Lab grown meat

Never going to be financially viable. Do you even know how much that nitrogen tank would cost? Any of the other lab equipment shown there? There is a reason why these are startups, this is never going to be economically viable.

Your pessimism won't speed anything along.

You are right. We need to abolish money. Humanity is far more productive than there are money.

Attached: Wise black man.jpg (556x312, 29.1K)

...

We are talking about releasing billions of livestock animals into ecosystems, which would be catastrophic.

There are plenty of pro-animal organisations that would shelter and help out freed animals until they would pass of natural causes.

Attached: Hare krishna.jpg (362x218, 38.16K)

What if the lab meat becomes class conscious?

Also we will be eating insects for protein before we ever get a viable vial of veal or a Bunsen-burner beaker of beef-bacon, a distillation of doe, a petri-dish of pork, a centrifuge of curry chicken.

Even if this would be economically viable it would sill be idiotic to do just for the delicacy of eating meat. There are plenty of non-meat based sources for protein and vitamins that are economically more viable. Besides waiting trained laboratory workers on some pipetting of essentially of cow cells to produce incremental amounts of meat is waste of time,resources and personnel. I would much rather use those labs for work that would benefit the human condition more on long-term like actual research.

I am not in the position to dictate nature. I think we will have to live the consequences. Anything is better than a battery cage.

Yeah, if I was offered to care for some of the animals I would accept, too.

Attached: thistbh.png (36x36, 1.14K)

couldn't we just eat nuts instead?

This made me gag on my coffee.
keep up the good work

Attached: kek.png (499x478, 546.83K)

I think this is a drastic improvement over the commodificafion of animals. Since I'm a vegan for primarily ecological reasons, the efficiency of artificial meat production in terms of cost and waste byproducts would need to match or beat that of plant-based food production in order for me to consider adding it to my diet though.
I think this is a vastly superior direction than genetic modifaction of agricultural products, which can have unintended externalities on non-modified base species and the ecosystems they inhabit.

fellow vegan here. i agree. there's a lot of buzz in this space, but i fear it will not deliver on being environmentally friendly.

i would never eat it still.

Attached: wa.png (275x268, 92.6K)

Seems like a lot of effort compared to just raising animals for slaughter. Even if this were to become economical and mass-produced, I doubt it will replace real meat. Most likely real meat will become a delicacy for the few people rich enough to afford it while the rest of us will be stuck with bargain bin vat-meat.

Just eat vegetables, you niggers.

Lots of lifestylism ITT

How is vegetarianism lifestylist? Its cheaper in most cases compared with the alternative.

no it's not. plant-grown foods cost less but you need more of them to sustain a certain level of caloric intake.
not to mention you should really be eating meat, it's good for you.

Yes. To make beef you require that the cow eats lots of food just to sustain itself (heat, motion, growth, etc.). With cultured meat you only need the calories to grow the muscles, wich require much less resources. It will also be more efficient in processing and you would skip over all forms of slaughterhouses.

You have veganism, and Veganism™ . The former is a political stance where you advocate the decommodification of animals, and the latter is liberal lifestylism. We are the former (which means that you can be a vegan while still not following a strict vegan diet).

Attached: fuck yeah.jpg (600x449, 58.42K)

t.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (650x400, 445.19K)

That's not true. Oils are some of most calorie dense foods there are, and they are largely plant based. By buying dry lentils, beans, rice and nuts you easily and cheaply get to your daily calorie amount while eating all plant based.

Defending industrial animal agriculture is horrible in every way. The damage animal farming has on our environment and climate, the terrible working conditions in the industry and the horrible acts that are committed on animals every day should mean that all socialists should be vegan (in the political sense). The relationship we have towards animals is aiding in maintaining unjust hierarchies like capitalism, patriarchy and racism.

this is all wrong. why does every thread about vegetarianism or veganism get derailed by Pro-Meat Industry shills? Every. Damn. Time.

We should save the animals and eat human meat instead.

Asshole, India was one of the good guys in cold war, befriending Vietnam and Cuba, and diplomatically supporting anti colonial struggles. Unfortunately it didn't went full-communism like Cuba, HOWEVER the state which went communist, Kerala has highest living standard in India and has no problems with sanitation.

Attached: A tableau in a communist rally in Kerala, India, of a young farmer and worker..jpg (2000x3008, 4.14M)

Eat the rich.

so what? doesn't change that veganism is retarded, dumb idpoller.

Even if you are right 'american lifestyle' is even more so .

veganism isnt idpol, its a very material subject. the enslavement and domination of sentient animals is analogous to class domination. read a book and stop being so dense

you're appealing to a nationality's history to justify one cultural norm. that is idpol.

I never disagreed with that.

You're the only one bringing identity or nation into the discussion

Wow, I never realised I was exploiting the surplus labour of the chicken I'm eating. I don't think it's him who should be reading a book.

Attached: 1529148319857.gif (344x203, 3.88M)

Dude, seriously, try reading Marx before pretending that your lifestylism is "materialist"

Attached: 485d007ef91352aefac12c8f112fc3e37d8716137d651a3c612a41ac0a53decd.jpg (1024x548, 86.51K)

see

Are you stupid? Guy posted Indians pooing in the street and I explained that he should stop making fun of Indians.

Aren't the "based Indians" also the guys fighting a Maoist insurgency?

Nor will optimism you braindead retard. This is a project entirely in the hands of scientists and their paymasters. What you think preying for labmeat to rain from the skies in itsef will bring success? You mystical retard

praying*

Funny, in all the Marx I've read nowhere did he say "stop being vegan" or that "animal ezploitation doesn't real"

Attached: gamer_question.jpg (341x464, 14.75K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x639, 1.34M)

Epic liberal thoughts never fail to amuse me

Comrade, there are not even enough dog shelters in the world. Such organizations are rare.

Do you really have a room for a cow or two?

I do understand your logic, but cow transform grass into meat, without help of any highly-educated staff. Saying that labs are more efficient is sci-fi, not reality, *yet*.

Industrial animal farming is one thing, rejecting all meet is another. There is nothing wrong with eating meet from animals raised in pastures

Redpills on carnism and effective altruism

reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/

Attached: animalsuffering.jpg (834x731, 75.81K)

He also doesn't say that animals do labour, nor that they are exploited

Notice how he never says the phrase "animals can do labour". Of course nature is a source of use values, but to then conclude that animals are somehow equivalent to exploited labourers is ridiculous. While nature can be a source of use values, it cannot 'produce' value. A cow cannot plough a field or drive an axle without the direction and labour of a human. In all productive processes they are either a means of production or a resource, but never a source of labour power. To say so, to equivocate the exploitation of the labourer with the domestication of animals, is vulgar Marxism, plain and simple. It's laughable.

whether or not animals are "exploited" is a question of moral compass, not of objective reality

He also didn't talk about how the earth is a spheroid or that the moon landing was real

I guess that means flat earth theory is real and the moon landing was a hoax

Attached: 1397036444226.gif (325x244, 1.84M)

This is Zig Forums tier retardation.

The healthy point of meat is grass fed diets, why the fuck would anyone want factory made meat when they can kill and butcher their own, hunt woodcock and pidgeon rabbit and hare, fish.

Nice way to dodge the argument. "Exploitation" is an explicitly Marxist term, referring to the appropriation of surplus labour. You can't to misuse a Marxist term, get called out on your bullshit, and then expect to cop out by saying "well you're evil and stupid".

What the fuck are you even trying to say here? We are specifically talking about whether or not animals are exploited, that is whether their surplus labour is appropriated. Marx never once says that animals do labour, and his theories suggest otherwise. Here's the man himself explaining the origin of surplus labour:
Capital, vol.1 p.647
In other words, the origin of surplus labour is intrinsically tied to the dawn of human civilisation. Only humans are capable of producing surplus labour and thus of being exploited. Any other animal can only produce to feed itself and/or its family group.

Indians are fighting against Maoist insurgency because India was allied with Soviet Union and supported Vietnam against pol pot.

In my experience there are a lot of people willing to help. Problem is that those organisations are underfunded and life from donations.

Yes, it is in that humans exploit the surplus value of others' labor, barring a few notable exceptions in the rest of the tree of life.
Animals perform labor in a slave like fashion in which they are not compensated for the value of their labor.
This is literal exploitation in the Marxist sense. Non-human animals, at present, are not capable of ameliorating this situation in the vast majority of cases, unlike the proletariat.

Regardless, even if Marx defined something a certain way that's totally irrelevant to whether or not it's correct or relevant. Did you pick up capital believing that you can quote it like scripture as "proof" of your argument?

So you're saying the Maoists support Pol Pot? That's funny because I've not found a single mention of him in any of the articles about the Naxalites. Should we support the Indian government in their fight against this insurgency?

Marx says that humans are the only ones capable of 'producing' surplus labour, not exploiting it. Animals are still not capable of producing surplus labour. Don't fucking appropriate Marx into your animal liberation bullshit
How about you go hang yourself?

Cows do transform grass into meat, but they also depend on huge amounts of soy protein, which comes largely from cut down rainforests. So called organic meat is much more damaging to the environment as you need much more land for grasing. Conventional meat production is not sustainable in a world of 7 billion people, socialist or capitalist. If it is sustainable the supply would be so low it would only be for an extreme elite, and what monsters would choose to eat animals when 99,99% of people doesn't?

There is if you take liberatory politics (including marxism) seriously.
We are animals, we are human, but still animals. Humans have much more in common with a pig than the pig has with a fish. To construct an arbitrary hierarchy based on intelligence is something that leftists should understand is not justified.
If you can enslave and eat pigs just because they can't speak and can't solve crossword puzzles, does that mean that you also can enslave and eat indigenous tribes people? Speciesism is a legitimate form of oppression which plays into our own human forms of oppression. For instance it is a strong correlation between communities with slaughterhouses and domestic abuse.
As marxists we should also understand that our current view of animals is a product of our material conditions where most people eat non-human animals and there is heavy propaganda from the meat and dairy industry.

If non-human animals can't produce surplus value, then it's not any different for slaves. I do think that they do produce value as they do have a social relation to humans and to the production process. What your genes are does not determine your relation to production, your actions and social relations do. Defining non-human animals as nature and humans as non-nature is completely arbitrary and non-scientific.

Yes, it is in that humans exploit the surplus value of others' labor, barring a few notable exceptions in the rest of the tree of life.
Animals perform labor in a slave like fashion in which they are not compensated for the value of their labor.
This is literal exploitation in the Marxist sense. Non-human animals, at present, are not capable of ameliorating this situation in the vast majority of cases, unlike the proletariat.

Regardless, even if Marx defined something a certain way that's totally irrelevant to whether or not it's correct or relevant. Did you pick up capital believing that you can quote it like scripture as "proof" of your argument?

[Citation needed]
Because that isn't what the excerpt you posted said.

You first, false flag-kun

A slight correction: The material conditions where such a huge amount of our economy is centered around the production and consumption of non-human animal products and where it is a central part of most cultures.

Bulls don't look like that

How so?
I agree, but that's not what I am saying. Animals are incapable of independently engaging in production. That is why they cannot produce surplus labour, not because of some inherent "animalness". Animals, in production, are only capable of being used as means of production or as resources. You can say that animals are abused, mistreated, oppressed - these are all moral judgements, and you can argue for them - but you cannot say that they are exploited. That is an economic category. I have to clarify that I'm not trying to make any normative claims or trying to justify meat-eating or the domestication of animals, I frankly do not care. I just strongly disagree with the notion that animals are an economic class, which is what this talk of exploitation suggests.
I'd say that the humans vs. nature distinction is more a philosophical subject, but regardless I have never once made this distinction.

Well I might throw more quotes at you if you didn't whine about me quoting "scripture". What makes you think he is talking about the surplus labour of animals? Marx and Engels in their historiography explicitly link the rise of civilisation with the development of surplus labour, where humans become capable of producing more than they themselves need to live reproduce, creating new means of production and developing modes of exploitation to appropriate this surplus labour. A cow cannot independently produce more than it consumes, it cannot develop means of production and it certainly cannot develop modes of exploitation.

Rich people will eat actual meat while the poor will be given meat that was grown with the cheapest available chemicals and stimulants which will only be discovered to be harmful 50+ years after it has become standard.
If you didn't immediately think that this is the only outcome of lab grown meat you are low Autism Level.

what a useless unfunny filter

As it is right now I think they grow the meat using a soup that includes animal blood as a factor of production. They're searching for other sources to supply nutrients to the cells so they grow or whatever, but right now blood is either the only effective means or the most effective. So maybe it would be possible to reduce the amount of livestock being raised for meat, but it would basically still exist. You just wouldn't be directly killing them, rather using them as blood bags.

It would be the same for black slaves during the slave trade, or any other group not grown up in a society with a market. They couldn't indepenently engage in production because of their ethnicity, their upbringing or personal skills. You might also say it about mentally handicapped people. That does not mean they weren't exploited.

Lab grown meat would be cool if you could do it at home, which is a directions some are going in. That combined with urban agriculture would destroy the industry which would be great.

You could theoretically do it without any living prodction animals by just keeping an amount of stemcells (or whatever) artificially alive and grow them into muscle tissue. But that would be way off.

I don't think it is possible right now without finding ways to like, grow a leg or something. The meat they're growing is just a blob of meat, it has none of the characteristics of specific cuts of meat. I don't even think they can grow marbled meat right now at all.

I don't know why I'm talking about this. I don't know shit, I just watched youtube videos.

I've never heard of blood being used as the medium, I heard the cheapest way right now is eggs but they're looking for a plant based medium so there's no animal cruelty and could be even cheaper.

Fetal calf tissue is used to create the starter cells, but there have been a lot of stem cell advancements so one day we'll probably be able to reproduce the cells from one initial calf fetus.

No. They were perfectly capable of engaging independently in production, and they were doing so happily before they were enslaved. I think you misunderstand me. Production does not solely mean "capitalist production" or "commodity production", it can just as well be farming. A slave is perfectly capable of producing, and he is forced under duress to produce something for someone else. A cow cannot do the same. If you let them run wild they would not develop agriculture. They can only be used as means of production or as resources by humans.

Not worth continuing to discuss things with someone who refuses to discuss in good faith.

But animals do produce, share and cooperate. They do trade and they do have complex social relations.

China supported pol pot, not necessary Maoists, and in my opinion Maoist insurgency in India is more geopolitical than ideological. Wherever we should support them or not is up for debate. I would prefer for Indian government to go full communist, but for insurgents to take more vanilla approach.

That may be true, I'm just talking out of my ass based on pop science shit.

And also, what about primitive hunter gatherers which were pretty much "animal-like"? If you put them into modern society they would not be able to independently engage in production. They would not be able to understand the society and how to engage in it. That does not mean that if you put them in a camp and forced them to work they wouldn't be exploited.

What if you had mentally handicapped people as sex slaves, would that not be exploitative?

I'd say that the humans vs. nature distinction is more a philosophical subject, but regardless I have never once made this distinction.

Also see this study: zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/

Oops
Accidental ctrl+p

That's rich coming from you, fam.

Of course they do, to an extent. Some animals do have complex social skills, are capable of basic tool usage, or have symbiotic relations that approach that of human agriculture (for instance that species of ants which keep aphids for milking), but would you say that any of these come close to what humans do? Are any of them capable of producing more than what they need to get by? I'm not trying to be some human-supremacist here, but the notion that other animals have some surplus to be exploited is extremely flimsy.
That actually made me think: humans aren't the only creatures that have 'domesticated' animals, plenty of species have symbiotic relationships with other species where one protects the other in exchange for food. Isn't domestication just a very advanced form of symbiosis? Is this bad in principle? After all, all the species involved have certainly benefited a lot from this.

If someone cannot fit in society then they cannot work, that simple. You're using exploitation as a derogative term, I'm not. I'm using exploitation in the Marxist sense as the appropriation of surplus labour. Of course putting a tribe a hunter gatherers in work camps is horrible (though unless we are talking about Neanderthals, all they might need is some really intensive job-training in order to fit in), and of course using retards as sex slaves is horrible, but that doesn't mean it's exploitation. Maybe for the hunter-gatherers, but their "incapability" is more culture shock than anything.
It's an interesting article, but it doesn't really say much beyond "monkeys are clever". Trying to derive any higher meaning from this is just projecting ourselves onto these monkeys who, as admitted in the article, don't think of much else besides food and sex.

I think that would be rather difficult since the current ruling party by a large margin is the NDA, right wingers. I don't understand where you get this notion that India is socialist, it isn't.

Isn't slavery just a very advanced form of symbiosis? Is this bad in principle? After all, africans have certainly benefited a lot from this.

You can put a mentally handicapped person and a monkey to the excact same simple task in a factory, where you pay one with food tokens and the other with money. The purpose of the article was to show that the main difference between humans and the other species is the degree and the scale we operate on, which you can not put an arbitrary border around.
Is there really a huge difference between humans and a monkey in that regard? We basically have the same aims, to fuck, to eat and to be entertained. The main difference is how we achieve those goals.

You have arbitrarily made a distinction between humans and animals which do not have any reasonable justifications. Even if Marx made the same distinction that does not make him right, his word is not gospel and so on. The dangers of having this speciesist arbitrary hierarchy or lines of division is that it justifies and promotes cruelty and slavery upon billions of concious living beings. Very similar arguements were made about black people, women, etc.. That they lacked certain qualities which made them less valueable or worthy of inclusion. Marxism has been in the humanitarian tradition and has been anthropocentric, which has been reasonable in the past, but today it should evolve to include other non-human animals.

I would recommend this book: bloomsbury.com/us/the-history-of-animals-a-philosophy-9781350012011/
and this video from the sniff-man himself: youtu.be/pGFVUsYnw8U

It is too late for me to debate anymore, goodnight.

But animals aren’t workers, calling milk their labor is like calling a building the product of a hammer’s labor. Only humans can produce value.

I was referring to India's past, when it was friends with Soviet Union and Vietnam and did five year plans.

This is a good article about marxism and animal liberation:
weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/994/animal-liberation-and-marxism/

The solution is simple. Just cull all the farm animals and turn their remains into hydrocarbons. It’s very efficient.
animals aren’t human, only humans can have rights, for only humans are self-aware. Saying it’s morally wrong to kill a non-human animal is like saying it’s wrong to smash a window because it violates window rights.

>>>/liberalpol/

Attached: nazi are gay.jpg (800x540, 81.42K)

I think it's very insulting how you keep comparing black people to animals. I would also really like to see how you plan on making a monkey work in an office. The distinction I make is not arbitrary, and it has nothing to do with some inherent "animalness" or "humanness", no matter how much you try to paint it as such. It is the very simple fact that they can't work. You might have a worker guide them into doing something useful, but they cannot do it themselves, and thus it is simply a manifestation of the worker's own labour. A labour multiplier, but useless on its own. I'm not saying animals are lesser beings, or that retards should go to labour camps, I am simply saying that animals do not belong in the same economic category as workers.
Why am I arguing with you, then? Your argument is self-defeating. The very fact that you are taking time away from fucking and eating to discuss an abstract concept like exploitation contradicts your claim that humans don't care about higher concept.

And I am referring to India's present, where a right-wing regime is currently fighting an actual communist insurgency. I think that's a bit more relevant to us.

Only humans can create rights. We can give them to whoever we damn well please.

Yeah, it's similar how right wingers say that white men freed slaves and gave women rights to vote.

Can you read?
To debate is entertaining to me, therefore I debate. Animals love playing, solving puzzles and being social, which do not fall into sex and food. Stop debating in bad faith.

I use the slave comparison as your talking points where used in a similar way to non-whites in the past. You say that you have to instruct an animal to work, which is true, but you have to do the same to a human. A worker won't just stumble into a factory and suddenly produce value, he has to be shown how to by his boss, his fellow workers or his society. What do you think training and education is? If you have read Marx you would understand how much he talks about social labor. If we follow your logic then worker's labor is only a multiplier of the teacher's labour.