This only needs to be true of a single meat product or the majority of them? e.g. if the only cost-competitive artificial meat is artificial lean ground beef, is that sufficient to resolve YES?

Is this about cost to produce or cost for consumers to acquire?

@dph121 oh good point, @elf

@dph121
Cost for consumers to acquire. I am open to modifying resolution criteria if anyone can convince me of a better alternative.

Do you make that distinction because of possible subsidies, lab-grown meat having temporarily higher margins to pay off their R&D expenses & upfront costs or something else?

Good watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V0zCf4Yup34&pp=ygUIbGFiIG1lYXQ%3D

@strutheo That was a great watch, thanks for linking! You've given me a lot to think about.

The energy concerns are less of an issue imo as I'm partial to Casey Handmer's thesis on Energy (https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/11/radical-energy-abundance/)

I think the central point of contention is whether the economic factors preventing cost reductions are a consequence of biological constraints and therefore could not be overcome (at least in our lifetime) regardless of any future breakthroughs or procedural improvements.

I'm going to read through Humbird's original paper that was mentioned in the video (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8362201/) to see if I can determine that with greater certainty.

So pick other if we think it won't happen before 2045 ?

@strutheo yep