More States Are Considering Lab-Grown Meat Restrictions
Cultivated meat is under scrutiny from politicians trying to protect livestock farmers.

- What we asked for:
Illustration of lab-grown meat in a pop art style
- What Dall-E says it gave us:
The illustration brings to life the concept of lab-grown meat in a pop art style, combining the worlds of scientific innovation and art in a colorful and dynamic composition.

Lab-grown meat is a scientific marvel. We've managed, through pure human ingenuity, to create something that looks like meat, cooks like meat, tastes pretty much like meat, and comes from animal cells—yet doesn't require the slaughter of a single living animal.
But state legislatures across the country are thinking of following in Alabama's footsteps and banning lab-grown meat (also known as "cultivated meat").
In March, Alabama legislators passed a bill banning the sale or development of lab-grown meat in the state. Italy's parliament passed a ban on cultivated meat last year, citing the need to protect farmers from competition. Arizona, Florida, and Tennessee also seem poised to ban the product, with cultivated meat bans working through their state legislatures as of mid-March. In Congress, senators have introduced a bipartisan bill that would keep lab-grown meat from being served in public school cafeterias.
"These misguided and short-sighted bills will kill innovation in a vital and growing biotech sector," says David Voorman, a vice president at Food Solutions Action, a meat-alternative political action committee. "Consumer freedom, consumer choice, and free market principles are also lost when lawmakers decide they know what's best."
The main reasons for the rush to ban lab-grown meat? One is an overwrought concern about competition for farmers. In fact, after a limited restaurant-based launch in early 2023, cultivated meat is no longer available anywhere in the United States. But that hasn't kept some politicians from jumping to ban it.
"We're going to have fake meat? That doesn't work." Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said during a February press conference. "There's a whole ideological agenda that's coming after, I think, a lot of important parts of our society."
Another reason comes down to a misunderstanding of how cultivated meat is made.
"I watch all the chemicals that are put in meats today, and everything else," Jack Williams, an Alabama state senator who sponsored the state's ban, told local news station NBC 15. "The people I represent, we don't want this meat coming to Alabama and being in our stores."
"Cultivated meat is bio-identical to farmed, slaughtered meat in all of the ways that matter," Voorman says. "We've seen a troubling rise in state lawmakers attacking the cultivated meat industry under the false premise of safety concerns, but consumers see these bills for what they really are…protectionist measures that needlessly impede food innovation."

Places where the sale or development of lab-grown meat is banned as of March 2024:
- Italy
Places where bans are under consideration:
- Alabama*
- Arizona
- Florida
- Tennessee (only a ban on selling the product)
- U.S. public school cafeterias
CORRECTION: A previous version of this piece misstated how many places had banned lab-grown meat as of March 2024.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Caging Lab-Grown Meat."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
...
My method achieves the same — by using only married animals.
Incel animals and femcel animals taste bitter compared to married animals, truth be told!
Don't let the foodies hear. I'm certain someone will extol the taste of bulls compared to steers.
I'm curious. On the whole incel scale what would you call a male who fucks and impregnates several females who are usually the offspring of that male?
A greedy-pig Lying Lothario, often! For a long run-down on WHY females need the option of abortion, to fend off Lying Lothario, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc117957730 . . .
Excerpt from there is below...
THE “LYING LOTHARIO” PROBLEM: Well, a lot of pro-lifers are men, and I would bet that even those pro-lifers who are women? Very few of them have found themselves in the following shoes: Lying Lothario endlessly says “Love ya, babe, Love-ya, Love-ya, Love-ya, NOW can I get down your pants?” After she falls for him and he gets her pregnant, the abuse (from him) begins, and she finds out that he has 7 other “Love-ya, Babe, my One and Only” babes on the side, 4 of them also pregnant by him! So abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men. If these behavioral genes get passed on and on, humans will evolve into something like elephant seals, where the men most skilled at lying and fighting off the other lying men, get a harem of 40 babes, and the rest of the men get nothing (other than caring for the resulting babies)! So abortion is empowering women to fight off this sort of thing… And reserve their baby-making powers for men who are less lying scum, and will actually make good fathers to the children.
So they want to “capitally punish” the “offenders” (abortion-providing doctors, so as to “dry up” the sources for safe abortions), while they have never been in the above-described (lied-to female) shoes! Willfully blind self-righteousness, basically…
Or maybe some of the anti-abortion men fantasize and lust after being the elephant-seal-like men who can gather the baby-making powers of a harem of 40 lied-to women, under the new scheme of things?
I am glad that SOME you oppose theft. Theft by deception is also theft; I hope you can see that! When a severely lying Lothario-type dude (as described above) appropriates the baby-making powers of a deceived young woman, that, too, is theft! Abortion is anti-theft, when a deceived woman no longer wants to rent out her womb to a deceptive scumbag, prospective god-awful supposed "father" of a sperm donor!
Those who are anti-abortion unmarried men should be out there desperately courting women who have already been deceived by scumbucket men, and volunteering to raise these unborn children (who are NOT your biological offspring), to fend off a HUGE root cause of abortion, and to put your money where your mouth is! And married anti-abortion men? Check with your wives; see if they mind you donating all of your spare time and money to helping out these future unmarried moms! THESE actions will relieve the pressures towards abortions!
Helping out pregnant women till the give birth, and then abandoning the support of said women (immediately or near-immediately post-birth), scarcely substitutes at ALL, for the loving support of a husband or father for 18 years, by the way!
Yes, there ARE fathers who magnanimously raise not-their-children, and do it well! God, Government Almighty, Allah, Zeus, Buddha, Jesus, etc., all please BLESS them, really and truly! And hopefully these fathers will teach their children NOT to be, or to welcome, “Lying Lothario”! Cultural as well as biological evolution can fend OFF the “Lying Lothario” problem! ALL methods need to be brought to bear; this is a SERIOUS problem here!
Abortions outlawed is a "pro-Lying-Lothario" measure, intended (or effectively intended) to turn humans into harem-fighting elephant seals! He who lies the BEST, and deceives the MOST women, into getting pregnant, WINS the genetic lottery! Meek and mild, honest men who would make good fathers? Well, WHO CARES about THEM?!?! (Or their interests in passing on their genes, which affect the behaviors of future generations?)
Are we not men? We are devolving! Devolving (especially if we ban abortions as “veto power” for lied-to mothers) into elephant-seal-like beasts, trampling the already-born babies underfoot and underfin, while fighting over mating rights, rather than looking to perform our duties as fathers!
Links: Before we (“we” being “me and the mouse in my pocket”) move on to the explicit details of the sociobiology of abortion, just a few useful links: https://reason.com/2022/05/06/ending-roe-threatens-more-than-abortion-rights/ “Ending Roe Threatens More Than Abortion Rights”… This lists some less-well-known “collateral damage” that may soon come to pass about… Also see ht tps: (link mangled to overcome 2-link limit here)
// http://www.newyorker.com/ science/annals-of-medicine/ what-the-life-of-the-mother-might-mean-in-a-post-roe-america What the “Life of the Mother” Might Mean in a Post-Roe America
“We are going to see more deaths and more injuries,” Ghazaleh Moayedi, an ob-gyn in Dallas, said. “I don’t have to speculate about that at all.”
TLDR. Can you sum that up?
Greedy power pigs are all fucked up! That includes money-power, political power, punishment-power, sex-power, and reproduction-power.
Oddly enough I am watching the end of Rise of the Planet of the Apes while typing this. It is an odd juxtaposition of your talk of pig power and watching the rise of ape power.
Aborted animals? The parents don’t need to be married for that. But, that should work according to “the science”. It may only work if they’re human fetuses though.
Only eat bad animals who deserve to die.
All ambulatory clumps of non-human cells less than a dozen or so trimesters old AFAICT.
Ok, I need to know. Do you actually get a fucking priest out to "marry" a bull and a heifer? You know that typically one bull will service several heifers and often the bull will be the heifers "father". Oh wait, maybe you are Morman so that doesn't bother you.
Lab grown meat is an abomination to humanity. But...you vil eat ze bugs, own nutink und be happy...or else. Ja?
To all the Bill Gates, Klaus Schwabes and George Soros' of the world ....f*** you.
Show us, on the doll, where the Bill Gates, Klaus Schwabes and George Soros’ of the world touched you, in a BAD way?
Go ahead and suck Bill gates' c***.
So ya got nothin'. Twat a surprise!
Seriously? That's the best you can do?
"There's a whole ideological agenda that's coming after, I think, a lot of important parts of our society."
This is why Republicans are just as stupid as Democrats. Everything is politics to them.
"I watch all the chemicals that are put in meats today, and everything else..."
If he wants to ban foods based on chemicals being put in them, well, he better start banning a lot of shit.
The number of vaccinations alone should terrify the COVID antivaxx crowd. Hell, my dad accidentally vaccinated me for anthrax when I was 14. Holding down calves for a dozen injections and he hit my leg instead of the calves with one of the syringes. I turned out ffffffffffffffffffffffffffine.....
This is the definition of journalistic pablum. It reads like Ms Camp got on the mailing list of Food Solutions Action (a lobbying firm with a whopping $250k annual budget) and just repackaged their latest fundraising letter.
"cooks like meat, tastes pretty much like meat, and comes from animal cells—yet doesn't require the slaughter of a single living animal."
And why, exactly, is this a good thing? Ms Camp just assumes this is a selling point. That is unfortunate, because one would think the Flagship of Libertarian Thought would show a little intellectual curiosity for the moral case for/against slaughtering animals.
There is no morally coherent case for avoiding the slaughter of animals for food (a universal fact of nature). And color me skeptical if the people who shouted for years that "free range", "naturally raised", and "forage fed" animals were in all way superior to "caged" and "factory farm" livestock now suddenly say meat grown in a vat is somehow "just as good".
"One [reason for bans] is an overwrought concern about competition for farmers.[...] We're going to have fake meat? That doesn't work." Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said during a February press conference. "There's a whole ideological agenda that's coming after, I think, a lot of important parts of our society.""
Ms Camp gets close to touching on the real issue at heart here: This is pushback against a long, long, long war against meat-eating that has seen many proteins pushed off the menu for people especially on the West Coast. One need only look at recent anti-meat legislation in California to understand that this legislation cannot be viewed free of such context.
I am all for leaving fake-meat companies to try and peddle their disgusting product, free of government intervention. But the story here isn't a government singling out fake meat. The story is a government that has been weaponized by elites that seek to micro-manage our lives and the inevitable populist backlash that results.
I am all for leaving fake-meat companies to try and peddle their disgusting product, free of government intervention. But the story here isn’t a government singling out fake meat. The story is a government that has been weaponized by elites that seek to micro-manage our lives and the inevitable populist backlash that results.
^this^
"There is no morally coherent case for avoiding the slaughter of animals for food (a universal fact of nature)."
Sure, wolves eat cute bunny rabbits, so I should be allowed to do the same. I eat meat on a regular basis.
But justifying something in the name of "it happens" threatens to be, or involve, "the beasts in the jungle do it, so it is OK to do it, for me, as well", whatever "it" is. I can act like a beast, in a bad way, and NOT worry about it... Because, after all, it's a jungle out there!
Many new-male-bosses (of the animal clan; lions most famously, but others as well) kill the offspring of the previous male boss, so that they can spread THEIR new-boss genes instead! Is this OK for humans to do, as well? It happens in nature, after all!
As I said, I eat meat. However, there IS an ethical case to be made for NOT causing pain, suffering, or death in our fellow sentient beings, for us to eat their meat! And it sure as HELL is WAY wrong for self-righteous politicians and their marching-moron tribes to get in the way of "new tech" that might (eventually, practically, affordably) improve this situation, if only self-righteous, bossy rubes will stay out of the way!
No. Clearly the forest service needs 10s of thousands of new agents to enforce veganism in nature. Carnivores that refuse to comply will be executed for taking the life of other creatures.
The salaries of "10s of thousands of new agents to enforce veganism" would STIMULATE OUR ECONOMY, so shit's all good!!!
Well, in the ghetto where they live a rather Hobbsian lifestyle it does frequently happen. The new male often does try to kill the kids from the last stud.
Yes, this, too true! See http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc117957730 excerpt for this...
Don’t Confuse “Is” With “Should Be”
One semi-last section, on sociobiology. Very conservative (Biblical-literalist-types) will accuse evolution-believing (sociobiology-believing) persons of excusing humans for “just acting like beasts”. If we are mere beasts, then we have an excuse for acting like beasts! Well, the good will be good, and find “excuses” for being good, looking into “Holy Books”, or sociobiology, or any other “thing”, ideology, etc. And the evil will be evil, and do the exact same thing! Do what they want to do, and figure out the justification later!
Well anyway, I wanted to briefly mention “infanticide and sociobiology”. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology) for some basics. Male animals (lions, monkeys, etc.) will kill the youngest, when they take over a group (pride, troop, tribe, what have you), to make space for spreading THEIR genes, instead of the previous father(s)!
Does this make it RIGHT that humans should behave similarly? The beasts do it, so we can (should), too? Clearly not! This is absurd! But here comes my fundamental point: To NOT discuss (to ignore) this (or any other) negative programmed behavioral tendency, is to lose an opportunity to be aware, and on guard! As Jesus said, “The truth will set you free”! Deliberate ignorance is (just about absolutely) ALWAYS a hazard!
Let me quote from the above-cited Wikipedia link, “Humans and infanticide” section: “Family structure is the most important risk factor in child abuse and infanticide. Children who live with both their natural (biological) parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases greatly when children live with step-parents or with a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be abused than children who live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child abuse than children living with both biological parents.”
So there you have it! Whether we like to admit it or not, many of us DO act like beasts! ONE of the practical take-ways (in terms of public policy) is that we should only VERY reluctantly, in the WORST cases, take children away from both biological parents, and hand them over to foster parents. Hand them over to close biological relatives if possible. This makes sociobiological sense. And… Teach your youngsters to reproduce in a careful, responsible manner! Having 5 children by 4 different fathers is NOT a good choice! It is BEGGING for trouble! But yes, just as “wearing that dress” doesn’t excuse the rapist, having too many fathers for your children, doesn’t excuse infanticide, or child abuse, either!
I’m not sure what other important policy take-aways are here on this topic… I hope that I have hit the most important ones. Here are some related side topics: “Exposing infants” (human infanticide) historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide. And then there’s the fact that older cultures (WAY before modern sociobiology) intuitively understood these things. “Blood is thicker than water”. Witness the “evil stepmother” tales! See https://psych2go.net/the-cinderella-effect-evolutionarily-inclined-abusive-stepparents/ and ht
tps://www. (web link mangled again)
proquest.com/openview/
6364c0b52fdc66fa5345d0650ff96ecd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y for examples.
God bless you all, non-abusive, loving step-parents, foster parents, and adoptive parents! WHATEVER your religious or political beliefs may be, God BLESS you & your efforts! I’m not intending to slam you in the least! “I’m just sayin’…” Let’s beware of all dangers, and NOT be pro-ignorance! There is a “beast within us”, and from time to time, we need to squelch it!
“The beast within us” wants to survive and reproduce, and avoid pain, and seek pleasure (enjoy life). All these things, in their place, can be GOOD! But when said beast wants to ALWAYS blame the other tribe, start fights, commit infanticide or abuse, etc., it’s time to squelch the beast! “The beast” (programmed behavior tendencies) is both good and bad. To keep on evolving into Higher Beings, both evolutionarily and ethically-morally-spiritually, we need to use our will, our conscious minds, our consciences and spirits. We need to push willfully in the right directions, with benevolence (the weaker term) or Love (the stronger term). Ignorance generally doesn’t help. But ignorance should be lovingly educated away, especially by our good examples of knowledge AND behavior, rather than using “ignorant” as a term in insults or derogation. THAT is what I am saying!
"I am all for leaving fake-meat companies to try and peddle their disgusting product, free of government intervention. But the story here isn’t a government singling out fake meat. The story is a government that has been weaponized by elites that seek to micro-manage our lives and the inevitable populist backlash that results.”
No one runs for office thinking they’ll make people freer. They run thinking that the world will be a more perfect place if only everyone did exactly as they tell them and they are just the people to make it happen. The difference between candidates and parties is their differing order of priorities where they would begin. So, you vote for whomever will impinge on you later rather than sooner.
Most of the time they vote to impinge on others before themselves. Christians don't mind voting for people who promise a Christian theocracy but are rather put out by those who want an Islam based theocracy.
I am all for leaving fake-meat companies to try and peddle their disgusting product, free of government intervention.
Not on the table and never has been. The people who will tell you “back to nature” and “no killing” are, rather obviously, lying to you.
The cell culture vats will require antibiotics of some form to purge when contaminated. They’ll require power and water. They’ll require parking lots for the lab techs and highways and shipping docks to connect them. Considering that cell culture en masse didn’t exist until after all of this, it’s rather obvious that some or all is requisite. Meanwhile, slaughtering ungulates, whether herding them on horseback, or shipping them on steel rails, or not, can be done with little more than pointy sticks and sharp rocks.
It’s the same lie as EVs, windmills, and solar panels. It only works if you strangle off the other far more generous, and less managed/manageable sources of abundance.
"this legislation cannot be viewed free of such context."
The context referred to here is some airy fairy 'long, long, long war against meat eating,' ie little more than hysterical fear mongering. If it's context we're looking for, how about corruption? Various meat producers in the US spend something like $10,000,000 a year in lobbying and campaign contributions promoting actions to reduce the competition they face. That's a great deal more context than the 'whopping 250k budget' referred to in the comment.
"There is no morally coherent case for avoiding the slaughter of animals for food"
Do unto others as you would have them do to you. That's the moral code underlying most of the world's religions.
Suppose that Government Almighty goes too far, and mandates no-meat diets, which many people disagree with, just like the War on Drugs today…
Then there will be underground, makeshift, amateurish animal-killing-and-butchering shops, where the animals will be treated far less humanely than they are today! (Thank You Do-Gooders!!!)
You will not be able to let your cat or dog wander through the bushes in your own back yard, for fear of meat-hungry lawbreaking pet-snatchers!
(But, Meat-Hungry Lawbreaking Pet-Snatchers would make an MOST EXCELLENT name for a garage band!)
"Suppose that Government Almighty goes too far, and mandates no-meat diets,"
That's not how government works. Governments have long favored raising corn, for animal feed, sugar etc. They never mandated corn consumption, but subsidies and tax policies to promote it. Americans are used to this and don't seem to have any problem, at least going from the articles in Reason and the comments. After WWII, America donated vast quantities of corn to Japan, which had been on the verge of starvation, and the Japanese were disgusted by food they were expected to consume. Corn flakes, they thought, were at best only suited for animal fodder.
"You will not be able to let your cat or dog wander through the bushes in your own back yard,"
Yes, if Americans are starving, otherwise no.
In other words, a HUGE amount of "stuff" is best left out of the clutches of Government Almighty, and assigned, instead, to our own conscience, as we see fit.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, ‘The State must follow, and not lead, the character and progress of the citizen.’
Here is the full-blown quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
‘Republics abound in young civilians who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and employments of the population, that commerce, education and religion may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.’
Another relevant Emerson quote:
“All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.”
""Do unto others as you would have them do to you.""
Funny how that philosophy doesn't apply to the animals that will eat you.
Animals don't have anything that can be thought of as philosophy. People do, though, in varying degrees. That's why there are laws and prohibitions against animal cruelty in every country. (Christian countries are probably weaker in protecting animals than most others. Compare Christian America's gratuitous slaughter of the bison to India's veneration of the 'holy cow.'
Do unto others falls apart the second that intelligence is absent, so all animals fall short.
"Do unto others falls apart the second that intelligence is absent"
It doesn't. Intelligence may be absent, but sentience and the capacity to suffer are there to take its place.
In Turin on 3rd January, 1889, Friedrich Nietzsche steps out of the doorway of number six, Via Carlo Alberto. Not far from him, the driver of a hansom cab is having trouble with a stubborn horse. Despite all his urging, the horse refuses to move, whereupon the driver loses his patience and takes his whip to it. Nietzsche comes up to the throng and puts an end to the brutal scene, throwing his arms around the horse’s neck, sobbing.
Treat others as you would like to be treated, and they will (generally) respond in kind. Poop on them, and they will ALSO, on average, figure out who you are, and what you are about, and NOT treat you very well in turn! Karma, what comes around, goes around, and, as you sow, so shall you reap!
Modern ethology (the study of animal behavior) bears this out. Many species have an innate sense of justice; even such a small (and small-brained) primate species as a marmoset. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_aversion_in_animals and https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-arts-and-sciences/callitrichid/publications/2016/Mustoe%20et%20al,%20Anim%20Behav%202016.pdf and more. Don’t EVEN think that your “inferiors” are too stupid to figure out that you’re ripping them off!
Even animals far simpler and less intelligent than humans engage in “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” (but not if you don’t). Research animal reciprocity and animal altruism, kin altruism, etc. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism#:~:text=In%20evolutionary%20biology%2C%20reciprocal%20altruism,manner%20at%20a%20later%20time , see this excerpt: “Numerous species of bacteria engage in reciprocal altruistic behaviors with other species.” If even bacteria can see the benefits of cooperation, then surely humans should be able to do the same!
In higher (and social, intelligent) animals, we see more of the same, and even more complexities. Study “Dunbar’s Number” as a related topic. We keep track of each other, and how each of us treat others, and act accordingly! Politically, even! See https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/science/22angi.html Political Animals (Yes, Animals) By Natalie Angier “Researchers who study highly gregarious and relatively brainy species like rhesus monkeys, baboons, dolphins, sperm whales, elephants and wolves have lately uncovered evidence that the creatures engage in extraordinarily sophisticated forms of politicking, often across large and far-flung social networks.”
If the social (and political!) behavior of intelligent, social animals backs up the idea of “tread carefully, because as you sow, so shall you reap”, then SURELY we as happiness-seeking humans should pay heed to that! So then… Mourn the pains, sufferings, and deaths of others, exercise your “mirror neurons”, practice some fellow-feeling, and you will be blessed with more genuine and long-term happiness!
From http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc117957730
Which is why I'm an atheist. I don't need no magic sky fairy to tell me what I can't eat. I've worked with hogs, chickens and cows and I have a deep need to avenge my toes, shins and testicles from where they injured me.
I don't forgive and I don't forget. Prime Rib, yes I will have more, make it real thick. I've got issues to work out on that hunk of cow.
This is pushback against a long, long, long war against meat-eating that has seen many proteins pushed off the menu for people especially on the West Coast.
Which, as I point out below, is itself a subset of the beyond-insanely-fanatical pushback against all of humanity, and more, for the last 10,000+ years in favor of a fantasy that never existed.
And color me skeptical if the people who shouted for years that “free range”, “naturally raised”, and “forage fed” animals were in all way superior to “caged” and “factory farm” livestock now suddenly say meat grown in a vat is somehow “just as good”.
While I'm sure there is some overlap (for some people it's always team above all), I don't think that those are generally the same people. There are definitely quite a few lefties who are consistent on their anti-biotech, crunchy organic positions who I'm sure are no more for lab grown meat than they are genetically engineered vegetables.
This is pushback against a long, long, long war against meat-eating that has seen many proteins pushed off the menu for people especially on the West Coast.
So why not push back against this instead of revenge-banning something someone else wants?
So why not push back against this instead of revenge-banning something someone else wants?
As indicated, with evidence, DeSantis is right. They don’t just want to ban eating animals. They want to impoverish ranchers and other farmers, seize their land, and turn it back over to nature so that natural predators, but not humans, can tear meat from the animal while it’s still on its hooves. This isn’t some *wink**wink**nudge**nudge* back room conspiracy theory, they openly state this all over the place. If they have to forcibly starve three quarters of humanity or more to death, so be it.
Once again, acting like Ron DeSantis is the evil Oranges Horseman of The Apocalypse ushering in the Descending Dark Knight of Fascism is projection.
This is the same "It's just Conservatives moral panicking about bathrooms in North Carolina." bullshit.
They don’t just want to ban eating animals.
Well, whoever "They" are, "They" can fuck right off, can't "They?"
This is the same “It’s just Conservatives moral panicking about bathrooms in North Carolina.” bullshit.
What is the same? Banning fake meat because Culture War, or allowing fake meat because Marxism?
Agreed. If they get the government to ban actual meat I will do what I did when they banned weed and what my ancestors did when the same funphobes banned booze. I will find it (or make it), buy it low and sell it high until they catch me and punish me for my sins. Then I will go right back at it. Fuck the fun funphobes.
So you're joining Greenpeace and their no genetic engineered food campaign?
If this process can be perfected it could make living on the Moon and Mars practical. It could make generational starships actually possible. Hell, it could possibly solve the problem of starvation in 3rd world nations. Anywhere square footage is at a premium could benefit from this technology.
But all you can see is evil liberals plotting against your way of life. Jesus fucking Christ, drop the paranoia down a few notches. You're seeing liberals around every corner with a pair of pruning sheers wanting to cut you balls off.
"yet doesn't require the slaughter of a single living animal" - they admitted the lab grown chicken currently required bovine growth hormone, which requires the killing of cow fetuses.
Making cheese used to require calF stomachs. Now we have plant enzymes that do the same thing. Even then, how much BVG is needed per ton of vat meat vs how much BVG is in a calf?
A non zero amount of cow is required.
At this point in the process yes it does. What happens when they crack the code and can make the BVGH irrelevant or find a plant equivalent that solves that problem? Like most cheese makers found out that a vegetable enzyme is cheaper and just as able to do the job? What will your point of opposition be then?
Most hard cheeses still use rennet.
They also use unpasteurized milk. They do it "the old way" because some people think that is better. I think those people need to stick to all the old ways and not get vaccinations and other modern medical innovations. But that's just me.
I hear consuming only cells with walls is the one true and righteous path to saving every last human soul.
I say prove I have a soul.
"There's a whole ideological agenda that's coming after, I think, a lot of important parts of our society."
Namely, all of them:
Not "Freeing up to 2.2 million square miles for other, more productive uses.". Not "Freeing up to 2.2 million square miles for other, less productive uses the market may demand.". No, they want to take the land where people are currently raising ungulates for food, and eliminate any sign of civilization except the massive cultured meat factories, and return it to nature so that ungulates can roam there freely and die wastefully, like back when the Indians would leave carcasses to the vultures and before.
Fuck your bullshit.
Those idiots think all land is created equal.
Businesses have long recognized economies of scale. There is more money to be made concentrating food production into a handful of massive cultured meat factories than producing the same amount of food requiring millions of square miles of land and millions of livestock requiring shelter, food, heating, lighting, veterinary care etc. Forestalling such competition is precisely why traditional ranchers spend millions of dollars every year on politicians.
You're not wrong. The Beef industry spends a lot on politicians. As do the pork and poultry industries. It's not the ranchers as much as it's the meat processing industry that puts the heavy money down but the effect to the consumer is much the same.
This trend has nothing to do with liberty, freedom, open markets or any other catch phrases. It has to do with an industry trying to screw over both ends of the market. The rancher and the consumer. The rancher is the only one who is deluded into thinking this is done for their benefit...
Make it so a factory in LA can make a tub of duck liver paste and the poultry industry will suffer. The poultry producers won't and the consumers won't because there will ALWAYS be a demand for "the real thing".
Mind you conservative are yet again bitching about both ends of this. Most of the workers in the meat processing plants are illegals. If the industry had to pay fair wages to regular Americans they'd go out of business real fast. Either that or American consumers would be paying twice as much for hamburger. Either way the conservatives will be bitching and demand government "do something".
The very same people who complain about high food prices also complain about the illegal immigrants who dominate the labor force in much of the food industry and keep the prices as low as they are. Hypocrites.
You're not wrong.
I get the idea from your posts that you think the beef industry is still like it was in the Rawhide TV show. The Beef industry is as centralized and industrial as auto making.
label it appropriately and let the market work. anyone who really thinks it going to change much at $17 a pound in a moron.
Agreed, with the caveat to label it appropriately. People may buy it if it’s cheaper and taste the same, or pretty much the same, or they won’t. The veggie meat business seems to be failing, or perhaps just stagnating, as it’s not selling all that well.
The veggie meat business seems to be failing, or perhaps just stagnating, as it’s not selling all that well.
This really is the thing that make this all much ado about nothing. I mean, I'm as concerned as anyone that people might catch Marxism from fake meat, but I think in the end the vegetarians never actually wanted it, and if even they don't want it, obviously no one else does, either.
"but I think in the end the vegetarians never actually wanted it"
I agree for the most part. Vegetarians are like drug addicts. The fewer people 'stepping on their gear' the better. Some vegetarians like to rise to the challenge of creating vegetarian food which looks, tastes and smells like meat. Have you been to that restaurant in Taipei on Hoping Dong Lu, near the Normal University? If not, make sure you check it out next time you're in town. They offer a full menu of fake meats that are prepared in typical Chinese style.
Psst! It’s dog meat.
"Psst! It’s dog meat."
Dog meat wouldn't be used as a substitute for beef. As I'm sure you know, the taste is quite different. It's also more expensive than other meats. It also has properties absent in beef, as it contributes to, you guessed it, male potency. Maybe rat meat would be a cheap substitute. I've only had it once, as far as know, rat ham, I suppose you would call it - smoked rat thighs. It wasn't bad, but only the poorest eat it.
Rat raised and prepared properly has a similar flavor to beef.
I can believe that. All I got was a kind of smoky flavor. I've had some whale meat, too. Different parts, different tastes. Horsey tail or porky tummy.
This. Is a rat burger? Hmm. Not bad.
"Did you ever thing when you eat Chinese, it's not pork or chicken but a fat siamese."
Opening lyric of "Cat in the Kitchen at the Peeking Moon." Parody of Cats in the Cradle.
Have you been to that restaurant in Taipei on Hoping Dong Lu, near the Normal University?
No. I'm the son of a mechanic, so international travel is something of an unattainable luxury for me, but I did once eat at a Taoist place in Huntington Beach where they really put a lot of art into faking the meat, which made me realize that after years as a vegetarian I don't actually like meat anymore, and I didn't go back.
I had an Impossible Burger once, too - didn't like it. The lab-grown stuff in my experience tastes the way I remember shitty hamburgers from McDonald's tasting, except they cost 10 times as much.
"No. I’m the son of a mechanic, so international travel is something of an unattainable luxury for me"
I'm the son of a sailor so international travel is second nature to me.
I agree with your take on vegan meats. For much the same reasons, I also avoid diet colas, low tar cigarettes, decaf coffee, alcohol free beer, reality TV, fat free ice cream and soft core porn. "They" are responsible for all these abominations, and we can only hope that DeSantis is on the case to protect us.
I've had the vegetarian sweet n sour chicken and it is just bread that has been breaded and fried and put in sweet sauce. It tastes fine, but it is the opposite of healthy food. The chicken is better for you.
the issue with the veggie meat business is that it never was a growth market. there will always be the people who don't want to eat real meat, but those who like real meat were never going to magically decide to pay five times as much for something that only ever reaches the level of similar. you got the vegans to bite a little when it first came out but zero new customers after that.
"you got the vegans to bite a little when it first came out but zero new customers after that."
I imagine hosts and hostesses buying it when they are expecting vegan guests. Preparing something vegan from scratch might be venturing into the unknown, inconvenient and difficult. These vegan burgers can be frozen and prepared much like meat burgers.
The target market for veggie meats appears to be people who want to quit eating meat but who needed a crutch, rather like those who use Nicorette gum or patches to help quit smoking. The difference is there really are people who want to quit smoking and the crutch was helpful. It appears there aren't many people looking for something that will help them stop enjoying a steak.
Food labeling laws are written by the industry to benefit the industry. Not the consumers, not the producers but the processing industry.
So if we stopped eating beef, for example, that would lead to a population collapse and possible extinction for a whole species of animal. Why is that not an equal or greater moral concern than the slaughter of animals for food?
"So if we stopped eating beef, for example, that would lead to a population collapse and possible extinction for a whole species of animal. "
There are cows in India, where eating beef is taboo for the overwhelming majority of the population. (Most Indians eat cheese and yoghurt, thanks to cows.) A better case can be made for the xoloitzcuintle, the Mexican hairless dog. It was a ubiquitous source of meat for the Aztecs that Spanish conquest edged to the side. They were on the verge of extinction until mid 20th century when dog enthusiasts rediscovered the charms of these curious creatures. Nobody in Mexico or anywhere else eats xoloitzcuintles, but they are nevertheless managing to stage a comeback.
You have a marvelous talent for missing the point.
I prefer pointy points to the pointless points you offer.
The fact remains that Indians overwhelmingly don't eat beef. Nevertheless, cows are not extinct. Take a trip and see for yourself. Cows even wander the city streets in places like New Delhi. Xolotzcuintles in Mexico are much more difficult to encounter, but they are around, not eaten, not extinct.
Why is that not an equal or greater moral concern than the slaughter of animals for food?
Once again, the issue isn't climate or guns or Trump or animals. The issue is controlling you. Climate, guns, Trump, animals, etc. are just the excuse.
PITA slaughters more stray cats every year than any other single organization on the face of the planet, but Noem is banned in half the state because she shot a dog years ago.
You're not wrong. Mostly.
Noem is banned on the aboriginal reservations because she said they need to stop bitching, get off their asses and show the drug cartels the fucking border. But instead of doing hard work they banned her from the Rez. No big loss, they were the only counties that went for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. The odds of them voting for anyone with an R after their name are pretty damned low. That and the Reservations are wretched hives of scum and villainy.
Noem and the fucking dog story is just stupid. People and their fucking dogs, or "fur babies" as soy people call them... It's a fucking animal people. If it bites someone YOU SHOOT IT! It is literally the law in most of the state. She was within her legal rights to shoot it instead of putting it on antidepressants or taking it to therapy. It's a DOG. It is no different than the fucking cow that was killed to provide you with hamburgers! No one sane is crying for the fucking cows.
If you are going to hate on "Freedom Barbie" then do it for something she actually did as Governor. Bills she signed or asked her allies in the legislature to pass. Executive Orders, lawsuits and other shit she did as a state employee. For fucks sake, there's plenty there to hate on. But she shot a dog and a goat. My father shot a lot of dogs too. Hell, he caught more than one in farm equipment, which was fucking hilarious by the way. Then he shot them because he wasn't a cruel man.
"Noem and the fucking dog story is just stupid."
Do you find the story credible? Wasn't the dead dog supposed to serve as a hunting dog? I suspect that like other working dogs like seeing eye dogs or sheep herding dogs, they don't come cheap. And they need to be trained.
"It is no different than the fucking cow that was killed to provide you with hamburgers!"
It is different. Before humans domesticated dogs, we were consumed by primitive felines like the sabre toothed tiger. Our flourishing on the planet is due in part to our partnership with dogs. The loyalty of our dogs is legendary.
Have you heard about Roald Amundsen? Perhaps, not. He was the first human to reach the South Pole, located in the waste land of Antarctica. He would certainly have died in the attempt if it hadn't been for his dogs. His rival Scott took ponies, and their party all died, ponies and humans alike.
"Using skis and dog sleds for transportation, Amundsen and his men created supply depots at 80°, 81° and 82° South on the Barrier, along a line directly south to the Pole.[6] Amundsen also planned to kill most of his dogs on the way and use them as a source for fresh meat. As he went he butchered some of the dogs and fed them to the remaining dogs, as well as eating some himself."
"Compiled in this chapter are the reactions of the Royal Geographical Society (RGS), its president Lord Curzon (George Nathanial Curzon or Earl Curzon of Kedleston), and its secretary John Scott Keltie, to Roald Amundsen’s attainment of the South Pole and to the unknown status and location of Robert Falcon Scott. The reactions documented and analyzed here, from March 1912 to October 1912, include official proclamations made publicly as well as private utterances exchanged internally—exclamations of both congratulations and condemnation. Of particular issue is Amundsen’s use of dogs as well as his secrecy in going South rather than North. Correspondence between RGS officials, Fridtjof Nansen, and Amundsen, as well as official documents and contracts, expose a fluctuating and embattled relationship between Amundsen and the eminent British institution. Moreover, an invitation to lecture at the RGS in London and to publish his account in the society’s The Geographical Journal is met with apprehension by the Norwegian explorer, who has heard rumors of resentment and dissent among the British, and whose indignation is reflected in letters of correspondence with his brother Leon and with his new British lecture agent Gerald Christy of The Lecture Agency, Ltd. Personal and official letters reveal the strong response to Amundsen’s proposed references in his speech regarding the butchering of the sled dogs."
(It's interesting to note that Antarctica is the only place of the planet where geographical features are named after animals - the ponies and dogs who accompanied the early explorers.)
Credible? Yes. Robert Heinlein in many of his works talked about being a responcible person. One of the adages he used frequently was "A man shoots his own dog.” An idea my father’s generation, at least amoung the rural people I grew up around, accepted as part and parcel of animal ownership. If your dog needed to be killed because of old age, excessive violent behavior, infection or a mauling by wild animals you didn’t farm that out to a vet or someone else. You shot your own dog. Simple as that.
Noem is telling a story that shows she can make the hard calls. If her dog needed shooting she could do it herself. Old die hard Republicans will respond well to that message. Old rural Democrats will respond far better to that than anything the current crop of Democrats will say. Younger Republicans who have “fur babies” may not get it. Hard to say. But in this mostly rural state with mostly old farts this message will play well.
So yes, I think she shot a dog that was not well trained for hunting and was being violent toward humans. I’ve known a lot of people who think they can train a dog to be a working dog. My cousins thought they could train dogs to work cattle or hunt pheasants. Those were the dogs my dad wanted to shoot because they were useless. They chased the cattle back towards us and scared pheasants into flight far out of shotgun range. He may have quietly shot a few when no one was looking. He was old school like that. My cousins did go through a lot of dogs…
As for dogs being useful, sure. Back before we had technology. Now we have vehicles that can do the work better, and more reliable, than animals. There’s a reason we plow fields with tractors and not horses. Several years ago the Top Gear gang took a Toyota Hilux, diesel powered model, to the North Pole demonstrating that two television presenters who were drunk most of the time could make it to the pole in heated comfort. The one host who was going by sled was do far behind them it was laughable.
"So yes, I think she shot a dog that was not well trained for hunting and was being violent toward humans. "
It appears that the dog wasn't trained. Even though it was young. I believe hunting dogs are trained. They should be trained not to bite people, for a start. It's the responsible thing to do, as Heinlein would have told you.
"Several years ago the Top Gear gang took a Toyota Hilux, diesel powered model, to the North Pole demonstrating that two television presenters who were drunk most of the time could make it to the pole in heated comfort. "
Scott and Amundsen walked to the South Pole. With their feet, as god intended.
"As for dogs being useful, sure. Back before we had technology"
Dogs are still useful in a seeing eye capacity, herding sheep or hunting. How about buying a seeing eye dog for your blind grandmother, not training it, but shooting it instead. Working dogs are expensive and require training. I can't understand why someone would get a 'hunting dog' but not train it. Not even to stop it from biting people. Imagine if I bought a pure bred Maltese, supposedly to take to dog shows, but neglected to groom it or train it to walk on a leash. Instead I shot it. Do you really think that old Republicans and old school Democrats would praise me and admire my responsibility? The story seems fishy to me, and I don't think we are being told everything.
I too am an ex country boy and seen many a dog or cat killed (put down, we used to say) for many reasons. The reason for Noem's decision to kill her dog don't add up to me. You talk of responsibility. I think it's terribly irresponsible to take in a dog if you're not willing to care for it, give it love and attention, and yes, to train it.
First off, like my father, I have zero use for animals unless it is for food. Yes, when my grandfather went out to the parcel of land he had acquired before World War One he used a horse drawn wagon and a brand new Ford tractor pulled wagon to move into their home. Before he died he was running a huge combine harvester that used GPS and could have harvested the field while he napped in the seat. By then my father had quit breeding horses because animal lovers made laws that required he send an old horse to the vet for killing and disposal instead of just shooting it and burying it in a field. My brother and his kids use 4 wheelers and trucks to herd cattle. I doubt his kids even know how to saddle a horse.
As an aside, if your god demands you walk to the South Pole you have a god that is way behind the times and should be discarded along with the dogs and sled.
As I explained about the untrained hunting dog I know many people who think they can train dogs. Noem didn't write about killing a long string of dogs, just the one.
I've no doubt she told her father that she could train the dog and he told her it wouldn't work. But being youngish she likely didn't listen, as young people often do, and went ahead and tried. Just like my cousins did, she failed, as most people do. Unlike my cousins when it attacked people she shot it because that is what you do with a violent dog.
There are some very niche uses for dogs that I argue would be better and cheaper to replace with technology. I would never trust an animal with the life of a loved one.
"I would never trust an animal with the life of a loved one."
That sounds like something from a nervous urbanite. Were you mauled as a child? I had a girlfriend who was pretty but for the ugly scar on her lip as a result of being bitten by a dog when young. She never could trust another dog after that.
"that she could train the dog and he told her it wouldn’t work"
Training a dog is time consuming and tedious, but it's the responsible thing to do. I thought you prized responsibility above all. I can't see how you think buying a hunting dog, not training it, and shooting it instead to be a model of responsibility, regardless of what her father said.
I was never mauled by a dog as a child. I've been stepped on, kicked and knocked down by cows, pigs and sheep. Dogs were just a nusance and a waste of time. Every time my cousins thought they had trained a dog to do useful work it made the task twice as hard.
My brother runs pheasant hunts on the family land and while he does own an actual paid a guy good money to train hunting dog the hunters who pay stupid money to shoot pheasant bring their dogs and he has yet to see one that is useful for pheasant hunting. Again, people think they can train dogs with love and other bullshit.
If you want to hate on Noem then do it for a real reason. Not that she shot a dangerous animal. She has done plenty of stupid shit as Governor that one could be pissed off about that are far worse than one stupid dog.
I haven't any experience training dogs for work. I'll take your word that it's difficult, but I don't think it's impossible. Isn't pheasant hunting done with human 'beaters,' usually servants working at stately homes? That's how my cousin does it, and I don't think dogs are involved. Perhaps dogs simply aren't up to pheasant hunting, as they are with sled pulling, blind guiding, bomb sniffing etc.
"Dogs were just a nusance and a waste of time. "
I think you should give them another chance. I had an acquaintance who served in the South Korean army as a dog handler. Although the dog got better food than him, better shelter, and had a higher rank, the dog and their experience together was his best memory of his service. Dogs are loyal and loving if you give them a chance. If you are daunted by a large one, get a smaller version like a terrier.
"If you want to hate on Noem then do it for a real reason. "
Irresponsibility is a character flaw, as Heinlein would tell you. Real reason enough to give the governor a pass, thank you very much.
Are you still on that line of argument? Do you still tell gun control advocates that we should first make murder illegal? Dude, those are old arguments that don't work anymore. Get with the now.
I eat cows because I have frontal lobes, opposable thumbs and have mastered my fear of fire. If cows don't want to be eaten they need to do the same.
Pork is taboo for Jews yet is still eaten, mostly by Palestinian Christians and secular Jews. Yet the bible and the government insist that "pigs won’t touch the holy ground of Israel.” Sea lawyering pig farmers installed slightly raised platforms where the pig rearing could be carried out without offending god or the state.
Israel is only 2 percent Christian and even non religious Jews often avoid pig meat.
I know Jews. While the old ones will try to stick to beef or poultry my favorite jew loves pork. She's allergic to citrus... but she will eat anything I cook that has pork in it and her parents know this. Fuck, we went to her folks for Passover. I learned a lot about Kosher and why some wine is Kosher and some isn't. BTW its hard to find Kosher wine in Western South Dakota. Whoda thunk it.
See if she balks at black pudding. It's made with pig's blood and grain, an English treat. It might go well with kosher wine.
Fuck, I balk at black pudding. I won’t make people eat anything I wouldn’t.
Unless the lab grown meat is dangerous (and it isn't) what business is it of the government?
The meat processing industry writes the regulations up and the legislators they buy pass them into law. That's why it's their business.
There are only seven companies in the US that process ALL the meat and most of them only process one or two types of meat. Talk about a monopoly, but the feds don't get upset at them because the industry has been buying politicians since before Upton Sinclair wrote the original tell all book about an industry.
Up next? Lab grown genitals.
So, again, the issue isn’t the lab-grown meat. The issue is the social/political push to “normalize” as if it’s not some kind of premature emergent technology that hasn’t been perfected and made reliable and cost-efficient.
And that’s the problem that these State’s are recognizing. It’s laughable when people like Voorman say, “Consumer freedom, consumer choice, and free market principles are also lost when lawmakers decide they know what’s best.” Because he fails to understand that that’s precisely the reason for the restrictions.
These places are not responding to the lab-grown meat, they’re preemptively responding to the blue states and blue feds who – in their zealous fanatical cult doctrine that demands all things climate-positive – openly tell us that they want the internal combustion engine, the gas stove, air conditioning, coal, oil, phosphates, factory farms, pesticides, GMOs, and single-use plastics banned, in favor of green “alternatives” that are far more expensive, far less reliable, and far less efficient than what we have now. And, as such, are far “less consumer freedom, consumer choice, and free market principles.”
There should be NO opposition (outside of diminished financial returns) to investment in green technology. I like clean air and clean water and humane approaches towards animals (except pit bulls, 100% kill all the pit bulls) as much as anyone else. But I also am a realist about a stable energy market. And a food production market. And when green tech can show up in those markets and ACTUALLY compete, then great.
But if they can’t, actions need to be taken to prevent them from being forced on everyone prematurely. And when your solar array can’t handle adverse weather, or when your EV dies when it’s too cold or too hot, or when your “meat alternative” is based on more salt than people should have in a week – guess what, it’s premature.
Paranoid much? The ecomentalist fad is already dying. Local governments here in flyover country are shutting down wind farms because too many of those wind turbines have become public nuisances. Aside from the noise issue and the dead birds the fact that when they catch on fire from a lightning strike or fall apart flinging huge blades onto a road the company that built them is out of business and there are no responsible parties to clean up the mess. That's why the media is now publicizing the turbines that are built in the oceans. It's the only place they can put them anymore. Solar is doing equally bad. Real environmentalists are fighting the solar farms because they interfere with the migration patterns of endangered species.
Market forces cannot be countered by law. They still exist and even if governments subsidize against the market those forces are being held back at best. At some point the market will correct no matter what laws have been passed. Bush Jr tried to make everyone rich by making it way too easy to buy houses. The market corrected and it was a fucking mess. Yes, Obama stole money from taxpayers to help cover the losses but that only served to create more inflation. When the market forces correct now it will be like Hoover Dam bursting and the damage will be epic. No one in office is willing to do what needs to happen to prevent that burst dam so when it goes, well, don't be downstream.
The government could try to ban meat. But look how effective banning drugs has been. Look how effective banning booze was. Banning things creates a black market. Meat from Mexico will flow across the border and cops will be arresting meat smugglers. You will be bitching about how illegals are bringing grass finished beef to meat addicts. I'm sure you will be just as enthusiastic about denying meat eaters their rights as you are drug users.
They still exist and even if governments subsidize against the market those forces are being held back at best. At some point the market will correct no matter what laws have been passed.
Indeed, but again – the point is to frustrate the whitewash policies that embrace premature, unreliable tech from being forced on a population at the expense of perfected, highly reliable tech.
I’m sure you will be just as enthusiastic about denying meat eaters their rights as you are drug users.
Meat eaters don’t form tent cities of shambling derelicts that drive down property values and drive up crime rates in an addiction-driven stupor that is entirely dependent on that which causes it.
Apples to zebras kiddo. But nice try.
Blah, blah, blah. Governments ban some things and promote other things. It is what governments do. It's why Libertarians oppose big government. It's what makes Libertarians different from Conservatives. Conservatives, like Liberals, are happy to encourage government to ban the things they don't like and subsidize what they do like. Conservatives like to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies while Liberals like to tell people what they can and can't spend their money on. Both are pains in the ass.
="we don't believe in free markets when participants are people we don't like"
That's wonderfully concise.
Yes, exactly. That’s exactly it.
A small minority of people get a bug up their butt about coal or oil or factory farming or whatever that allows for this very comfortable, very decadent society where we want for nothing. And then these pissants, who have majority control of government power, then demand that their half-baked “alternatives” to that which has been relied upon successfully for decades with little-to-no negative consequences, flood the marketplace as inferior replacement tech for something that’s far from obsolete.
It’s like if Henry Ford were evil and said, “Look, I’m going to need you to kill all the horses” while the Model-T was still in prototype and mass production facilities weren’t built yet.
THAT is what these bills are designed to prevent. And it’s entirely reasonable and warranted. Like I said – I want green tech as much as you do. I just want it reasonably perfected before I go throwing out what I know I can rely (and rely affordably) on. Or, especially, when someone aims to throw it out for me against my will.
Sigh. Reason.
Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if they would just stop actually supporting individual liberty and publish only what Conservatives want to read.
All you are saying is "Daddy, govern me harder."
I was referring to the goofy nature of their obsolete comments section setup – but yea, go with that. Tells me where your default mind is.