vegans and stuff would be able to eat it too, right? because it didn't require the death of an animal?
Only if they're vegetarian/vegan due to not wanting to harm animals.
If they have other motives, like prefering to live on plant matter, then they may not.
Also, Vegans are tricky to work out.
Since they don't consume anything that even comes from an animal, like milk or eggs, they may still disagree with this idea, since the food still initially comes from a cow.
There are real animal cells that are used to start the process off.
It might not be harmful to get the cells from an animal, but for some vegans, that might not be the point.
Wow, now we wont have to go hunting, probably.
Only when it comes to meat from animals which can't be domesticated or farmed, like Deer and some fish.
For the most part, we haven't been hunting for food in the last 100 years or so.
Cows and Pigs and Sheep and Chicken, which we eat most commonly, are all farmed.
They live in a pasture (or a battery) and are simply rounded up and killed.
You don't have to go out with a gun and hunt them.
I have no problem with this and I personally think it's great news.
If the food tasted like the meat it is supposed to, and it is guaranteed safe, then I would have no problem eating it.
However, at this moment in time the cost is exceedingly high as it is a brand new experimental technology.
We won't see this become a commercial thing until a number of decades, most likely.
And even then, I would have to see the price be equal to or lower than that of farmed livestock.
Which can always be difficult, since the farming industries can have a lot of power and make it very difficult for a new food-source to break into the market.
And I would also greatly prefer it if the food was kept as pure as possible.
Without the need for excess added salts, fats and other chemicals.
There's no need to have less than 100% Meat if the meat can be grown in a lab.
You shouldn't really need to stretch the meat as far as possible to make extra profit.
If synthetic meat entered the market and it was as expensive as other "<100% meat" products, and it had numerous excess chemicals in it, then I wouldn't purchase it.
There would be no point if it's not of higher quality than the farm-reared food we have today and it's more expensive.
On the flipside to all this it might be of use, assuming the costs of it don't get horribly corrupted by businesses, to feeding people in poorer countries, or ending starvation in both third and first-world countries.
Wouldn't this cause a disturbance in the animal population?
If it was very successful, you might see a drop in the population of livestock around the world as farmers focus less on rearing livestock and more on synthesising meat.
There might not be as many cows or pigs or chickens being farmed.
While that might seem bad, it might not be the case.
For a most part, livestock animals don't have major impacts on habitats, as they don't tend to fill a natural niche.
Infact, it could be beneficial.
The amount of land, particularly rainforest in places like South America and Africa and Madagascar, which is opened up to farming, through the massive deforestation of those places, might decrease.
It could allow fairnforests to regrow to a massive extent.
What that could mean is that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere drop, reducing the greenhouse effect, slowing down Global Warming and all the problems that causes.
Wildlife species would have a slower rate of extinction, whereas currently they are being destroyed rapidly around the world, including numerous species we haven't even discovered yet.
And it would no longer negatively affect local human populations, particularly rural native farming communities in Africa, as well as tribal communities in the South American rainforests.
Poll