I can only imagine that taking longer can represent a greater challenge to re-entering the market. I assume some linear relationship between length of time and difficulty coming back.
My company just got acquired, all our branding will eventually go away. Can't get too doxxy; HQ is in San Jose. I have a few items I'm getting rid of, I was thinking of you (or another collecter in your space) about exactly this topic when I heard about the acquisition.
This is very interesting from a society/technology perspective. I support your efforts! I do have one or two fundamental questions about this industry/space, not necessarily related to this company, but this might be a good place to ask.
I am a vegan of about 10 years now, and as (potentially) a constituent of the addressable market, here's why I'm not going to buy lab-grown "meat": my primary motivations for dietary veganism are to do with non-renewable resource consumption: potable water, land use, oil/energy, emissions, etc. Traditional industrial meat consumption uses around 10x land/energy/ghg emissions as plant crops per calorie, and about 100x the water (or more). It's not clear to me how the lab-grown meat addresses these resource consumption considerations.
---
> Cultivating meat is similar to brewing beer
As a dietary vegan I don't know the first thing about meat, but I do know a little about home-brewing. In the case of home-brewing wine or beer, at least for me, it's about ~5x volume in water consumption (~5L of water makes 1L wine), including cleaning, mixing, etc. This is on a tiny scale; I'm sure if water consumption was optimized for you could do even less. Is cultivating lab meat closer in water use to brewing beer, or traditional meat farming? I'm also curious about the energy input; how many calories of energy in -> calories out?
If there are order-of-magnitude gains to be made in non-renewable resource consumption, I can get behind this even if I personally find it a little gross (sorry). At a small scale, I don't doubt the resource consumption is non-optimal, but how much can be gained by scale/optimization?
I think of lab-grown meat as harm reduction. It will almost certainly be more resource-intensive than a vegan diet, but less so than raising an entire animal for the fraction that becomes edible.
It will also produce less waste, or at least better-controlled waste, than raising an entire animal. But again, more than a purely plant-based diet.
I can't give you numbers, but really, I can't see any reason for you to switch away from a vegan diet if you're satisfied with it. However, a lot of other people will switch from an animal-based diet to one that is somewhat more responsible and causes considerably less pain and suffering.
All meat eaters live with a certain cognitive dissonance on that, which most simply ignore because they consider plant-based diets insufficient. And as a vegan you know that a healthy plant-based diet isn't always easy -- though made a little easier recently by some highly processed products that aren't really all that much better for health or the environment.
as a heads-up, most electrical mains in the USA are 240v; they are wired two circuits in series for most residential applications. But you'll find a 240v plug in most homes; it's the industrial heavy-duty looking plug.
anybody got a link to the spreadsheet? I'm not necessarily interested in the abc commentary; I just want to see what the original author thought important to track.
> Fortunately, the other sentences in footnote 78 contain no words that start with v, so we should be able to take them at face volume.
Savage.
I saw lots of charts & graphs & flashy wordsmithing, but I didn't actually see any evidence or examples of firms doing unscrupulous trades.
I'm not an expert, but I know better than to dish it out better than I can take it. My opinion is that these "exemplary" market returns are simply the result of markets being open only part of the day: between 0930h and 1600h there's liquidity to buy/sell your position at any time, for the prevailing price. Markets are open only 7h of the day but 24h worth of events takes place each day.
The other elephant in the room is that all market participants know the trading hours. Much news, releases, events, etc. happen outside of the liquid trading hours, resulting in discrete jumps between the close of one day and the open of another.
These are also cumulative returns over a huge timespan: everybody knows the fed can crash the markets mid-day with the wrong jawboning. the reverse price effect can also be true, resulting in huge open-to-close changes.
> between 0930h and 1600h there's liquidity to buy/sell your position at any time, for the prevailing price. Markets are open only 7h of the day but 24h worth of events takes place each day.
Yes indeed. The author claims that there is less risk in overnight positions than in intra-day positions. I think there's more. Firstly more time passes overnight and secondly the lack of liquidity means you can't unwind overnight positions if you need to.
One obvious difference is that plants evolved with animals (or influenced the evolution of animals) via an express food-providing mechanism. To eat the leaves or the fruit of a plant does not necessarily kill it; in fact, one could say that the plants evolved these parts in a symbiotic relationship with their animal eaters/caretakers. It's certainly possible to destroy a plant by eating it obviously, but how many examples of plants can you think of where it provides a detachable, replenishable food product?
Animals do not have similar food-providing mechanisms. When you eat an animal, or part of an animal, it'd dead. It doesn't grow back. It wasn't designed to.
All nutrition comes from plants (or the microbiology around them). All protein comes from plants. Anyone who equates the barbary of eating animals with eating plants is choosing to deceive themselves and others.
