With only a few exceptions, Substacks tend to attract worthwhile comments, instead of signals of tribal membership like this one: “I won’t consider eating this stuff until Ms. Postrel, Bill Gates, John Kerry, and their fellow Davis/WEF dirrrtbags give up their super prime filet mignon, primo lobsters, and free range poultry. Apres vous Alphonse.” It is the second-best thing about Substack for me -- I actually read many comments, which I don’t do on most sites. It might be first-best for some authors who are writing for free.
It's been very strange but not surprising to see how Plant Meat 2.0 and the idea of vat meat has scrambled the fault lines of tribal identities. We are seeing an odd coalition of people whose masculinity or patriotism is threatened by the idea of slaughterless meat with people who are ostensibly environmentalists deciding that shrinking the footprint of agriculture isn't worth it if it is brought about by technology instead of hairshirt regulation.
As for me, the cashier at the Burger King looks at me funny when I order bacon on my Impossible Burger. But I'm an environmentalist, not a fanatic.
The wsj piece was brilliant; elegant and original thinking that brought together diverse strands of the world’s complex dilemmas. Prometheus, protein, science and ethics... so well done. Pay the detractors no heed. Onward.
Your book on fabrics is one of my favorite books. I recommend often. I was inspired to read it when I heard you speak on a podcast; maybe Jonah Goldberg. I enjoyed this article too. Never thought of you as an idealogue.
I see why some folks may like synthetic meat, but I'm a slow cooker type. I like to make a soup that draws from the bones and tissues, I like peasant food and I grew up eating like a peasant. Yes I am a bourgeois peasant, and this is an indulgence. But it's also my authentic palate. I would feel deprived if I could only find synthetic chicken because I'm not into cutlets. I think people like me (there are a lot of us) will be the last ones to go for this. I doubt the makers of synth chicken will be manufacturing bony wings and feet and heads for soup. I suspect they'll make food that tastes like a deboned thigh or breast. But I'll keep an open mind and see what happens. It's true that food prep changes over time. We cook differently - I like my peasant food, but I don't cook over a fire. I put it in a slow cooker. And I wouldn't want an eight year old to be wrapping the chicken, so point taken.
There certainly are places (and have been times when) small kids doing that struck people as normal. Child labour is depressingly persistent, as we've recently seen, but it was reported in the news cycle because we don't think it's okay. Well, most of us don't. Further more, there's a lot of synthetic or tweaked stuff that I DO like. Medications, pasteurized milk, veggies/fruits that have been designed to last or taste better. And so on.
"So if someone invents cell-grown meat, government mandates will soon follow. We therefore shouldn’t encourage alternatives to the status quo lest we be forced to adopt them."
This is the half the problem...the unconstitutional mandating of things or unconstitutional monetary rewards and penalties for various things. But the other half is all this stuff is being promulgated by the most stupid among us. We just went through COVID where absolutely everything recommended was WRONG and the data proved it. And the intelligent knew it would not work because we understood history and science. There is a lack of trust not only that these people have the populations interests at heart, but that they aren't complete morons.
"ethical standards evolve in a bottom-up way. They aren’t simply imposed, by me or anyone else. Their evolution is influenced not only by cultural ideas but by economics and technology. "
Hmmnn. I wonder where Postrel has been over the last three or four years. Mandatory pronouns (see Ontario Canada and any college campus in the US) are considered a matter of ethics and the elite (public and private) have been imposing that "ethic" on people at the risk of losing their employment or total cancellation. "Bottom up" has nothing to do with that nonsense.
How about the vaccine mandates for the "gene therapy" (yes, messenger RNA is considered gene therapy by the FDA) that have been imposed by government, large corporations and higher education on health care workers, on college students, the military, employees of the city of New York, pilots etc. etc? Those mandates are justified by the elite as a matter of ethics. They falsely claimed that taking the mRna shots protect others, even though they've never done any such thing. That is another "ethic" imposed on the hoi polloi by the political class - that's "top down" not "bottom up" ethics.
You'd have to be an idiot to claim that the synthetic meat being promoted by people like Bill Gates - you know, the trust fund kid turned anti-trust practicing, tech billionaire and Epstein island aficionado who also happens to own more farmland in the US than anyone else - will remain "just a suggestion" any longer than the powerful will need to tax and regulate animal husbandry out of existence. "Bottom up ethics" will have nothing to do with it. Gates, Biden, Pelosi, the entire federal bureacracy, the C Suite at Pfizer - just to name a few - are veritable paragons of ethics.
I couldn't care less if anyone eats synthetic meat, but pretending that those in power have no desire to force everyone else to do so is laughable.
This month, I gave a lecture to some medical school students. I told them that when I taught classes filled with doctors and nurses, I always required them to go through an exercise: “List some things that you are doing in your work today that COULD (CORRECTION: earlier, I accidentally wrote WILL) be viewed a century from now with ethical revulsion--things that MIGHT (said WILL earlier and shouldn’t have) leave your great-grandchildren shaking their heads in shame. The way we look today at eugenicists. Importantly, I’m not asking you to list things that you already find problematic. I’m more interested in the things that you are proud of but which history might view less favorably.” ... ... To start them off, I said something like, “I eat meat. I love meat. I will likely eat meat for the rest of my life. I think eating meat is fine. But I am well aware that people in the 22nd century might view my eating habits as ghoulish and unethical and wonder what the hell I was thinking.”
Isn't an easier solution to disgusting conditions at chicken-packing plants better conditions at chicken-packing plants? Or better pay that could make putting up with the disgusting worthwhile? Collecting garbage is pretty disgusting, too, but garbage-collection jobs here in DC are sought-after because the pay and benefits are great.
That said, though, if people would rather eat "cell-grown meat" than the real thing because it makes them feel morally advanced, more power to them--and let the market decide. So far the market has decided rather negatively in the case of "Impossible" and other synthetic meats. The meat cases at my neighborhood Safeway used to feature a big section devoted to "plant-based" products, but recently that section has shrunk down to two small segments of shelves ("Yay!" says I, the carnivore--more room for the real thing.) I've also read that Impossible is laying off people. But young people today seem to be increasingly squeamish about dealing with large cuts of (real) meat or whole raw chickens in their kitchens (ooh, yuck, blood! fat! innards!), so perhaps they'll glom onto those (to me creepy-sounding) "cell-grown" chicken (or "chicken") breast cutlets, since just about the only meat they'll eat right now seems to be chicken breast cutlets anyway because everything else is too icky. I've noticed the media trend for not calling meat actually meat but "protein"--which bodes well for the cell-grown business.
But here's the thing about dyed-in-the wool carnivores like me: We actually love the idea that meat comes off of animals that we have to kill in order to get at it. I'm someone who drools when I see the meat counter and its racks of ribs that have come off a real hog and are just waiting to be slathered with sauce and slow-roasted--mmm! I even drool when I'm out in the country and see cattle on the hoof! The PETA people tell us that "meat is murder," and I say, "Yeah!" This is what humans have been doing ever since there were humans: hunting down or raising animals and then slaughtering and eating them. Because meat tastes really, really good. I remember years ago visiting a halal slaughterhouse out in Virginia for a story I was writing about goat meat. Yes, the animals looked helpless and pathetic hung up for the butcher's knife--but then they moved down the assembly line to be skinned and gutted, and you know what? Those carcasses looked darned appetizing! (By the way, the slaughterhouse was meticulously clean, with frequent hosings of the blood--so there is no excuse for a chicken-packing plant to be an unsanitary mess.)
So I dunno about the "progress" aspect of the cell-grown business. I just ask that the stuff be adequately labeled so I can avoid it.
"It’s the same argument we hear from people who believe that saying cities should allow property owners more flexibility about what they build on their land is tantamount to banning single-family homes."
It's not about choice. What we see is that the party that claims it is "pro-choice" generally wishes to restrict choice, not expand it. Cities are mandating that developers *must* set aside part of their development for "affordable housing" in many cities. Many cities are also mandating in the name of climate change that people will no longer have the option of using natural gas instead of electricity to make hot water, heat their homes, cook their food or dry their clothes. The Obama administration attempted to *force* suburbs to develop multi-family housing. It is no great stretch of the imagination that in the name of opposing animal cruelty or to fight climate change a leftist administration would seek to raise the cost of eating meat through various regulations that would raise the cost producing and buying meat past the point of affordability for many if not most Americans. The State of Colorado has already passed a law mandating that all eggs sold in the State (with some exceptions) must come from chickens raised in a cage-free environment; that is inevitably going to lead to a rise in egg prices even after the present avian flu epidemic is over.
No one objects to developing choice. But the left's track record is to remove choice by imposing requirements to force people to make only the choices they approve of.
I relate to what Leslie says. I am not doctrinaire, but I think what’s been missing from these discussions of synthetic meat is the foodie voice. We need the input of hedonists, sensualists and professional cooks. What does Nigella Lawson think? What has Tony Bourdain said about this? He’s not here to comment anymore but he knew about food. It may be that synth meat is a niche product, not a replacement for the real thing.
Polarization in the U.S. is particularly painful now because it’s become very emotional, overloading public criticism with irrationality and the absence of thought. What’s that saying? When you’re being shot at you know you’re over the target. Indeed.
I have been waiting for synthetic chicken since I first read The Space Merchants, even though Pohl and Kornbluth’s version was designed to make it unappetizing, like Blazin’ Hot Cheetos or vegan lasagne, so I can only say, “faster, please!” (and if you wish to count that as an entry in the drawing for the Substack subscription I would not be disappointed).
With only a few exceptions, Substacks tend to attract worthwhile comments, instead of signals of tribal membership like this one: “I won’t consider eating this stuff until Ms. Postrel, Bill Gates, John Kerry, and their fellow Davis/WEF dirrrtbags give up their super prime filet mignon, primo lobsters, and free range poultry. Apres vous Alphonse.” It is the second-best thing about Substack for me -- I actually read many comments, which I don’t do on most sites. It might be first-best for some authors who are writing for free.
It's been very strange but not surprising to see how Plant Meat 2.0 and the idea of vat meat has scrambled the fault lines of tribal identities. We are seeing an odd coalition of people whose masculinity or patriotism is threatened by the idea of slaughterless meat with people who are ostensibly environmentalists deciding that shrinking the footprint of agriculture isn't worth it if it is brought about by technology instead of hairshirt regulation.
As for me, the cashier at the Burger King looks at me funny when I order bacon on my Impossible Burger. But I'm an environmentalist, not a fanatic.
Yes, please: 'Faster Please'
Thanks!
The wsj piece was brilliant; elegant and original thinking that brought together diverse strands of the world’s complex dilemmas. Prometheus, protein, science and ethics... so well done. Pay the detractors no heed. Onward.
Please enter my name in the drawing for a subscription to Faster, Please!
Yes, please: 'Faster Please'
Thanks!
Your book on fabrics is one of my favorite books. I recommend often. I was inspired to read it when I heard you speak on a podcast; maybe Jonah Goldberg. I enjoyed this article too. Never thought of you as an idealogue.
I see why some folks may like synthetic meat, but I'm a slow cooker type. I like to make a soup that draws from the bones and tissues, I like peasant food and I grew up eating like a peasant. Yes I am a bourgeois peasant, and this is an indulgence. But it's also my authentic palate. I would feel deprived if I could only find synthetic chicken because I'm not into cutlets. I think people like me (there are a lot of us) will be the last ones to go for this. I doubt the makers of synth chicken will be manufacturing bony wings and feet and heads for soup. I suspect they'll make food that tastes like a deboned thigh or breast. But I'll keep an open mind and see what happens. It's true that food prep changes over time. We cook differently - I like my peasant food, but I don't cook over a fire. I put it in a slow cooker. And I wouldn't want an eight year old to be wrapping the chicken, so point taken.
There certainly are places (and have been times when) small kids doing that struck people as normal. Child labour is depressingly persistent, as we've recently seen, but it was reported in the news cycle because we don't think it's okay. Well, most of us don't. Further more, there's a lot of synthetic or tweaked stuff that I DO like. Medications, pasteurized milk, veggies/fruits that have been designed to last or taste better. And so on.
"So if someone invents cell-grown meat, government mandates will soon follow. We therefore shouldn’t encourage alternatives to the status quo lest we be forced to adopt them."
This is the half the problem...the unconstitutional mandating of things or unconstitutional monetary rewards and penalties for various things. But the other half is all this stuff is being promulgated by the most stupid among us. We just went through COVID where absolutely everything recommended was WRONG and the data proved it. And the intelligent knew it would not work because we understood history and science. There is a lack of trust not only that these people have the populations interests at heart, but that they aren't complete morons.
"ethical standards evolve in a bottom-up way. They aren’t simply imposed, by me or anyone else. Their evolution is influenced not only by cultural ideas but by economics and technology. "
Hmmnn. I wonder where Postrel has been over the last three or four years. Mandatory pronouns (see Ontario Canada and any college campus in the US) are considered a matter of ethics and the elite (public and private) have been imposing that "ethic" on people at the risk of losing their employment or total cancellation. "Bottom up" has nothing to do with that nonsense.
How about the vaccine mandates for the "gene therapy" (yes, messenger RNA is considered gene therapy by the FDA) that have been imposed by government, large corporations and higher education on health care workers, on college students, the military, employees of the city of New York, pilots etc. etc? Those mandates are justified by the elite as a matter of ethics. They falsely claimed that taking the mRna shots protect others, even though they've never done any such thing. That is another "ethic" imposed on the hoi polloi by the political class - that's "top down" not "bottom up" ethics.
You'd have to be an idiot to claim that the synthetic meat being promoted by people like Bill Gates - you know, the trust fund kid turned anti-trust practicing, tech billionaire and Epstein island aficionado who also happens to own more farmland in the US than anyone else - will remain "just a suggestion" any longer than the powerful will need to tax and regulate animal husbandry out of existence. "Bottom up ethics" will have nothing to do with it. Gates, Biden, Pelosi, the entire federal bureacracy, the C Suite at Pfizer - just to name a few - are veritable paragons of ethics.
I couldn't care less if anyone eats synthetic meat, but pretending that those in power have no desire to force everyone else to do so is laughable.
This month, I gave a lecture to some medical school students. I told them that when I taught classes filled with doctors and nurses, I always required them to go through an exercise: “List some things that you are doing in your work today that COULD (CORRECTION: earlier, I accidentally wrote WILL) be viewed a century from now with ethical revulsion--things that MIGHT (said WILL earlier and shouldn’t have) leave your great-grandchildren shaking their heads in shame. The way we look today at eugenicists. Importantly, I’m not asking you to list things that you already find problematic. I’m more interested in the things that you are proud of but which history might view less favorably.” ... ... To start them off, I said something like, “I eat meat. I love meat. I will likely eat meat for the rest of my life. I think eating meat is fine. But I am well aware that people in the 22nd century might view my eating habits as ghoulish and unethical and wonder what the hell I was thinking.”
Isn't an easier solution to disgusting conditions at chicken-packing plants better conditions at chicken-packing plants? Or better pay that could make putting up with the disgusting worthwhile? Collecting garbage is pretty disgusting, too, but garbage-collection jobs here in DC are sought-after because the pay and benefits are great.
That said, though, if people would rather eat "cell-grown meat" than the real thing because it makes them feel morally advanced, more power to them--and let the market decide. So far the market has decided rather negatively in the case of "Impossible" and other synthetic meats. The meat cases at my neighborhood Safeway used to feature a big section devoted to "plant-based" products, but recently that section has shrunk down to two small segments of shelves ("Yay!" says I, the carnivore--more room for the real thing.) I've also read that Impossible is laying off people. But young people today seem to be increasingly squeamish about dealing with large cuts of (real) meat or whole raw chickens in their kitchens (ooh, yuck, blood! fat! innards!), so perhaps they'll glom onto those (to me creepy-sounding) "cell-grown" chicken (or "chicken") breast cutlets, since just about the only meat they'll eat right now seems to be chicken breast cutlets anyway because everything else is too icky. I've noticed the media trend for not calling meat actually meat but "protein"--which bodes well for the cell-grown business.
But here's the thing about dyed-in-the wool carnivores like me: We actually love the idea that meat comes off of animals that we have to kill in order to get at it. I'm someone who drools when I see the meat counter and its racks of ribs that have come off a real hog and are just waiting to be slathered with sauce and slow-roasted--mmm! I even drool when I'm out in the country and see cattle on the hoof! The PETA people tell us that "meat is murder," and I say, "Yeah!" This is what humans have been doing ever since there were humans: hunting down or raising animals and then slaughtering and eating them. Because meat tastes really, really good. I remember years ago visiting a halal slaughterhouse out in Virginia for a story I was writing about goat meat. Yes, the animals looked helpless and pathetic hung up for the butcher's knife--but then they moved down the assembly line to be skinned and gutted, and you know what? Those carcasses looked darned appetizing! (By the way, the slaughterhouse was meticulously clean, with frequent hosings of the blood--so there is no excuse for a chicken-packing plant to be an unsanitary mess.)
So I dunno about the "progress" aspect of the cell-grown business. I just ask that the stuff be adequately labeled so I can avoid it.
I could be persuaded to eat the thighs of a "test-tube chicken".
I will NEVER eat an amorphous slab of "chicken-derived protein" that never walked the earth.
FJB
"It’s the same argument we hear from people who believe that saying cities should allow property owners more flexibility about what they build on their land is tantamount to banning single-family homes."
It's not about choice. What we see is that the party that claims it is "pro-choice" generally wishes to restrict choice, not expand it. Cities are mandating that developers *must* set aside part of their development for "affordable housing" in many cities. Many cities are also mandating in the name of climate change that people will no longer have the option of using natural gas instead of electricity to make hot water, heat their homes, cook their food or dry their clothes. The Obama administration attempted to *force* suburbs to develop multi-family housing. It is no great stretch of the imagination that in the name of opposing animal cruelty or to fight climate change a leftist administration would seek to raise the cost of eating meat through various regulations that would raise the cost producing and buying meat past the point of affordability for many if not most Americans. The State of Colorado has already passed a law mandating that all eggs sold in the State (with some exceptions) must come from chickens raised in a cage-free environment; that is inevitably going to lead to a rise in egg prices even after the present avian flu epidemic is over.
No one objects to developing choice. But the left's track record is to remove choice by imposing requirements to force people to make only the choices they approve of.
I relate to what Leslie says. I am not doctrinaire, but I think what’s been missing from these discussions of synthetic meat is the foodie voice. We need the input of hedonists, sensualists and professional cooks. What does Nigella Lawson think? What has Tony Bourdain said about this? He’s not here to comment anymore but he knew about food. It may be that synth meat is a niche product, not a replacement for the real thing.
Polarization in the U.S. is particularly painful now because it’s become very emotional, overloading public criticism with irrationality and the absence of thought. What’s that saying? When you’re being shot at you know you’re over the target. Indeed.
I have been waiting for synthetic chicken since I first read The Space Merchants, even though Pohl and Kornbluth’s version was designed to make it unappetizing, like Blazin’ Hot Cheetos or vegan lasagne, so I can only say, “faster, please!” (and if you wish to count that as an entry in the drawing for the Substack subscription I would not be disappointed).