[wk_end]

Two things.

First, there's no evolutionary pressure to minimize pollution, so I don't know why you'd assume that "nature does it in the lest pollution manner [sic] that artificial processes will not be able to match".

Secondly, even if nature is somehow more efficient than science can ever match for running an entire living creature, that's not what lab meat is doing. Almost everything an animal needs to do - think, feel, breathe, digest, move, maintain organs, and on and on and on - lab meat doesn't need to do. So potentially losses in efficiency for growing meat cells can be made up for by the fact that you're not doing any of the other things animals need to do besides growing meat cells.

[dennis_jeeves1]

> First, there's no evolutionary pressure to minimize pollution. Sort off, more accurately we can generally deal with the 'pollutants' that nature general produces, rather than relatively novel substances like plastic. Hence I used the term 'least'

>science can ever match for running an entire living creature, that's not what lab meat is doing.

It begs the question, why it is being done? If it's not as good or better in terms of nutrition. One can certainly go down a rabbit hole of trying to define what is good or better is. My guess is that in terms of nutrition it would be extremely hard to beat ( despite what vegans claim). Evolutionary reasons at play here.

[8ytecoder]

Evolution doesn’t prioritise efficiency, in fact. Evolution prioritises the basics for survival and is highly resistant to change. Change happens only when the environment changes and survival is at stake. That’s when the traits that helps in survival become dominant - because anything without it gets killed.