|
|
Post by pfbourassa on Sept 29, 2017 17:58:00 GMT
Science AMA Series: Beef without cows, sushi without fish, and milk without animals. We're cellular agriculture scientists, non-profit leaders, and entrepreneurs. AMA!
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/737klj/science_ama_series_beef_without_cows_sushi/
|
|
14flash
Script Writer/Editor 
Posts: 100
|
Post by 14flash on Sept 30, 2017 3:20:09 GMT
Giving a quick read through top level questions and answers and here's some ideas I thought of: Since we'd no longer be constrained by evolutionary successful plants and animals, would it be possible to invent new species, or perhaps, more importantly, new flavors? I think the interesting thing here would be how this applies to copyright. Invention should be protected, but recipes are commonly understood to be reproducible and adaptable by anyone who so chooses. How would that change if someone owned the flavor you want to use? ( I thought there was an Idea Channel in the same vein; something about inventing or owning smells? I can't find it now. It was about color: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pKHfwC2btI) Since we have controlled the evolution of our livestock to domesticate them, most animals wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. I doubt that this will lead to extinction of the species we've created as there will be some demand for "real" meat, even if it becomes an expensive delicacy. I'm also guessing that at this point most lab grown meat cultures are genetic clones of each other. If extinction of the base species were to happen and a virus/bacteria came along which could rapidly target and kill the specific genome we have for our meat, would we every be able to get that flavor/species back? (Think Cavendish bananas.) |
|
|
|
Post by heresanidea on Sept 30, 2017 17:16:58 GMT
Bit off topic:
Oh man I had already used something like this for a philosophical example while arguing against McLuhan's "Message is medium" thing last week.
(It's not structured and I'm going back and forth on both sides, so I can't share the ideas yet)
McLuhan says somewhere something like things (real world objects) designed to carry messages (mental, intentional) affect​ society and the unwary fall prey, and only few "artistic" people are wary of that.
And I argue that, no, you don't need to be an artist. It's just that the effects of the medium just aren't noticeable against other effects because other defects are just that much more important for the people.
And as an example I wrote -
Normal Vegans will eat any engineered meat that say reproduces and even kills itself and doesn't have sophisticated nervous system to feel pain. Indian vegetarians still won't eat it, because it is still 'non-veg' and the desire to avoid meat isn't a rational moral choice, it's a religious tradition.
So although by McLuhan's theory, this new product should have a pretty significant effect on vegetarianism, in some places where people have overriding desires, it won't.
To take McLuhan's side here, well few of the normal Vegans might still notice the changes and those are the kind of people whom he refers to as artists.
Which is fine with me, although saying "keen people" would've been more suitable instead of "artist".
(This is my complaint against people with a more continental philosophical bent. They throw around words very loosely.
And I am one of them but at least I'm trying to improve)
|
|
