Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 443 posts

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#151

Post by orcdork »

jameslk wrote: post #131

Since we're making predictions here, I predict that shortly after we adopt meat substitutes, we'll start to question what's inside them. Then the conversation will change from meat substitutes being good and healthy to something akin to the GMO debate about meat substitutes not being natural. And just like GMOs, whether it's actually bad for you or not won't matter. This debate will be a proxy war between Big Meat an…

I won't be surprised if meat substitutes end up being much more expensive than meat is today (and "normal" meat even pricier). My prediction is for meat prices to rise as more and more people reduce consumption, maybe a couple of generations from now meat consumption will be a luxury item.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#153

Post by [deleted] »

loceng wrote: post #147
dtornabene wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't eat meat at this point because of health problems, but I miss it, and have zero desire to switch to that. and you are absolutely correct on substitute foods.

In contrast, I'm only eating meat now because of health - along with Himalayan salt for electrolytes.

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#154

Post by jniedrauer »

Personally I'd be all over any kind of savory food that's high in protein. I don't care if it resembles meat. Quinoa is excellent and it's a staple of my diet. I feel generally healthier when I eat less meat, and I feel better about my impact on the world as well. I suspect there are many others like me.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#155

Post by rsynnott »

raz32dust wrote: post #141
ams6110 wrote: post #132

I think any change in this would be generational. I grew up eating meat, and I have no interest in meat substitutes. Also, the track record on substitute foods isn't good. Look at the health disasters caused by artificial sweeteners, artificial oils, etc.

"Look at the health disasters caused by artificial sweeteners, artificial oils, etc." - Can you point to some examples?

I suppose there’s this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra

It was never legalised in most developed countries, though, and I’d call it more a historical oddity than a health disaster.

I assume they’re talking about aspartame myths on the sweetener thing. Some countries ban cyclamate, though there’s not much evidence that it’s actually dangerous. There’s lead acetate, I suppose, but that hasn’t been commonly used for centuries.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#156

Post by spqr0a1 »

In general I’m bullish on biotech but best case for tissue culture meat still leaves me sceptical. Most of the hype focuses around beef substitutes, beef cattle is about as inefficient as animal agriculture gets at ~3% efficient on an energy basis of edible parts.

Dairy jerseys and laying hens are both ~12%, with meat chickens ~15%. The best replicating eukaryotic cell culture I know are certain yeast at 50%. So a best case scenario is factor of 3 improvement, I'd welcome results from multicellular organisms that got anywhere close to that but I haven't seen it.

Supposing there are no improvements to be had on the cell metabolism side; dressing percentage for broiler chickens is 70% so getting rid of brain, digestive tract, immune system, etc. doesn’t improve things that much. Keep in mind that tissue cultures are a lot more picky about feedstock than whole animals. Good luck shovelling hay into that bioreactor. All of the processing that the feedstock takes will claw back your productivity gains and then some.

Margins are slim at the bottom. As capital intensive as modern farming is, biotech puts it to shame. Once you factor in amortizing all that equipment this is a non-starter.

The only appeal is from an animal welfare angle. Even there an argument could be made that humane husbandry is positive-utility rather than the neutral of lab-grown, while also coming out ahead environmentally.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#157

Post by chadcmulligan »

c-cube wrote: post #145
chadcmulligan wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was pointing out that the people who say we shouldn't eat meat haven't really thought it through. I would guess that this would be an unintended consequence of their actions and I've never heard it said - the only reason these animals exist is because we've bred them for food - if we don't eat them any more then they'll no longer exist.

I'm pretty sure the Animal Liberation, considered one of the founding blocks of militant vegetarians and vegans in occident, raised this question in… 1975. I think it would be like horses, you would still find (healthy, relatively happy) chicken, cows, pigs, in the countryside; but in smaller numbers and not tortured by millions in factories. No "unintended consequence" there.

ok, I've said this to quite a few people and the result is pretty well what it was here, denial and outrage :-) I don't think its well publicized but happy to be proved otherwise.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#158

Post by avar »

I predict that the biggest market for lab-grown meat (in vitro cultivation) is going to be growing for meat grown from the cells of animals that aren't economical, practical or even legal as meat today.

People seem to be assuming that just because they mostly eat beef and chicken today that they're going to be buying lab grown beef and chicken, but ultimately they only eat that because it's economical to raise those animals with current production methods.

With in vitro cultivation there's no reason you wouldn't have say elephant meat one day, and a blue whale the day after that. You could even have some human meat, it's not like growing some muscle fibers in a test tube is unethical.

Initially there'll be a big market for the novelty of exotic meats, but over the long term it's highly unlikely that the meats we have today optimized for mass production will objectively taste better than potential alternatives, or even that the market will restrict itself to naturally occurring species of animals.

You'll be able to buy tuna with the texture of pork, or any other possible combination of tastes and textures.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#159

Post by thescriptkiddie »

thom wrote: post #81

I was brought up vegetarian, and while I gave it up when I got married and had kids, I've never really grown to love the taste of meat. The thing I'm most annoyed by is that nice tasting veggie dishes are often being replaced in restaurants with horrible tasting meat-substitute dishes trying to capture the taste of beef or whatever. This is probably just me against the universe though.

+1

I'm a lifelong vegetarian who has very literal tolerance for the taste of meat. Can we give it up with these meat substitutes already? Even if they absolutely nail the taste of real meat, I don't want my food to taste like that.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#160

Post by [deleted] »

mackey wrote: post #144
redisman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough low quality patties like fast food burgers have been using more soy protein as a filler for a long time. Maybe one day they'll be honest and sell it as 50% vegetarian burgers or something.

National: McDonalds: "Yes, every patty is 100% real beef with no fillers, additives or preservatives." Burger King: "Our beef patties are made with 100% beef with no fillers, no preservatives, no additives, no nonsense." Wendy's: "100% pure beef across the menu" Regional: Carls Jr: "100% Pure Ground Beef." Sonic: "100% pure beef patty" Jack in the Box: "100 percent beef"

[deleted]
Post reply on HN