3D printed meat could soon be cheap and tasty enough to win you over

By Ryan Whitwam
geek.com
February 12, 2013

The next time you’re about to bite into a hamburger, take
a moment to consider the resources that went into making
it. In a recent Solve for X talk, Andras Forgacs laid out
all the statistics, and explained how tantalizingly close
we are to a more sustainable method of meat production.
Basically, humanity may soon be 3D printing meat instead
of growing it in an animal.

Forgacs starts by explaining just how costly a single
quarter-pound beef patty is to produce. For that one
serving, 6.7lbs of grains, 600 gallons of water, and 75
square feet of grazing land were used. Now multiply that
by 1000 to find your (approximate) impact — the average
American eats over 220lbs of meat each year.
Additionally, at least 18% of greenhouse gas emissions
are due to meat production. All this for one burger?

Continues at:

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pi...over-20130212/

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

no thanks

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:07:57 -0800, Dutch > wrote:

>no thanks

More evidence that you don't eat meat at all of course, but how do you want
to try to justify such an aversion for someone who actually does...as if you
actually do eat meat but have the aversion?

On 3/7/2013 1:36 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - a convicted felon,
lied:

> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:07:57 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> no thanks
>
> More evidence that you don't eat meat at all of course, but

No.

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:07:57 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> no thanks
>
> More evidence that you don't eat meat at all of course, but how do you want
> to try to justify such an aversion for someone who actually does...as if you
> actually do eat meat but have the aversion?
>

moron

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:45:07 -0800, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:07:57 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> no thanks
>>
>> More evidence that you don't eat meat at all of course, but how do you want
>> to try to justify such an aversion for someone who actually does...as if you
>> actually do eat meat but have the aversion?
>>
>
>moron

LOL....even MORE evidence that you don't eat meat. You can't even think
about eating meat, even if it's never been part of a living animal. LOL...you
sure revealed yourself this time!

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:45:07 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:07:57 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> no thanks
>>>
>>> More evidence that you don't eat meat at all of course, but how do you want
>>> to try to justify such an aversion for someone who actually does...as if you
>>> actually do eat meat but have the aversion?
>>>
>>
>> moron
>
> LOL....even MORE evidence that you don't eat meat. You can't even think
> about eating meat, even if it's never been part of a living animal. LOL...you
> sure revealed yourself this time!
>

I take partial responsibility for the complete idiot you have
degenerated into, I have allowed you to get attention from it. Sorry, I
was just having a little fun, and I really thought you would eventually
wise up.

On 3/9/2013 9:06 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - a convicted felon,
lied:

> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:45:07 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - a convicted felon, lied:
>>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:07:57 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> no thanks
>>>
>>> More evidence that you don't eat meat at all of course, but how do you want
>>> to try to justify such an aversion for someone who actually does...as if you
>>> actually do eat meat but have the aversion?
>>>
>>
>> moron
>
> LOL....even MORE evidence that you don't eat meat.

No.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:20:14 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>3D printed meat could soon be cheap and tasty enough to win you over
>
>By Ryan Whitwam
>geek.com
>February 12, 2013
>
>The next time you’re about to bite into a hamburger, take
>a moment to consider the resources that went into making
>it. In a recent Solve for X talk, Andras Forgacs laid out
>all the statistics, and explained how tantalizingly close
>we are to a more sustainable method of meat production.
>Basically, humanity may soon be 3D printing meat instead
>of growing it in an animal.

Something like that will be the eventual end of livestock raising, like
machinery was the end of the need for work horses. There will still be a few
around in zoos and odd farms, but there won't be billions of them experiencing
life because they're raised for food. The same will be true for chickens etc. In
some cases I believe that overall will be a "good" thing like the case of cage
raised laying hens, and the brothers of most laying hens including cage free. In
others I don't believe it would necessarily be good or better from an overall
pov since I believe lives of positive value for livestock is a positive thing in
the overall. That doesn't mean anything will suffer a loss when livestock are no
longer raised for food, but it does mean it can be appreciated by those people
who are able when they are, have been in the past, and will be in the future.
ONLY eliminationists have reason to be unable to appreciate that.

>Forgacs starts by explaining just how costly a single
>quarter-pound beef patty is to produce. For that one
>serving, 6.7lbs of grains, 600 gallons of water, and 75
>square feet of grazing land were used. Now multiply that
>by 1000 to find your (approximate) impact

Six hundred thousand gallons of water to raise a steer for how long?

>— the average
>American eats over 220lbs of meat each year.
>Additionally, at least 18% of greenhouse gas emissions
>are due to meat production. All this for one burger?

That seems like an eliminationist type of estimate from my pov.

On 3/7/2013 1:36 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - a convicted felon,
lied:

> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:20:14 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>> 3D printed meat could soon be cheap and tasty enough to win you over
>>
>> By Ryan Whitwam
>> geek.com
>> February 12, 2013
>>
>> The next time you’re about to bite into a hamburger, take
>> a moment to consider the resources that went into making
>> it. In a recent Solve for X talk, Andras Forgacs laid out
>> all the statistics, and explained how tantalizingly close
>> we are to a more sustainable method of meat production.
>> Basically, humanity may soon be 3D printing meat instead
>> of growing it in an animal.
>
> Something like that will be the eventual end of livestock raising, like
> machinery was the end of the need for work horses. There will still be a few
> around in zoos and odd farms, but there won't be billions of them experiencing
> life because they're raised for food.

Exactly. And that has no moral meaning at all - *zero*.


> The same will be true for chickens etc. In
> some cases I believe that overall will be a "good" thing like the case of cage
> raised laying hens, and the brothers of most laying hens including cage free. In
> others I don't believe it would necessarily be good or better from an overall
> pov since I believe lives of positive value for livestock is a positive thing in
> the overall.

Meaningless.

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:49:19 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On 3/7/2013 1:36 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - a convicted felon,
>lied:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:20:14 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
>> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>
>>> 3D printed meat could soon be cheap and tasty enough to win you over
>>>
>>> By Ryan Whitwam
>>> geek.com
>>> February 12, 2013
>>>
>>> The next time you’re about to bite into a hamburger, take
>>> a moment to consider the resources that went into making
>>> it. In a recent Solve for X talk, Andras Forgacs laid out
>>> all the statistics, and explained how tantalizingly close
>>> we are to a more sustainable method of meat production.
>>> Basically, humanity may soon be 3D printing meat instead
>>> of growing it in an animal.
>>
>> Something like that will be the eventual end of livestock raising, like
>> machinery was the end of the need for work horses. There will still be a few
>> around in zoos and odd farms, but there won't be billions of them experiencing
>> life because they're raised for food.
>
>Exactly. And that has no moral meaning at all - *zero*.

You think that would be better not of zero meaning Goo, but you can't say
why everyone should agree with you.

>> The same will be true for chickens etc. In
>> some cases I believe that overall will be a "good" thing like the case of cage
>> raised laying hens, and the brothers of most laying hens including cage free. In
>> others I don't believe it would necessarily be good or better from an overall
>> pov since I believe lives of positive value for livestock is a positive thing in
>> the overall.
>
>Meaningless.

It won't matter that they don't exist Goober but it does matter that they
do. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the animals' lives,
Goo.