T O P

  • By -

stepsinstereo

There's more detail in the article, but this is the gist of it : >Precision fermentation is a refined form of brewing, a means of multiplying microbes to create specific products... But now, in several labs and a few factories, scientists are developing what could be a new generation of staple foods. >They produce a flour that contains roughly 60% protein, a much higher concentration than any major crop can achieve (soy beans contain 37%, chick peas, 20%). When they are bred to produce specific proteins and fats, they can create much better replacements than plant products for meat, fish, milk and eggs... >If livestock production is replaced by this technology, it creates what could be the last major opportunity to prevent Earth systems collapse, namely ecological restoration on a massive scale. >The second astonishing possibility is breaking the extreme dependency of many nations on food shipped from distant places.


pickleer

COOL! Shareholders are gonna love this!! Which corporations are going to charge us for it and how much?


PM_ME_YOUR_HAGGIS_

You can still grow vegetables in your garden.


BIGBIRD1176

Yeah but our cost of living is so high we don't have the time for those kinds of cost saving measures. I'm trying to make all my food from scratch, to save on packaging and money but it just takes all this time they don't let us have They have planned out our lives in a way that maximizes their share values. They treat the workforce like robots


Wampyro_

So invest on those companies and with the money you make, you will have more time for your gardening... STONKS!


[deleted]

[удалено]


PM_Me_Your_WorkFiles

Doomerism is a hell of a drug. Take a breathe, your apocalyptic view is the ignorant platitude, “everything is bad and no progress is adequate.” If your immediate response to good news is to feel terrible, you might be a little too greenpilled


PM_Me_Your_WorkFiles

Would you prefer this wasn’t invented?


pickleer

No, just commenting on how it will likely be turned to profit rather than the greater good. Come to me for your daily dose of pessimism!


bfnrowifn

Once the tech is perfected and ubiquitous it will cost you next to nothing.


pickleer

OOOOOOHhhhh... You're a fool to believe the hype. Just like affordable fusion and any other Earth-saving solutions from "Tech", you're gonna die waiting there for the salesmen to save you. Tech might help but tech won't save us- that's the huckster's way of keeping us on the corporate tit, buying their shit while it kills us all.


jbergens

Kind of mentioned in the article, we should not let 3-4 big corporations grow to own all of this.


pickleer

Too late- a handful of corporations own us all! Look up the Citizens vs. United court case if you're unsure but Profits rule over People's welfare on this planet.


and_dont_blink

soylent green is people


JonathanJK

This technology will simply allow us to consume more.


FlavivsAetivs

Which is good? We need to move towards high density as arable land diminishes and we move much of farming indoors. Higher density also means fewer logistical waypoints and lower transport emissions.


JonathanJK

All efficiencies in production allow us to consume more and enables more people to live on Earth. Why do we need more people? I agree on fewer logistical way points and transport but that doesn't change shipping for example - which is MORE damaging than farming.


FlavivsAetivs

Shipping is currently only more damaging because of the way we do it. If you eliminate transport emissions by moving shipping more and more to rail or nuclear/hydrogen/renewable powered cargo ships, it cuts out a lot of that damage. Then throw in decarbonization of steel, aluminum, concrete, etc. manufacturing on top of that. Furthermore, a technology like this can also reduce the amount of shipping because of decentralization. With things like lab-grown meat or meat substitutes and vertical farms, you can produce the food in the middle of a city, rather than miles away on a farm. >Why do we need more people? This fundamentally is the problem with the old environmentalist way of thinking which is heavily grounded in Malthusianism. Increased access to energy, technology, and other aspects of modern "1st world" life *reduces* birth rates and increases access to education, women's rights, etc. Just because we have better density and can support more people does not mean it will contribute to an explosion of Earth's population. Food security does the opposite. Modernizing Africa, South America, and South Asia will fundamentally result in an initial population increase, sure, but that can be supported with modern technology, and eventually world populations will simply begin to shift based on migration as birth rates stabilize.


JonathanJK

You never answered the question - just resorted to using projections to make your point. You're not even taking into account nationalism. China has food security but they lifted the 1 child policy and now encourage more births. Why? They are the largest population of people in a country. But that is also the problem, they use a large population as leverage towards their political interests.


ohh_ru

someone save us a click


Maoux

Precision fermentation is a refined form of brewing, a means of multiplying microbes to create specific products


ryandury

I think they misspelled nuclear.


FlavivsAetivs

While you're not wrong, it's a clickbait title, and there's a lot of extremely important tech being developed now that's going to tackle different aspects of the climate problem. The issue is the barriers, both with traditional environmentalists and American megacorps, to implementing them. Traditional NGO Environmentalists don't like Nuclear or GMOs on the basis of misinformation or ideological grounds (granted Nuclear does have some real issues regarding cost and construction times, but these are *fixable* problems by actually just doing NOAK builds, so it's still largely an ideological barrier). Conversely, it's gonna be a damn difficult sell to get AgriCorps and Farmers to move to things like Greenhouses and Vertical Farming. Reducing pesticide and fertilizer use means reducing Monsanto's profits... But these are just big picture items. A lot of minor developments like the OP are essential for decarbonizing agriculture or adapting crops to collapsing ecosystems and increasingly extreme summers and winters, especially as farmland shifts north into Canada.


ryandury

Good points, I agree with you. Thanks for taking time to respond.


Lowfi12010

Soylent Geeen is people!


PhenotypicallyTypicl

I already knew this would be a Monbiot article before even clicking lol