Yeah, and it's especially naive when in addition to animals existing, the tech involved happens to be an area of enormous societal importance for health reasons (plenty of investment), the problem happens to be somewhat existential (climate change is getting tons of funding right now), and the science of biology is advancing at a frankly extraordinary rate.

Even GFI, the tech hype bros in that article that's being responded to, is showing a pretty big lack of vision. "This gradual progression is necessary; you can’t just throw a small amount of cells into a large bioreactor and hope they’ll start dividing. Cells are “fastidious,” Hughes told me, and have strict metabolic requirements for growth, including oxygen tension." <- pretty comfortable saying that under those constraings, 100% agree on the fractal of nos. But like, yeast and other things we grow in bioreactors aren't that picky. The hype bros want to try and convince people it's happening now so they're pitching some nonsense vision of mass manufacturing based on tech that obviously can't scale, and taking their vision of how things are going to work as ground truth is kinda silly. Almost by tautology, a successful bioreactor based approach is going to be one that uses bioengineering to create cells that don't need that sort of pickiness. It doesn't exist yet, sucks for the hype bros, but how sure are you that nobody will ever figure out how to engineer yeast to work as meat so you can use bioreactors from defunct breweries or something?

The first cow genome was only published 15 years ago - at least wait for biology and medicine to plateau and for the incentive of fixing climate change to go away before convincing yourself it's never gonna happen!