Samizdata

Virginia Postrel, whose book, The Future and Its Enemies, is shown on the upper-left of this blog’s page (under the work of Karl Popper and the handgun), recently wrote an article that got me thinking about how the Right has its own form of Precautionary Principle. A few days ago, she wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal about synthetic meat. She later thought about the topic some more on her Substack. As she noted, anyone who has spent time in a chicken factory and slaughterhouse is going to be keen on the idea. (I have no view on the nutritional case for or against synthetic meat, although I’d imagine that some poor brute of an animal reared in a massive shed and pumped full of antibiotics is probably not superior to a synthetic alternative. You don’t need to be a veggie to be unhappy about this.)

Glenn Reynolds, who usually strikes me as the sort of chap to be interested in tech innovation, including agriculture, writes this by way of a rebuttal to Postrel. I find his reasoning is mistaken (more on that later), but here are his comments in full:

Well, I too am a meat eater who likes human ingenuity and technological progress. But I can see a couple of problems. One is that “synthetic meat” is a confusing term. It means real meat, grown in a vat instead of in a cow, but it sounds like it might be the non-nutritious “Beyond Meat/Impossible” slop marketed to vegans.

Second, the technocracy is pushing this stuff, and the technocracy is currently in bad odor. There’s a real lack of trust, and once people start to think that the technocracy will do things to them that they don’t like — and often lie about it in the process — the lack of trust spreads from specific subjects to more general matters. Plus, given that most opposition to meat-eating is essentially religious in nature, rejecting it is not exactly a matter of irrationality.

In an ideal world, where we could talk about this sort of thing on its own merits and in a generally good-faith manner — like the world we at least thought we lived in back in the ’90s — things would be different. But we don’t live in that world now.

There are several problems with this in my view, even as one who can feel the force of what Prof. Glenn Reynolds writes. First of all, whether the term “synthetic meat” is misleading or not, the free marketeer in me prefers to let entrepreneurs and consumers, subject to laws of fraud against dishonest marketing, figure this out.

Second, whether the “technocracy” is pushing this stuff is not, in my view, sufficient justification for people to throw shade on this technology. A few years ago, I recalled how parts of the Green movement, particularly those of a Left-wing nature, liked to hate on genetically modified crops, particularly if they were produced by big American firms such as Monsanto (booo!, hiss!). And one could have argued that a reason why they did so was because, if it is possible to feed a much larger population with GM crops, etc than with conventional ones, then those Paul Ehrlich doomsters’ fox has been well and truly shot. Come to that, imagine that really clever carbon capture tech is created, thereby royally screwing the global warming alarmists’ whole argument.

It is possible to see how, depending on where you stand on the political battlefield, that a tech might be an enabler to those whom you dislike. Dammit, I bet one could have said the same about the internet 30 years ago, or the motor car 100-plus years ago. I have even read people denounce private spacefaring because of its sinister libertarian motivations (“All those crazy Heinlein fans in space”).

It may be that those who are promoting synthetic meat are all vegetarians and sinister tyrants, but if there is a case for it on its own merits, then why the hell should I care? There’s a danger of what I called motivated reasoning here getting out of hand. I can, in fact, see a future where people remain meat eaters, getting much of their meat protein from synthetic sources and occasionally spending a bit more to buy the organic, “real” forms, such as grass-fed beef, wild salmon, venison, and so on. Is this really such a bad outcome, particularly if some of the worst forms of factory farming die out? As a libertarian chap – and one raised on a farm in East Anglia – preferring to see animal husbandry done with due regard to animal welfare is not, in my book, a “soppy” or for goodness sake, “woke” point.

This paragraph from Postrel strikes me as particularly on point, because it strikes me that on parts, if not all of the “Right” (a package-dealing term but it will have to do), quite a few people have become so riled up by certain developments that they end up opposing technologies and innovations in case it encourages things they don’t like.

The best argument against the development of cell-grown meat is that technocrats believe that anything good must be mandatory, especially if the good thing claims to help the environment. So if someone invents cell-grown meat, government mandates will soon follow. We therefore shouldn’t encourage alternatives to the status quo lest we be forced to adopt them. It’s the same argument we hear from people who believe that saying cities should allow property owners more flexibility about what they build on their land is tantamount to banning single-family homes. This culture-war form of the precautionary principle is as bad as every other form. It’s a prescription for stasis.

Update: Matthew Lesh of the Institute of Economic Affairs has thoughts on cultivated meat, and why the UK should seize the benefits of being outside the European Union to encourage agricultural and food innovation.