>>22055944 It's unlikely anyone here has tried it. It's only available in a limited number of places for short periods of time. It's funny to see all the Facebook boomers complaining about how their cheap meat is actually 3d printed and warning each other of how to identify it when it's not even being sold in stores.
>If not, Would you? If it was shown to be the same as decent quality meat, then yes. My concern is that companies have already said their product is less nutritious, but they try to convince you that's actually a good thing by saying what it lacks is bad for you anyway. Funny coincidence.
I don't feel any attachment to vague notions about "real" meat being inherently better, especially since most of the "real" meat being eaten is from animals in poor conditions on unnatural diets anyway.
>>22056008 3D printed meat is still more expensive than the real thing. It's not being sold in stores. The existence of 3D printed meat is just making people realize that most of the meat they were eating is low quality.