Would you eat it ? Lab grown meat

[b0rn2sk8]

Its so depressing driving back to my parents down a14 as the countryside becomes field after field after field. Sometimes barely a hedge row at all. I dunno how I put up with it for so long.

Think about it, there were never any hedgerows but they were never apart of the natural environment of this area.

Huge swathes of the east of England were rich habitats for wildlife, in particular seabirds once upon a time because there was hundreds of square miles of natural marshland until humans came long, built a big sea wall and drained it all to industrialise farming in this area. It's all gone now and never to return as are all the native species which once occupied it.

 

[Hagar]

Think about it, there were never any hedgerows but they were never apart of the natural environment of this area.

Huge swathes of the east of England were rich habitats for wildlife, in particular seabirds once upon a time because there was hundreds of square miles of natural marshland until humans came long, built a big sea wall and drained it all to industrialise farming in this area. It's all gone now and never to return as are all the native species which once occupied it.

Much of the UK was forested in your medieval idyll with small villages, few towns and a poorly fed population. If we reverted to a pre agricultural system the population we could support may be a few million.

 

[That Jekka Gal]

What do you think happened before humans came along? We would have had orders of magnitude more biodiversity.

Well, certainly the hundreds of pastureland species that I outlined in my previous post wouldn’t exist & whether or not there’d be greater biodiversity if the majority of the country was covered in woodland is a moot point. Not a lot of sunshine in a forest so that’s a lot of flowering species out for a start.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Much of the UK was forested in your medieval idyll with small villages, few towns and a poorly fed population. If we reverted to a pre agricultural system the population we could support may be a few million.

I know, I never said it didn't help support a huge population of humans.

I am just pointing out that farming doesn't benefit bio diversity, the two things are mutually exclusive. The only measure is how damaging it is and how much are we willing to accept. A 3 second look outside my window tells me that an unfathomable amount of damage is the answer in the real word.

We are already more than comfortable with it based on the view out of my window, we just have to be honest with ourselves about it and stop pointing fingers at other countries who are doing the exact same thing we already did over the last 1000 years.

Well, certainly the hundreds of pastureland species that I outlined in my previous post wouldn’t exist & whether or not there’d be greater biodiversity if the majority of the country was covered in woodland is a moot point. Not a lot of sunshine in a forest so that’s a lot of flowering species out for a start.

They would exist and in higher quantities.

You don't need cultivated sheep to manage grasslands and meadows, they existed long before we farmed them and they were in better condition with more diversity. They were managed naturally by native species like wild deer, wild boar and wild horses before we hunted them all so we could cultivate domesticated sheep on them who would be killed by predators which we also hunted to extinction.

I'm struggling to see how this is hard to understand.

 

[Minusorange]

Much of the UK was forested in your medieval idyll with small villages, few towns and a poorly fed population. If we reverted to a pre agricultural system the population we could support may be a few million.

Yes we had rainforests

 

[That Jekka Gal]

I know, I never said it didn't help support a huge population of humans.

I am just pointing out that farming doesn't benefit bio diversity, the two things are mutually exclusive. The only measure is how damaging it is and how much are we willing to accept. A 3 second look outside my window tells me that an unfathomable amount of damage is the answer in the real word.

We are already more than comfortable with it based on the view out of my window, we just have to be honest with ourselves about it and stop pointing fingers at other countries who are doing the exact same thing we already did over the last 1000 years.


They would exist and in higher quantities.

You don't need cultivated sheep to manage grasslands and meadows, they existed long before we farmed them and they were in better condition with more diversity. They were managed naturally by native species like wild deer, wild boar and wild horses before we hunted them all so we could cultivate domesticated sheep on them who would be killed by predators which we also hunted to extinction.

I'm struggling to see how this is hard to understand.

But where did these meadows exist given that 70-80% of England was covered in forest before agriculture started? (and I assume the remaining 20-30% represents upland areas with poor soils unable to support the rich grasslands I associate with a meadow)

 

[413x]

Well, certainly the hundreds of pastureland species that I outlined in my previous post wouldn’t exist & whether or not there’d be greater biodiversity if the majority of the country was covered in woodland is a moot point. Not a lot of sunshine in a forest so that’s a lot of flowering species out for a start.

Nature finds a balance. There were deer and wolves in a balance for example before humans eradicated wolves. There would have been open land as well as forest.

We think fields are natural and that the environment we have today should be preserved. But nature always balances itself.

The original comment was that we need farming to help the environment (paraphrasing). But we really really don't.

 

[Distracted]

Much of the UK was forested in your medieval idyll with small villages, few towns and a poorly fed population. If we reverted to a pre agricultural system the population we could support may be a few million.

That should really be the ultimate goal of lab grown food shouldn't it.
Feed the masses without the enormous impact to the environment that the current system has.
In an ideal world we can have our cake and eat it too; delicious meaty goodness and no enormous farms and all the associated downsides. That way we can rewild and enjoy the environment and the benefits it brings us without causing starvation.

Of course for the near and medium term this is a pipe dream, but one day if we set our minds to it this could be a real possibility. The adoption of 'lab grown' food is one step towards that.

 

[413x]

Yes we had rainforests

I camped in an area classed as a rainforest (every small Pocket) will see if I can find a pic.

Here.
Never seen so much moss hanging off basically every surface. It was only in that valley. Even a little up the sides and it's back to standard

 

[Hagar]

Nature finds a balance. There were deer and wolves in a balance for example before humans eradicated wolves. There would have been open land as well as forest.

We think fields are natural and that the environment we have today should be preserved. But nature always balances itself.

The original comment was that we need farming to help the environment (paraphrasing). But we really really don't.

We need farming to support a population of 70 million and rising. A population largely unable to find food unless it is from a supermarket shelf or fridge and many unless it is delivered to their door already cooked.

Personally I would not eat lab meat. If it was a thing I would still go for the blood soaked original. Maybe after I am long gone it may be necessary as a food source to feed millions more, think 'soylent green' but I won't care

 

[413x]

We need farming to support a population of 70 million and rising. A population largely unable to find food unless it is from a supermarket shelf or fridge and many unless it is delivered to their door already cooked.

Personally I would not eat lab meat. If it was a thing I would still go for the blood soaked original. Maybe after I am long gone it may be necessary as a food source to feed millions more, think 'soylent green' but I won't care

Lab grown meat would be incredibly efficient though.

Would reduce the risk of animal to human diseases.
No need for antibiotics and hormones.
Would reduce animal suffering (farming is brutally cruel).
Increase efficiency of producing meat.
Vastly lower carbon footprint.
Reduced land use allowing return of farmland to nature.
With mass production cost of meat would come down a lot.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

But where did these meadows exist given that 70-80% of England was covered in forest before agriculture started? (and I assume the remaining 20-30% represents upland areas with poor soils unable to support the rich grasslands I associate with a meadow)

Forest doesn’t equal = dense wooded areas cover all of the area considered to be the forrest.

They all have natural clearings with grasslands or patches with lower tree density where grasses and other habitats naturally occurs. The edges are often natural meadows and grasslands or peat bogs as they are now in many forested places around the world.

 

[That Jekka Gal]

Back to the OP - I guess I have a knee jerk reaction against anything coming out of a laboratory. I try to use as natural as possible when I can help it.

That said, while not vegetarian, animal welfare is a concern & I source local organic meat from a local farm when I eat meat - but even then there’s no guarantee.

Certainly, if it were to replace intensive factory farming I’d probably be all for it just because of the animal welfare aspect, though I’d probably stick with a nut roast if it were the only option