Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotObviouslyARobot t1_j1y7a9w wrote

Realistically, farm animal genetics would hit a bottle neck and the various varieties we've bred start going extinct--driving mankind further into monocultures and reducing the genetic diversity of what we farm.

If lab-grown beef reaches a price point where it can seriously eat away at farmed beef's market share, then many ranches across the US will start closing--or trying to sell out for a housing development. I foresee consolidation in the cattle industry, and ever-larger mega-ranches taking up more, and more land. Think more Ammon Bundy types.

For a number of reasons, cattle becoming economically unviable for small landowners, will change the economics of owning land in the rural US. There's a lot of land you'd consider marginal for farming--yet with relatively low effort (and small cost of entry), you can grow hay and cattle, and effectively buy the land by doing so. Being AG also gets you lower property taxes.

This incentivizes landowners to sell out to developers as quickly as possible--and will further drive suburbanization & car-based cities.

12

mhornberger t1_j201mo5 wrote

> This incentivizes landowners to sell out to developers as quickly as possible--and will further drive suburbanization & car-based cities.

I don't think there are masses of people clamoring to move to rural areas to live on former cattle ranches.

Cities and suburbs are growing more dense, and rural areas are losing people. If animal agriculture declines, that'll take economic activity out of rural areas even more quickly. I can't see how that would result in more people moving in.

6

NotObviouslyARobot t1_j209xov wrote

"I don't think there are masses of people clamoring to move to rural areas to live on former cattle ranches."

This...doesn't matter.

The same logic that makes homes investments and a way to build generational wealth, also applies to small landholdings--albeit homes are much less work. You get the land cheap, build a house, pay the taxes and the payments on the land for years, and then hopefully sell it after adding a shit-ton of value. This also protects the land from further development.

There are a lot of people who want to get cheaper homes in new suburbs after low interest rates

2

strvgglecity t1_j20n19e wrote

If you think lived-in homes are investments, perhaps a course in economics would help. A property is only an investment when you earn from it. There is no guarantee your property's value will increase for future sale, nor that anyone will want to buy it. A house is an investment the same way a car is. Meaning, it's not.

1

NotObviouslyARobot t1_j20v42w wrote

"A house is an investment the same way a car is. Meaning, it's not."

Wrong.

A house has earning power in the same way any suitable business location has earning power, regardless of whether or not you rent it out. The earning power incurred by owning anything is equivalent to the opportunity-cost of not owning something.

If my house costs me $300/mo. less than renting the equivalent, my home is creating real shareholder value for Myself, LLC, regardless of whether or not I'm renting it out.

There are two ways to make money in business: realize cost savings or improve sales. Owning a home is like investing in LED lighting to realize a smaller electric bill.

0

strvgglecity t1_j21gigv wrote

Sure, ok, except... It's not, because homes depreciate just like cars. They require consistent maintenance. They also incur annual taxes that are never recouped. You also can't just sell your home, unless you simultaneously secure a new place to live.

The only reason prices go up is scarcity, and that relies on external factors far beyond your control. If a new development pops up next to yours in 10 years, your home is likely to be less desirable, and therefore command a lower selling value than the newer homes, because it is old and has depreciated. Flipping homes can be profitable if you can manage to affordably rehab a beater.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/real-estate/is-buying-a-home-worth-it/

If you'll notice, the people saying it's a good investment are literally the people selling mortgages.

0

NotObviouslyARobot t1_j23it4r wrote

"They require consistent maintenance. They also incur annual taxes that are never recouped. You also can't just sell your home, unless you simultaneously secure a new place to live."

All of the above also applies to owning a business asset, especially property. I'm about to go upgrade all the lights in a business property over the weekend. I've done lots of maintenance on it. It makes us money, but we can't just sell it unless we simultaneously secure a new place to do business. It also depreciates.

Real-estate value is determined by the amount of the purchase loan approved for the property, or the amount of money flowing around a market. This is why we have the USDA rural development program.

That new 300K development next to your 120K development isn't going to negatively alter your property value. In fact, it usually has a positive effect by increasing the number of dollars in the local real estate market--and by helping drive businesses to the area. This is one reason why the practice of Redlining was so harmful to older African-American neighborhoods.

There's an observed social behavior in humans called gravitation. Gravitation says that our geographic preferences follow a distance decay function. IE, the closer things are, the more likely they are to interact--and larger groups of a particular thing, have more drawing power than smaller groups of the same thing.

What drives down real-estate values is large centers of gravitation disappearing or being built far enough away from you that they draw people away in a cascading effect.

Homeownership is an investment. Like any investment, it can be good, bad, succeed wildly, or go tits up.

1

happy_bluebird t1_j2200z0 wrote

"Governments can also use restrictions like internal passports to make rural flight illegal." what

1

Prysorra2 t1_j25amcs wrote

The land usage of beef and pork is geographically distinct enough that a collapse of the ranching business model will cause dramatic regional drama that will likely overshadow the exurban creep. Which by the way is too slow a process to really grind enough people’s gears…

2

Butterflychunks t1_j20o34o wrote

Then solar really starts to take off.

> Goddamn it I can’t afford this cow farm anymore. 400 acres in the middle of nowhere, how could I make much money off of this land? Plus it’s hot as shit, the sun is beating down every day all year…

> I’VE STRUCK GOLD!

1

NotObviouslyARobot t1_j20u3e5 wrote

That however, due to economies of scale, and power transmission--only favors super-large landowners.

We already have a model for what happens to resource poor land, and it's the mega-billionaire ranches of Texas.

1

Songmuddywater t1_j21n0z1 wrote

No, all the form animals will just be raised to be butchered while pregnant.. you do know they need the blood of fetal calves to grow your precious lab grown meat don't you? Lab grown meat is more immoral than veal.

0

NotObviouslyARobot t1_j23c1py wrote

Nah. They'll use male dairy calves for that.

1

Songmuddywater t1_j23n6l8 wrote

You don't understand. If the calf is allowed to be born then the calf is too old. They have to kill the mother while she's pregnant and yank her calf out still alive and kicking.

This is what you support. This is worse than veal.

−1

NotObviouslyARobot t1_j23pp7q wrote

It's not any more immoral than veal, or dairy

The real question is how much FBS we need for a given cow-equivalent of lab-grown meat. If it's a 1:1 ratio or any similar low ratio cow-wise, it won't take off--and it's pointless to even discuss it because economics will kill it.

Cows take 18-24 months to reach slaughter weight. A cow can get pregnant once per year. The pregnant cow slaughter takes at least 3 herd animals or more out of the market.

Doing FBS production with beef cows doesn't make sense. The only way FBS would make economic sense is if you wanted to use producing it to "retire" older dairy cows--in which case...there's very little difference in the net cruelty.

1

Songmuddywater t1_j23q33c wrote

So once again you're okay with slaughtering pregnant animals to vampirically suck the blood out of the still living and kicking baby in order to make your demonic meat in a laboratory.

Just admit you don't care about animals or animal cruelty. Lab grown meat just seems fashionable to you.

The truth is that most people would shove children into ovens if they were told it was the right thing to do by a figure of authority.

1

yes_of_course_not t1_j252sr6 wrote

Chiming in with some info: At least a couple of the lab grown meat companies are using a non-FBS growth medium. Apparently it's also cheaper than using traditional FBS. FBS is not a requirement for growing lab grown meat anymore.

2

yes_of_course_not t1_j2537e1 wrote

There are companies already using non-FBS growth medium. FBS is not required anymore.

1

NotObviouslyARobot t1_j25iz1i wrote

I thought that was the case and that the guy I was responding to obviously wasn't arguing in good faith. Yay Science?

2