At what price point, relative to the cost of farmed meat, would you switch to an otherwise identical cultured alternative (i.e. this was grown from cell culture or some other mechanism that doesn't involve raising an animal and killing it)?
(To be clear, >2x means "I'd pay at least $10 for cultured steak that would cost $5 if it came from a cow.")
If you wouldn't eat lab-grown meat at any price point (even free), then I guess answer <1x, or don't answer.
If you are a vegan or vegetarian but *would* eat lab-grown meat, then answer >2x, since you wouldn't accept farmed meat even if it were free.
@pganssle The word 'identical' carries a *lot* of water in all of these discussions.
I'm highly skeptical of our ability to achieve something lab-cultured that is *actually* identical across all nutritionally-relevant axes. (Further--I'm skeptical of our ability to identify, much less *measure*, all nutritionally-relevant axes.)
@btskinn I mean, it doesn't carry any water in this case, since I'm asking about how meat being cultured affects people's willingness to eat it at all.
If you are in the "I'd pay 10x for identical" group, you're probably in a group that would pay 2x for a "close enough" simulacrum. If you're in the <1x group, you might be convinced with extra enticements (e.g. "it's not exactly the same, but you can get a close simulacrum of this ultra-rare and expensive delicacy for the same price as beef").
@btskinn I do recognize that it's a problem, though, that people are simply *terrible* at evaluating hypothetical situations. Their brains sort of pattern match to something else and use heuristics that don't apply, so you can't really trust them to decouple the things that you are explicitly asking them to decouple.
