It is difficult to see these exercises solving world hunger, rampant meat consumption, or really any other problem. They will make gains, grab a little market share, then wax and wane as all such enterprises. I do not view them as revolutionary.... 'Fake' meat production does not seek to finally solve a problem; it looks to supply more products.
[This article is in response to: Beyond the Impossible.]
I appreciate the angles you’ve taken, and certainly the research backing
up the entire piece. It is a complex topic, not covered easily.
What keeps going through my mind on this is that tech—and I am loading this
syllable with all manner of technological exercises; applied science, as it
were, not basic science—is not solutionary. It is a commercial exercise
which always focuses on its own longevity. It does not seek to finally solve
a problem; it looks to supply more products. This is perhaps the most
dominant trait of our political economy, also . . . to the surprise of no
one.
It is difficult to see these exercises solving world hunger, rampant meat
consumption, or really any other problem. They will make gains, grab a
little market share, then wax and wane as all such enterprises. I do not
view them as revolutionary.
My concerns go beyond the ones you’ve detailed. There are distinct
vulnerabilities associated with centralized food production, especially
high-tech food production. It is subject to hacking and the incorporation of
contaminants just to name a couple.
I believe that the forms you write about—plant-based, cellular, and “better”
meats—are extractive by nature. Factories (or labs as proponents might
prefer to call them) are aggregators of multiple forms of extraction,
including labor, water, and components of plant/animal materials. But we
must look deeper than these forms. High-tech production of food requires the
constant extraction of copper, aluminum, gold, and other metals. When we
think “tech” we must think “mining.”
We also must think software updates, system bugs, endless obsolescence and
upgrades, and massive data centers. Here’s a tidbit from inside the sordid
world of high tech: service contracts on data servers and processors
typically carry a five-year term. The equipment itself can run for up to
ten, but corporations are not willing to operate those additional five years
without service. Therefore, these massive systems, which can fill a football
field, are retired and scrapped. More resources are extracted to build more
systems, ad infinitum. Hopefully this practice is included in the ecological
footprint calculations you mention.
Your citing of the Land Grant Act is curious, for this has not worked out
particularly well. Jack Ralph Kloppenburg details in his book First the
Seed, how the LGUs were quickly co-opted by industry, which led to industry
taking control of the entire agricultural sector. We have had a steady
decline in seed diversity, arable land, and pollinator support, as well as a
loss of family farms. The Act has not been a uniformly positive thing.
Hanyu’s vision of the new world of cellular and plant-based meats is
certainly rosy, to the point of naïveté. We can apply his promises of
personal empowerment to just about every human innovation—and watch the
predictable outcomes. A cellular production machine on every home kitchen
counter equals just another gadget—like a bread machine, air fryer, slow
cooker, George Foreman grill—which will go unused and end up at Goodwill
(hopefully) or in a landfill (likely).
While I appreciate your optimistic recommendations, I can’t help think that
our political economy has never favored the individual, the environment, or
the laborer. Automation has always taken precedence over employment of
humans, corporate structures have always resisted diversification, and a
factory approach to food has, by and large, led to a degradation in the food
supply. To make all this work in our favor would require a re-engineering of
humans.
Given the trajectory of the environment generally and our government
specifically, I think an agrarian return is inevitable. (I don’t think we’ll
willingly go there, nor will we do so easily.) And yes, all forms of
agriculture are problematic, but at least small, strategically distributed,
regenerative agriculture is oriented towards renewal. Would it not be more
sensible to put our energy into making that transition more successful?
Kevin Archer is a chef, farmer, and founder of the Peace Meal Supper Club.
Number of animals killed in the world by the fishing, meat, dairy and egg industries, since you opened this webpage.
0 marine animals
0 chickens
0 ducks
0 pigs
0 rabbits
0 turkeys
0 geese
0 sheep
0 goats
0 cows / calves
0 rodents
0 pigeons/other birds
0 buffaloes
0 dogs
0 cats
0 horses
0 donkeys and mules
0 camels / camelids