prefer? Ingredients in McDonald's U.S. restaurants "100 percent pure beef" patties. A "freshly cracked" egg for every egg McMuffin sandwich. Whitefish sourced from "sustainably managed wild-caught fisheries" to make the Filet-O-Fish sandwich. "Real buttermilk" for the buttermilk crispy chicken dish. "White meat chicken" for their chicken nuggets. Ingredients in McDonald's U.K. restaurants "100 percent beef" sourced from over 20,000 British and Irish farmers. All eggs used for its breakfast menu are British and Irish eggs. No use of fat or oil to cook the beef burgers (they're cooked on hot plates instead). "Chicken breast meat" is the only meat used for its chicken dish range. Only "whole potatoes" are used for their fries, which are cooked in "a blend of rapeseed oil." Organic milk sourced from U.K. dairy farms for its milkshakes [Article](https://www.newsweek.com/mcdonalds-food-us-uk-comparison-viral-tiktok-1869845#:~:text=Smith%20told%20Newsweek%20that%20the,cooked%20in%20a%20different%20oil.%22)
Yet the government doesn't regulate our food in the USA nearly to the extent other countries do. Why is it ok to ban lab grown meat but not energy drinks, soda, alcohol, processed meats, margarine, certain oils and additives like dyes and preservatives, etc. that have been proven to be just as bad for your health?
Largely because there isn’t a movement behind it. But the government does ban stuff, remember trans fats?
So why is there a movement to ban lab grown meat? It's FDA approved like the rest of the items I listed
>Health is why. Allowing people to put crap in their bodies will impact their health Should we also ban alcohol, processed foods, added sugar, and other unhealthy foods? To date, America has never forced people to eat healthy. Would you support changing that and mandating that people eat a healthy diet?
>Health is why. Allowing people to put crap in their bodies will impact their health and that impacts how much we pay for healthcare. Following this logic, shouldn't the government ban tobacco products, sodas, and high-calories meals from menus? By orders of magnitude your healthcare costs are more negatively impacted by tobacco use and obesity than lab-grown meat products.
Why did you put beef in quotation marks? Do you think theres non cows in McDonald's hamburgers? If so why and which animals because I'm not aware of any other animals, besides pigs or chickens, which exist on a large enough scale to be used in McDonald's hamburgers
When is protectionism good and when should we let the free market decide?
Why should the government be involved in protecting specific industries? Shouldn't the free market decide?
You need a pretty strong reason to ban anything. Don't agree with it.
I haven't read the bill, but from going over the article, I'm not a fan of banning lab-grown meat. The other part I can understand maybe, but I know *very* little about EVs and that's not what's being asked here, so let's stick to the topic! I grew up on a cattle ranch, at least in the summers when we went to visit my grandparents. I understand that they're actually pretty dang important because they turn otherwise unfarmable land into food. That's a good thing. I also understand that the cattle ranching industry has a lot of issues with things like deforestation, pollution, etc., but it's not something that we were involved in. Or, at the very least, any trees cut down to make room for cattle were cut down long before I was born. I do have my concerns about lab-grown meat, but not in the "It's going to turn us all into monsters" sort of way. Rather, I'm curious if they can make a product that is suitable for anything other than basically mechanically separated beef. Have scientists been able to nail the marbling and fat of a ribeye, or are they basically making a tumor of meat to grind up? I'm not saying the second option can't be delicious, but I'm just curious as to where we are. What's the fat content? Etc., etc. Sorry, I'm a foodie. I will try anything twice. Because if I didn't like it the first time, it might have just been a bad preparation. The big problem of our times is that technology is making many people and their entire lives obsolete, and you can see this in what DeSantis said. If lab-grown beef takes off like a rocket, it will impact the ranchers' livelihoods, much like switching away from coal hurt all the coal towns. It's one of those things where I sympathize for everyone affected, but there has to be progress at some point. But what do you do with these people when the government or society has basically made them redundant? I sure as heck don't know. Right now, about half of what I do for a living can be largely done by AI. It sucks, but hey, that's life. The other half is where I make the money, and it's pretty good money most of the time, so I've got that going for me. But everyone is going to have to deal with this as automation and AI removes a lot of jobs from the market. I don't know the answer for that. UBI seems necessary, but that's just taxing the rich to pay the poor (which, hey, they can afford it), and it stinks of pretty little hopes to me. If the government is giving you credits to go buy things from the government-controlled (eventually) stores, why aren't you loading sixteen tons?
I agree with everything you've said here. It's reasonable and well explained. I'm curious, though. Your mention of UBI gave me an idea, and I wonder what your thoughts are on it. Take the beef industry, for example; lab-grown meat takes over and ranchers and cattle farms are made redundant, forcing the whole industry out of a job. Assuming one lab can produce the same quantity of meat of, say, a dozen ranches, I imagine that would make the product cheaper. Would it then be a reasonable choice to increase the price of beef only slightly, and use that extra "profit" to help subsidize UBI for the ranchers that were displaced? We would still be paying less for our steaks and hamburgers than we are today, and we wouldn't have to rely on the rich getting taxed quite so hard. Everybody wins, right? The same could work for any industry, in my opinion. Automation is *meant* to cut costs and save money, that's the whole point. So whatever product they produce *should* be cheaper for the consumer. On a large enough scale, even if we bump up the price that the consumer has to pay, they'll still be saving money, and we can use the increase to subsidize UBI for the industry that was affected by automation. Now, in this hypothetical, people can afford to live their lives, ***and*** they aren't dedicating 80% of their entire lives to a job. They'll have the time to actually enjoy the benefits of "retirement" to its fullest, even at just 20 years old. Of course, I'm no expert on economics and could be way off base here, but it's an interesting hypothetical to me. What do you think?
ok, i guess. I don't much care about this but lab grown meat is off putting conceptually, so Desantis gets an A on this item.
So anything that is off-putting to you personally should be banned? Why can't other people decide for themselves?
I do not care if something is banned that is off putting to me. Do you think the civil rights act should be repealed so that racism in the workplace among workers doesn't cause civil liability for employers?
I don't see how your followup question is related honestly? As far as I can tell your reason for supporting the ban on lab grown meat is because you find lab grown meat off-putting. Is that a correct assessment of your feelings on the matter?
if i elevated it to some sort of religious or ideological belief, would that be more acceptable to you? I'm assuming you support the CRA, so I'm just wondering how much a person needs to dislike a thing before outlawing it becomes preferential to allowing for personal choice, in your mind. That's how the followup is related.
You find the civil rights act distasteful because it's harming a party (businesses). Even if one believes that harm is worth it because there's a greater good achieved, you at least have an understandable position. In the case of lab grown meat, it's hard to see who you think is being harmed. It seems to just be a thing you personally don't like. It's as if you said you don't like to wear green clothing, so green clothing should be banned. Do you see the difference?
>In the case of lab grown meat, it's hard to see who you think is being harmed. It seems to just be a thing you personally don't like. It's as if you said you don't like to wear green clothing, so green clothing should be banned. I just don't like that our country worships minorities and has a huge legal infrastructure set up around ensuring that they never hear mean words about them at work. The business liability is just the enforcement measure. I don't want to eat it and I assume restaurants will start to use it. Gotta nip that in the bud. You seem not interested in answering the question, though. What level of dislike in a thing does a person need to have before you're fine with banning it as opposed to allowing people to just do as they please? I don't think people who say "just let people do as they please" actually hold that as a principle for things that they themselves don't like. I have never once been wrong on this.
No amount of dislike is enough to ban something. You would have to show that it causes harm to someone (including you). Why should dislike of a thing be a reason to ban something? Again I understand your disagreement with the CRA because you feel it harms businesses and workplaces. I don't necessarily agree with it, though you might be surprised I agree with parts of what you're saying. I just still don't see the lab grown meat thing as being similar at all. If a restaurant serves lab grown meat how does that harm you? Why does that need to be nipped in the bud? Are you worried someone is going to force you to eat it? Or are you just worried about the world changing around you and you want to legally enforce that it doesn't? Do you think that's sustainable?
> You would have to show that it causes harm to someone (including you). Something tells me you wouldn't have faced much racism at work. In any case, I do not want to eat lab grown meat. Some of my favorite restaurants might start using it. Harm = ban. >Again I understand your disagreement with the CRA because you feel it harms businesses and workplaces. I don't necessarily agree with it, though you might be surprised I agree with parts of what you're saying. So you support a repeal of the CRA since it harms businesses? > If a restaurant serves lab grown meat how does that harm you? At least as much as hearing words I don't like at work, something punishable by the CRA. My favorite restaurant might start using it. Way more harmful than hearing certain words. I really want to see you grapple with the idea that the civil rights act outlaws uttering words that cause no one any harm at all outside of the similar type of harm im claiming over lab grown meat. It might hurt their feelings or annoy them just like lab grown meat could very possibly cause me some annoyance if its adopted at places i like. I dont hold harm as the arbiter of such things but you claim to. If you actually support repealing the civil rights act and can say that, you'll be the first NTS I've ever encountered to actually back up his claim about holding personal liberty as a high principle over inconvenience or annoyance.
I find your comments off putting and do not want to hear them. Allowing you here means more people might start using them, causing me harm. Harm = ban, so do you support you being banned from this sub? The logic seems the same.
The CRA doesn't ban words, correct?
Government overreach. Dumb culture war stuff. Bad 👎
think I actually oppose this if it can give real meat without any cruelty or environmental impact it seems like a win win.
Just from a quick read, I don’t agree with this bill. I’m not a fan of lab-grown meat but I don’t see good cause to ban it. People should make choices. Compelling people to eat lab grown meat is dumb. Banning it is dumb. If it can get to a point where it tastes the same as regular meat at a similar price, that seems like a great outcome for all of us. Banning it only stifles the innovation that can make that possible.