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

221–230 of 443 posts

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#221

Post by xnxn »

meowface wrote: post #177
arawde wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on the opposite side of this. I've eaten meat for the first 23 years of my life, but my current partner is vegan. A large part of our relationship has been discovering that vegetables are actually good to eat when they're not an afterthought to a meal. I go out of my way to try the meat substitutes now, because I'm holding out that one of them will actually be good enough for me to show my carnivore friends. For…

At risk of sparking an ethics debate, why do most people who turn vegetarian out of conscientiousness seem to very disproportionately do it for environmental reasons? I mean, on one hand, it makes complete rational sense, because it's self/species-interest: reduced meat consumption should decrease the effects of global warming and other issues, and you want a world that you and future generations of people can safely…

I don't think your premise is correct. The data I can find[1][2] suggests that vegetarians and vegans are principally concerned with animal ethics.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257659/

[2] https://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/10062622/data/veganuary-infogra...

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#222

Post by scythe »

spqr0a1 wrote: post #156

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 be…

>Dairy jerseys and laying hens are both ~12%, with meat chickens ~15%.

Does the efficiency for chickens include processing and sanitation? 15% sounds really high. Labs ought to have a much easier time dealing with no feces or feathers. And the price of chicken at present in the US is reputed to depend on undocumented immigrants working for below-market wages, which hopefully isn't an issue with technomeat.

As for dairy/eggs, those alone aren't enough of a meat substitute or we'd all be vegetarian already.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#223

Post by raving-richard »

ci5er wrote: post #169
avar wrote: post #158

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…

Compared to camel, giraffe, horse, zebra, gazelle, whale, dolphin, human, shark, eel, (most) bugs and worms, elephant, ... etc., I've got to say that whoever came up with pigs and cows were doing their job properly. They taste better than all of the above.

Of these, I've eaten horse, whale, shark and eel. Actually, probably I've also eaten bugs.

The shark that I've eaten is perfectly good, and better than many other fish types (taste wise). Eel was good, but has to be prepared appropriately. Try it Japanese style.

The other two, not worth it. But again, probably something to do with preparation. Perhaps the way the French prepare horse is better than the way the Japanese do?

I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to eat human flesh. I'm surprised you've listed it.

Other animals that taste good include crocodile and kangaroo.

My point being, that taste is very subjective. You'll find people who want to eat those flavors, but don't want to eat the real thing.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#224

Post by ci5er »

raving-richard wrote: post #223
ci5er wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to camel, giraffe, horse, zebra, gazelle, whale, dolphin, human, shark, eel, (most) bugs and worms, elephant, ... etc., I've got to say that whoever came up with pigs and cows were doing their job properly. They taste better than all of the above.

Of these, I've eaten horse, whale, shark and eel. Actually, probably I've also eaten bugs. The shark that I've eaten is perfectly good, and better than many other fish types (taste wise). Eel was good, but has to be prepared appropriately. Try it Japanese style. The other two, not worth it. But again, probably something to do with preparation. Perhaps the way the French prepare horse is better than the way the Japane…

I lived in Japan for 10 years.

You like roo? I like crock and gator (and snake and squirrel, but not armadillo), but never took a liking to the former.

EDIT: My point is simply: for me... nothing really stacks up to cow flesh.

EDIT2: I suspect we don't disagree about the generic "I've eaten everything, at least once, man" conclusions very much. (Although I still find shark to be about a smelly slab of meat as a bear or a badger. Don't even get me going on pure carnivores like fox or coyote).

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#225

Post by msteffen »

greglindahl wrote: post #193
cwbrandsma wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my worst meals ever was a vegetarian Asian meal in Salt Lake City. The dish was “Chicken...” something or other. The “chicken” was tofu shaped like a chicken wing with feathers. No where on the menu did it say the place was vegetarian. I have nothing against eating tofu. I enjoy tofu. But the bait and switch ruined the meal for me.

These restaurants are somewhat common, and are usually run by Buddhists. I've never seen one that lacked a label; while the individual menu items might be confusing, there's usually a big clue. Here's the one near my apartment, it has vegan in the name of the restaurant: http://www.gardenfresh.us/

I can't speak to the general quality of these restaurants, but I actually go to the Garden Fresh in Palo Alto pretty regularly and love it (I've heard the Mountain View location isn't quite as good).

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#227

Post by belorn »

spqr0a1 wrote: post #156

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 be…

Energy efficiency is interesting, but it is important to see the whole picture. Maybe we should be using a land efficiency rating instead?

Take reindeer meat as an extreme case. Their energy efficiency from converting lichens to meat is not going to be 100%, but the alternative use for artic land are quite few.

Applying the same line of thought, we can find examples also for beef. There are cattle farms here in Sweden that use highland cattle to graze forest areas, including protected forests. They keep down bushes and other plants which results in an increased bio diversity. A win win situation for everyone involved.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#228

Post by gnulinux »

amelius wrote: post #77
chadcmulligan wrote: post #72

I'm looking forward to the cow/pig/sheep/chicken extinction event - no one will keep them around, except maybe in zoos, if the whole world is vegan. Edit: a downvote? this is totally serious - what are they going to be - released back into the wild where they roam free? There won't be any more, except as I said in zoos, if the whole world goes vegan

We still need milk, eggs.

We do not "need" milk or eggs. If you think that's the case, we also "need" meat.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#229

Post by llukas »

cco wrote: post #214
CharlesW wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Can that be true? Animals from U.S. factory farms generate >1 million tons of manure per day (open-air lagoons of animal waste are a special treat) and are responsible for an impressive percentage of methane emissions.

Didn't the poster above say humane animal husbandry? What you describe it not humane animal husbandry.

Please describe sustainable humane animal husbandry at this scale.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#230

Post by _jahh »

guelo wrote: post #213
jniedrauer wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a tangential note, I wish it were possible to buy foods specifically because they contain GMOs. I intentionally avoid buying foods labeled "non-GMO" in a feeble attempt to vote with my wallet.

mmmm glyphosate.

This is what progmo don’t understand most engineering isn’t for qualities the end consumer wants! Easier to produce doesn’t mean better. And yeah 90% of the time when it is gmo it’s as you imply using roundup ready (tm) seeds to spray more now legally cited as carcinogenic glyphosate
Post reply on HN