a direct link if your more than a little curiousness to ,ale a difference here and everywhere like it in the world
time to pass the hat and give them something useful this year perhaps...before their cleared out as the PR ramp's up again EE
"Just exactly where are they going to get the raw materials to make this fake meat?"
as Isleguard1 points out everyone loves printed SG after all why make your own when they do all the work for you ,great for all those low income people down the local vegas flood systems underground-tunnels this and every holiday season see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=grbSQ6O6kbs
This article has me boiling, and it's not because I'm against fake meat. The main emphasis of the article seems to be whether folks will buy into the notion of fake meat, and I'm OK with asking that question. What's got me riled up is it reflects a too common mentality that is trying to demonize our food. The article uses loaded phrases like "environmental train wreck" and "catastrophic" (regarding environmental burden) to describe the meat production industry as it is today. Then, it takes some numbers and makes them sound terrible. I went through the math, and it's not terrible. For instance, (by their numbers) it takes about 3/4 the size of Wyoming to produce all the beef consumed in the United States. That's not terrible. BUT SO WHAT IF IT WAS TERRIBLE? Somehow in that whole discussion is the idea that a particular use of private land is morally wrong. Let's say I've got 11 acres (I do). What if I want to produce a few cows on it? Isn't that my prerogative? I drove through Wyoming recently. What else are they going to do with that land (beef is their largest agricultural product)? Growing crops on it isn't totally feasible. Plus, I think the folks in Wyoming know how best to use their land. To me it's morally wrong for some writer sitting at a cubicle somewhere to decide what should and shouldn't be done with someone else's land.
The next rub comes in the 6th paragraph where it implies all this will be done, "without the environmental impact". What!!!??? Just exactly where are they going to get the raw materials to make this fake meat? It's going to have to be grown or dug out of the ground somehow and transported from there to the factory. And where are they going to get the free energy that doesn't have any environmental impact? What are the waste products of this fake meat factory going to be and how are they going to deal with that?
THis discussion certainly gave all of the meat-haters a chance to rant a bit. So, would I eat printed meat? Of course, at least once. It might be good, and it might be healthy, and there does indeed exist a chance that it may be cheaper than regular meat. But I offer a point of concern, which is that there is a crowd around who won't even eat geneticly altered food, which is still the real thing, just a bit different. So you have an army of ignorant people who will be against the very idea before there are any published facts available.
Aside from all of that, I am certain that it will be much nicer to eat than much of the stuff in survival training. And once you have been through that you can eat anything.
Our food system may have problems, but I'd call it far from broken. All of that fuel is used on machinery and automation that allows greater quantities of food to be produced. It allows greater variety of food to be produced in various parts of the world, allowing fresh fruits and vegetables to be available for far more of the year than would otherwise be possible.
Yes, I know correlation isn't necessarily cause and a lot of other factors are at play, but there is a lot of correlation between mechanization of food production and a pretty dramatic increase in lifespan over the last 50 or so years.
I certainly think we've taken it too far in some areas. i.e., that a small amount of contaminated meat can lead to a recall of millions of pounds, and the super-sizing of fatty foods. But on balance we're healthier and live longer because of it.
Answering the immediate question, yes I would eat printed meat. It would probably have no grizzle, be intricately layered with fat, and hence taste as good as the particular source materials and structure design can allow. (Not going to discuss the source materials!)
The not so immediate question in my mind is what complex foods can be printed? Simple breads seem to be well handled at present, but much more interesting layered and decorated products could be made.
And my big gripe (since so many else are off topic) is we eat WAY TOO MUCH creating FAR TOO MUCH demand which breaks down food supply systems and creates a myriad of awful environmental issues.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.