What

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)

> The meatball was created by Australian cultured meat company Vow, which - promising this was not an April Fools' joke - said it wanted to get people talking about cultured meat, calling it a more sustainable alternative for real meat.

> While creating cultured meat usually means using blood of a dead calf, Vow used an alternative, meaning no animals were killed in the making of the mammoth meatball.

> Vow hopes to put cultured meat on the map in the European Union, a market where such meat as food is not regulated yet.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: meat^#1 Vow^#2 animal^#3 mammoth^#4 meatball^#5

Finally! A meatball worthy of that really long spaghetti in Lady and the Tramp.

Franken Food

Where’s the spaghetti 🤌🤌🤌

Who will be first to put that in their mouth??

Meatwad comes to mind ATHF

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

The future is amazing, we can now synthesis the meat of extinct animals and slather it in bbq sauce.

Please do cultured and lab grown meat and dairy.

No we can’t. This isn’t meat from the animal at all. Gotta love the downvotes from all the people who think this meat came from an animal!

I don't mean to alarm you, but you seem to have three hands.

Mammoth meat ball made with mammoth DNA - so clever

I ate too much uranium as a child

That's why he used the word synthesize.

If it's not a sausage, I'm not interested.

If they can somehow lock down heirloom fries and master buffalo shakes to add to this meatwad they sure could be number one in da hood.

and since yesterday 29/03/2023 italian gov. banned the production and the consumption of Lab Meat , so WTF I HAVE TO TRAVEL TO AN OTHER COUNTRY TO EAT MAMMOTH !!!! fuck you Ita Gov.

[removed]

Waste of brainpower.

>While creating cultured meat usually means using blood of a dead calf, Vow used an alternative, meaning no animals were killed in the making of the mammoth meatball.

"no animals were killed"

Solent Green is...

Its advertising, they are trying to bring back the mammoth and one company says they will have their first at 2027. They want to introduce it back in to the wild, this would be a huge step forward in science.

No one say the meat is from animal.

>stressing the biggest difference is that they were not creating actual animals.

Looking forward to some tasty Sabre Tooth Tiger over rice.

nah, i'm good!

Looks like my next door neighbor

How much is enough? Now Im worried my children have a uranium deficiency.

[removed]

Ok sure I would love to taste mammoth but I doubt it's much better than elephant and that's not the greatest meat.

But it does raise some interesting questions like, they could make human meatballs too.

Would you taste a human meatball?

What if you liked it?

Imagine eating something before it's been de-extincted.

I'm looking forward to lab-grown meats of fictional animals. Dragon burger, anyone?

One is his cloned meatball hand

Humans are animals.

One of them was made with wooly mammoth DNA

Here's a thought, why don't they just donate some DNA (human) and process it as they did in a culture, then make a meatball, then put that out for a taste test....because we can??? Would you try it?

Just gotta dilute it with lots of spaghetti.

I hope it's the last too. Not sanitary to pass around taste test meatballs.

Don’t forget the Parmesan cheese!

Cultured human meat has already been done.

It's already been done.

All we had was asbestos growing up 😒

How could they forget the Parmesan cheese silly? That’s arguably the most important part in the uranium dilution process.

[removed]

I replied to spartan NOT the article.

Again, the crux here is the word animal. It isn’t synthesize from an animal at all. It’s from the dna of an animal. The resulting meat is an approximation and wouldn’t remotely resemble the meat from a living, grazing animal. Literally the difference between spam and a steak.

It doesn't really matter how good or bad it is, it is still a synthetic attempt at creating that meat. The comment you responded to never said from an animal. They said 'synthesize the meat of extinct animals'. You're arguing against a point that was never made.

You mixed “of the animal” with “from the animal” you’re the only one using the latter

Not exactly. This has one single gene of a mammoth and the rest is DNA of modern elephant.

The point is whether it is meat at all if there is no animal. It’s synthetic by definition hence it cannot be meat by definition.

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.

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)

That's disappointing.

Cut it into bits and share.

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.