For someone who didn't want to drag it into an argument, peppering your response with "moronic" isn't exactly the way to go about that. The statement was
"Arguably, that is the only reasonable reason to be a vegetarian". Note carefully the first word - the statement as a whole is not a firm "this IS the truth", but "this might be reasonable truth". I appreciate the difference is probably too subtle for someone who's command of rhetoric is limited to whipping out the word "moronic" and "silly" only moments after trying to persuade readers that he is above "descending into arguments about".
Ethical, cost, environmental or the myriad of other reasons people trot out for being vegetarians are all value judgements. You might well think that the cost is too much, or that the environmental impact is too great or the treatment of animals is too cruel. These aren't universal values - if they were, it would be unreasonable for anyone to eat meat. Any such value judgement relies on an arbitrary judgement of what is "too much". There is no universal truth that X is too much, the best you can say is that it is your opinion that it is too much and you are entitled to that opinion (whatever that is supposed to mean - (not much)).
"Like" on the other hand is a self evident unarguable truth. "I don't like meat" is simply true (and it is universally true that X does not like meat). "Like" doesn't aim for a universal truth of "because I don't like meat it is unreasonable for others to like meat", we accept as entirely reasonable the fact that people have different tastes.
So silly or moronic to say "arguably the only reasonable reason" - not really. It is the only reason that you can have that doesn't condemn others to being unreasonable for eating meat. The only reason that doesn't say "my value judgements are right and yours are wrong". In the end it is the only reason which is simply unarguable, every other reason we can argue about how much is too much or too little.
Can we return to the topic please.
Apparently they haven't yet found a way to insert the fat into this burger so I dont think it will taste good yet. BUT it is a start and a very good one. I heard someone on Radio 4 going on about how it was full of additives and goodness knows what etc etc which so far isnt true - she also felt that in the context of the UK which home grows quite a lot of pasture-fed meat,it was unnecessary, missing the point being made about countries becoming more affluent and wanting to eat more and more meat that cannot be produced at all, never mind ethically.
The response has been that it was very 'hard' and dry, which makes sense considering the lack of fat. Its a good start, but some distance to go yet!
Looking forward to buying SimBeef in the future rather than 'side of cow'. :)
yes I figured fat would be the issue, my first thought was that surely they would be mincing the 'meat' like normal and can chuck in fat and seasoning like normal but then of course where does the fat come from :)
$200,000 a burger, just to get one without horse cells is quite expensive.
BBC article show the land use % difference. The price of grow lab vs fields should be somewhat different in price to what is still basic farming.
They'll just make some of the cells turn into fat surely rather than muscle?
I like my meat particularly lean but definitely needs some fat to add to the taste. Getting close though - I'd certainly give it a go.
My personal opinion on the Vegetarian/Non Vegetarian debate is that whatever you choose to eat or not eat is your own affair as long as you don't preach about it. You make your choices and I make mine and I don't need someone else telling me I'm wrong because blah blah blah. I don't care what others choose to eat or not eat and I don't pass judgement, therefore I expect them to do the same.
There are worse foods in the world than a lab-grown burger, but I can't help but feel that the flavour of the meat is dependant on the lifestyle of the animal itself, the food it eats and the blood the meat contains - it seems to me that this lab grown burger is likely to be fairly tasteless without the addition of artificial flavourings which kinda defeats the object of the exercise.
That being said, growing meat in a lab has obvious benefits beyond replacing the use of live animals - this manned mission to Mars for example - they are hardly going to be taking a herd of cattle with them are they? Yet if foodstuffs can be grown in a lab, all they will need to take is the cell stock and the lab equipment.
I do think though that symbiotic relationships between animals in terms of animal husbandry and 'hunting for food' are necessary - it keeps everything in balance - without Animal A hunting Animal B for food, Animal B population gets out of control and destroys the local environment leaving Animals C, D and E homeless and foodless leading to stress on the population of Animals C, D and E and eventual extinction. IIRC Ants 'farm' aphids (Aphid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) so Humans are not the only animals on earth to exploit a symbiotic relationship, although arguably we have the greatest scope.