Hacker News Reader

Comment by RandallBrown | Hacker News Reader

I can imagine this going over well with people that want to eat meat, but don't really want to kill animals. I could see them paying twice as much for a steak produced this way.

Then, as it becomes cheaper and cheaper, it will become the norm for meat. Eventually "real" meat from animals will be the the luxury item.

View on HN

I would pay twice as much for artificial meat that doesn't involve killing an animal, in a heartbeat. Being responsible for the deaths (often in abhorrent circumstances) of so many living creatures is simply difficult to swallow (pun ftw!). That said, there's a big if:

I would pay twice as much in a heartbeat, so long as the artificial meat tasted indistinguishable or close enough to the real thing. That means texture, juiciness, taste, consistency, etc.

I wouldn't pay anything for, for example, quorn.

I'm a meat-eater despite disliking killing so many animals because I love the taste of meat more than I dislike the killing.

Research and experience show that of all the people who say this (I would pay X more for animal-friendler meat), few follow through. I pay around 25% more for meat that is produced with the animals having better lives and the relative amount of such products available does not line up with the amount of people that say they would buy it.

The full statement is probably "I would pay X more for animal-friendlier meat if it was sitting next to the animal-unfriendly meat on the supermarket shelf". Not an indictment per se but it usually takes a lot of work on the producer and consumer side of the equation to effect real change in people's habits.

And if someone trustworthy has verified the animal-friendliness, because otherwise sham self-certification by factory farms is sure to predominate.

Almost certainly true about animal-friendlier meat. However, many people won't eat animal meat on moral principals, and quite likely would be willing to pay twice as much for non-animal meat. (Basically all they have to do to make it affordable is eat half the portion size of traditional carnivore consumers).

I dislike the killing as well, and so I haven't eaten meat in 29 years. But I'd eat in-vitro meat without hesitation.

You do realize that you're killing plants, right? Unless you're planning to photosynthesize, you're still part of a food chain.

Off-topic: Every new paragraph starting with an "I" comes off as distracting for the reader. Also the repeated use of "I would / wouldn't" makes it sound like it's a stylistic grip, but the sentences doesn't seem to be set up that way.

Seeing as you're interested in improving your writing [0] I thought I should mention it. Apologizes in advance if this wasn't the right time and place for it :)

0: http://swombat.com/2010/12/6/get-better-at-writing

Spot on.

In the article, one of the doctors mentions that the process of growing meat in a lab needs to be more efficient than in a cow or pig.

I'd say the process needs to be AS efficient, and could even be slightly less efficient to be economically viable.

There's a large and growing market of people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons. I've been a vegetarian for about 17 years now, and can't wait to take a bite out of a lab grown steak with some nice seasoning.

I would pay an extra 50% for cloned tissues (from cows to fish) because I don't like the killing and growing. Probably when the time comes to make the "real" meal a luxury item, the human empathy to the animals will be higher.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com