Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FamiGami t1_jecxd18 wrote

Reply to comment by Revrak in Giant meatball with woolly mammoth DNA unveiled by cultured meat startup by sleepysnowboarder

It is neither of nor from the animal - there is no animal. Other commenters have agreed to as much. It’s synthetic hence it is not meat.

0

Revrak t1_jecyxrd wrote

you seem to have a different understanding of what makes something part of a group ie meat or not meat.

once it's a piece of meat the distinction has no difference. if it was not meat you'd be able to make a distinction.

if we were able to synthesize human organs they would not be human organs to you because they did not originate from a human. beyond the use there is little difference between that example and synthesized muscles of cattle or whatever.

You might have a point if you argued that it's not authentic because it lacks somethig present in "real" meat. but even then it might be and advantage (eg less veins or less fascia in the tissues to make it tender)

1

FamiGami t1_jeewit3 wrote

I did make that point. I already pointed out that there was no grazing animal, no input of naturally ingested vitamins and material, not natural exercising of the muscle, no “life experience”. There was no animal so it is not meat. It is a synthetic simulation of meat. That is all.

1