The real reason it won’t work and it shouldn’t work: the procedures will be patented and they will be insanely expensive, then the countries owning the patent will co-opt the vegans’ agenda to make eating meat illegal all over the world unless it’s lab meat, and they will have a way to control countries by charging them through the nose for the use of the patents or by making them suffer hunger.
Let’s not mince words here, if we have an alternative to the horrid conditions in slaughter houses, and a way to cut down massively on land usage for both raising and feeding cattle, AND reduce methane emissions due to less farting cows, those are all wins. The future you’ve painted just won’t come to pass, what’s much more likely is, if lab grown meat can scale up and solve the issues of texture, and industrial amounts able to be produced, then lab grown meat will become cheap, and there will be multiple companies competed to offer their take on grown meat. No country will own the patent, and if anything real animal meat will still exist, no outlawing, but it’ll be a luxury, expensive, especially compared with how affordable grown meat could be.
These are a lot of ifs, it’s possible that lab meat won’t find a way to get the texture right, or it may be impossible to scale up production and make it affordable to produce. But you’re assuming a lot of very not likely outcomes here.
Even worst. A multinational company would own the patent. That guarantees that the price will be prohibitive.
if anything real animal meat will still exist, no outlawing, but it’ll be a luxury, expensive, especially compared with how affordable grown meat could be.
You severely underestimate the utter destruction of a country can be created by right-wingers supported by the US, and the fact that in agropecuary countries like mine, most money is in hands of cattle breeders, no way they will allow their earnings to vanish, even if it’s to profit a company in the US, even when they’re allies with right-wing, US-loving politicians.
procedures will be patented and they will be insanely expensive then the countries owning the patent will co-opt the vegans’ agenda to make eating meat illegal all over the world unless it’s lab meat
That’s not how IP laws work… First, were assuming something is going to be “insanely expensive”, which doesn’t exactly make sense when talking about food. If you invent a product that has that high of a production cost, no one is going to buy it.
Second, you are assuming that there is only one way to produce lab meats, or that one corporation is going to patent every single possible way to create lab meat. Patenting a process is a lot harder to enforce than patenting an end product, just slightly changing the process would be enough to invalidate most procedural patents.
Lastly, by what means would a corporation make meat eating illegal? We don’t have a world government, we cant even prevent the mass slaughter of humans, let alone animals.
But we have people all too willing to serve foreign interests, specially after meetings with representatives of their government. That’s enough.
First, were assuming something is going to be “insanely expensive”, which doesn’t exactly make sense when talking about food.
It involves applied science. In many countries, scientific investigations are being dismantled as we speak. So they would depend on foreign patents to be able to reproduce the process.
If you invent a product that has that high of a production cost, no one is going to buy it.
Unless you need it to survive. Many countries pay huge patent costs for medication their populations need.
But we have people all too willing to serve foreign interests, specially after meetings with representatives of their government. That’s enough
To establish an international cartel enforced by international law… No. If that was the case why wouldn’t corporations do this for everything they produce? This is just silly conspiratorial thinking.
It involves applied science. In many countries, scientific investigations are being dismantled as we speak. So they would depend on foreign patents to be able to reproduce the process.
So does literally all manufacturing… I don’t think you understand how IP law works, and how hard it is to defend your IP even in the US, let alone on the international stage.
Unless you need it to survive. Many countries pay huge patent costs for medication their populations need.
But we don’t require meat at all to survive…How exactly are you going to curb demand for regular meat if lab meat is priced at extortion level pricing.
Many countries pay huge patent costs for medication their populations need.
Yes, because when you patent a drug, you are patenting a product, not the process that you utilized to make the product. Other people can utilize the same process, but not if they are making the same exact product. Pharmacology is just specific enough that changing a product significantly enough to avoid a patent violation will also make the drug ineffectual.
Pharmacology is also unique in the fact that it has to pass stringent and expensive clinical testing. So there is no innate benefit in creating a competing drug, as it would be just as difficult and expensive to recreate, and you would be competing with an already established brand.
Pretty much everything you claimed is only somewhat pertinent to the pharmaceutical industry, and only because of the extreme cost of entry due to the necessary regulation.
If that was the case why wouldn’t corporations do this for everything they produce?
They do it for medicine.
But we don’t require meat at all to survive…How exactly are you going to curb demand for regular meat if lab meat is priced at extortion level pricing.
Inserting ideology it’s usually enough. Stupid legislation removing rights for religious reasons has been ridiculously easy to pass recently in many countries. Create a stupid enough ideological reason and any idea can be voted for the populace.
Pharmacology is just specific enough that changing a product significantly enough to avoid a patent violation will also make the drug ineffectual.
For that you need science. My country just elected a president who’s vowed to destroy public education, to eliminate all subsidies for scientific investigation and reducing the state to the minimal expression. That’s enough to have drugs only manufactured by companies who can name whatever price they like for their medications.
Pretty much everything you claimed is only somewhat pertinent to the pharmaceutical industry, and only because of the extreme cost of entry due to the necessary regulation.
Yeah, I already explained the circumstances that allow for natural monopolies to thrive. Qhy do you think you don’t see this outside of medicine?
Inserting ideology it’s usually enough. Stupid legislation removing rights for religious reasons has been ridiculously easy to pass recently in many countries. Create a stupid enough ideological reason and any idea can be voted for the populace.
I was talking about price and consumption, now your talking about legislation that would force people to buy food they can’t afford… You’re moving the goal post, and with a claim that makes no sense.
That’s enough to have drugs only manufactured by companies who can name whatever price they like for their medications.
That’s not how the price of medication is determined… Insurance groups, or social medical systems barter as a group with drug corporations over drug prices. Even if your country abandoned government funding for science, I doubt it’s going to be the cause of increased prices for medication. The vast majority of countries import their medications, as most lack the civil regulatory bodies that would be able to clinically test a medicationa efficacy.
If your prices go up, it’s probably because to someone in the government is getting kickbacks from drug corporations to be less aggressive in their group bartering process.
There is life outside the US, you know.
You are the one who is utilizing the American pharmacutical industry as an evidence to support your assertion.
Your original claim is literally impossible. The economic, intellectual property rights, and geopolitical legislation you used in your argument are all inaccurate.
The real reason it won’t work and it shouldn’t work: the procedures will be patented and they will be insanely expensive, then the countries owning the patent will co-opt the vegans’ agenda to make eating meat illegal all over the world unless it’s lab meat, and they will have a way to control countries by charging them through the nose for the use of the patents or by making them suffer hunger.
Let’s not mince words here, if we have an alternative to the horrid conditions in slaughter houses, and a way to cut down massively on land usage for both raising and feeding cattle, AND reduce methane emissions due to less farting cows, those are all wins. The future you’ve painted just won’t come to pass, what’s much more likely is, if lab grown meat can scale up and solve the issues of texture, and industrial amounts able to be produced, then lab grown meat will become cheap, and there will be multiple companies competed to offer their take on grown meat. No country will own the patent, and if anything real animal meat will still exist, no outlawing, but it’ll be a luxury, expensive, especially compared with how affordable grown meat could be.
These are a lot of ifs, it’s possible that lab meat won’t find a way to get the texture right, or it may be impossible to scale up production and make it affordable to produce. But you’re assuming a lot of very not likely outcomes here.
Hahahahahahaha.
Even worst. A multinational company would own the patent. That guarantees that the price will be prohibitive.
You severely underestimate the utter destruction of a country can be created by right-wingers supported by the US, and the fact that in agropecuary countries like mine, most money is in hands of cattle breeders, no way they will allow their earnings to vanish, even if it’s to profit a company in the US, even when they’re allies with right-wing, US-loving politicians.
That’s not how IP laws work… First, were assuming something is going to be “insanely expensive”, which doesn’t exactly make sense when talking about food. If you invent a product that has that high of a production cost, no one is going to buy it.
Second, you are assuming that there is only one way to produce lab meats, or that one corporation is going to patent every single possible way to create lab meat. Patenting a process is a lot harder to enforce than patenting an end product, just slightly changing the process would be enough to invalidate most procedural patents.
Lastly, by what means would a corporation make meat eating illegal? We don’t have a world government, we cant even prevent the mass slaughter of humans, let alone animals.
But we have people all too willing to serve foreign interests, specially after meetings with representatives of their government. That’s enough.
It involves applied science. In many countries, scientific investigations are being dismantled as we speak. So they would depend on foreign patents to be able to reproduce the process.
Unless you need it to survive. Many countries pay huge patent costs for medication their populations need.
To establish an international cartel enforced by international law… No. If that was the case why wouldn’t corporations do this for everything they produce? This is just silly conspiratorial thinking.
So does literally all manufacturing… I don’t think you understand how IP law works, and how hard it is to defend your IP even in the US, let alone on the international stage.
But we don’t require meat at all to survive…How exactly are you going to curb demand for regular meat if lab meat is priced at extortion level pricing.
Yes, because when you patent a drug, you are patenting a product, not the process that you utilized to make the product. Other people can utilize the same process, but not if they are making the same exact product. Pharmacology is just specific enough that changing a product significantly enough to avoid a patent violation will also make the drug ineffectual.
Pharmacology is also unique in the fact that it has to pass stringent and expensive clinical testing. So there is no innate benefit in creating a competing drug, as it would be just as difficult and expensive to recreate, and you would be competing with an already established brand.
Pretty much everything you claimed is only somewhat pertinent to the pharmaceutical industry, and only because of the extreme cost of entry due to the necessary regulation.
They do it for medicine.
Inserting ideology it’s usually enough. Stupid legislation removing rights for religious reasons has been ridiculously easy to pass recently in many countries. Create a stupid enough ideological reason and any idea can be voted for the populace.
For that you need science. My country just elected a president who’s vowed to destroy public education, to eliminate all subsidies for scientific investigation and reducing the state to the minimal expression. That’s enough to have drugs only manufactured by companies who can name whatever price they like for their medications.
There is life outside the US, you know.
Yeah, I already explained the circumstances that allow for natural monopolies to thrive. Qhy do you think you don’t see this outside of medicine?
I was talking about price and consumption, now your talking about legislation that would force people to buy food they can’t afford… You’re moving the goal post, and with a claim that makes no sense.
That’s not how the price of medication is determined… Insurance groups, or social medical systems barter as a group with drug corporations over drug prices. Even if your country abandoned government funding for science, I doubt it’s going to be the cause of increased prices for medication. The vast majority of countries import their medications, as most lack the civil regulatory bodies that would be able to clinically test a medicationa efficacy.
If your prices go up, it’s probably because to someone in the government is getting kickbacks from drug corporations to be less aggressive in their group bartering process.
You are the one who is utilizing the American pharmacutical industry as an evidence to support your assertion.
Your original claim is literally impossible. The economic, intellectual property rights, and geopolitical legislation you used in your argument are all inaccurate.