Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes • Hacker News Board

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#241

Post by ericsoderstrom » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 1:56 AM UTC

Maximus9000 wrote: post #220

ericsoderstrom wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a recent freakonomics podcast [1] from which I learned that greenhouse gas emissions mostly come from cattle breathing, not their manure (I guess the manure imagery that often goes along with describing livestock environmental impact is just used because it's evocative?). Also that livestock farming in the US only contributes 3% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions [2], which I wouldn't call a particula…

> Also that livestock farming in the US only contributes 3% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions "Worldwide, livestock accounts for between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. The percentage is lower in the United States in part because our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warmi...

True, but CharlesW's parent comment was specifically about "U.S. factory farms".

And even 14.5% is significantly lower than what I would have guessed before listening to the episode.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#242

Post by QML » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 1:57 AM UTC

notus wrote: post #5

His statement about how it will increase economic inequality is pretty interesting. Meat substitutes/alternatives are often marketed ideologically as something that will help reduce economic inequality since it would eventually become more cost effective than trying to raise something to slaughtering age. I'm not sure how it being a startup is a problem, but didn't think about the smaller farms who would be out of bu…

I've never heard of meat substitutes being "marketed ideologically as something that will help reduce economic inequality"—that's such an odd argument to make.

What I have heard before is: - more resource-efficient and green since livestock farming requires a lot of feed and has a higher carbon footprint than all vehicles combined, and - that it's less cruel than raising animals to be slaughtered.

In terms of economics, a cheaper meat substitute would just mean a cheaper source of protein for people, comparable to eating vegetables.

As a side note, does anyone know why Paul Graham has been talking about economic inequality recently? Is it just politics season and that this is a debate issue?

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#243

Post by markstos » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

JasonFruit wrote: post #59

perplamps wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of things we do out of convenience that we don't delight in, like walking over ants. There's a distinct difference between welcoming an easy alternative to walking over ants and delighting in squishing them under your feet (regardless of how brazenly you celebrate your actions).

Are you suggesting that you eat meat because paying $10/pound for a mediocre steak that gives you the moral willies is honestly more convenient than buying a can of beans and taking a vitamin supplement? I'm saying I delight in eating the flesh of an animal, and that knowing I gave it a comfortable, healthy life and a merciful death contributes to that pleasure. Your reasoning is pretty waffly and evasive to serve as…

We don't give our golden retrievers a comfortable life and then kill and eat them. They don't want to die for that. Why do we treat pigs and cows differently? Pigs have even scored higher than dogs on some intelligence tests. I found Melanie Joy's book on the related human history and psychology helpful here: Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#244

Post by JimmyAustin » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #118

hprotagonist wrote: post #2

One thing i’d genuinely like to see more of in the US is easy and sanely priced access to wild game. Deer populations being what they are, and populations of environmentally troublesome species such as feral boars being what they are, it seems like a net win. i would love to be able to get my hands on venison or boar that’s been processed in a USDA-approved way, because the meat’s high quality, the animals had lives…

Arby’s has done venison sandwiches but of course it’s farmed meat. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hunters take 300,000 deer each season, each state probably has 4-5 times that total population. To put that into perspective, the USA slaughters something like 40 million cattle per year.

From my understanding many fast food chains shy away from using hunted meat for supply chain reasons.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#245

Post by dang » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 2:05 AM UTC

perplamps wrote: post #43

JasonFruit wrote: post #27

Maybe it's my rural background and associations, but I see a powerful psychological effect to eating meat from a real animal, and that won't disappear because some meat substitute tastes pretty good. I like falafel, I like shiitake mushrooms, I like a good veggie burger, but there's no substitute for the flesh of an animal — especially one I raised, where I know its diet, its experiences, and how it was slaughtered a…

> there's no substitute for the flesh of an animal — especially one I raised, where I know its diet, its experiences, and how it was slaughtered and butchered When PG said eating meat might sound perverse one day, it's hard to imagine how a comment like this might come across. I'm not a vegetarian and even I find it difficult to differentiate between the above justifications and the ravings of a serial killer.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Instead, take this guideline to heart:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#246

Post by jaspergilley » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 2:08 AM UTC

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…

Somebody has been watching too much Soylent Green and reading too much Marx

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#247

Post by dd36 » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 2:09 AM UTC

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…

Hopefully the cheaper meat substitutes end up in all the processed and consumer food that is most unconsciously eaten and already of the lowest quality. Thinking Taco Bell.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#248

Post by StacyC » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

anonytrary wrote: post #226

StacyC wrote: post #174

Good luck getting beef and pork off my table

Beef and pork are some of the worst meats for our health. If you're gonna eat meat, best choice is lean, white poultry and fish.

I would be interested to see any rigorous science to support this statement. I am persuaded that it is a myth.

This is purely anecdotal (although not uncommon) but I went keto/low carb in 2013 and immediately felt great. In recent months I have made fatty meat and eggs the majority of my diet - very few veggies, no fruit - and I have never felt so good and energetic.

Protein and fat are amazing.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#249

Post by derp_dee_derp » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 2:13 AM UTC

landa wrote: post #198

If you think about it, eating meat is really a terrible thing to do. Most people who eat meat would never be able to kill an animal, I suspect. I know I wouldn't. And the conditions in which the poor animals are kept make it a billion times worse. That's the thought that made me switch to being a vegetarian after eating meat my whole life.

> Most people who eat meat would never be able to kill an animal, I suspect.

This is wrong. For the vast majority of human history it has been local people Killing local animals to survive. In all of human history, 99.9% of people are absolutely willing to kill animals in order to eat them.

Vegetarianism and veganism is a modern thing that has come about from the removal of people's daily lives and their food sources. It's a historical accident.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#250

Post by labster » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 2:13 AM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #114

labster wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a problem that could be easily solved by reintroducing wolves. Of course, then you have two problems.

Wolves tend to leave people alone. Bears on the other hand...

Wolves are the classic problem in ecology because while they have clear and obvious benefits to the ecosystem, people are really freaked out by them. And ranchers tend to think of any livestock theft as deserving of capital punishment. It's almost impossible to have a rational discussion about any of our fellow apex predators.