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

291–300 of 443 posts

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#291

Post by everdev »

I'm a vegetarian, but I think he's underestimating the cultural significance of meat for a lot of people. As a male, I've seen a fusion between meat and perceived masculinity at many BBQs. It's on par with owning a gun or driving a big truck, etc. It's more than a food, it's often used as bonding ritual for men.

Sure, pockets of New England, California and other liberal towns might widely adopt meat substitutes but I wouldn't be surprised if many other communities don't.

Asking them to give up meat is like asking them to give up part of their identity. I don't think price will change things, only a cultural shift.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#292

Post by llukas »

everdev wrote: post #291

I'm a vegetarian, but I think he's underestimating the cultural significance of meat for a lot of people. As a male, I've seen a fusion between meat and perceived masculinity at many BBQs. It's on par with owning a gun or driving a big truck, etc. It's more than a food, it's often used as bonding ritual for men. Sure, pockets of New England, California and other liberal towns might widely adopt meat substitutes but I…

You can grill impossible burger just fine.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#293

Post by claudiawerner »

everdev wrote: post #291

I'm a vegetarian, but I think he's underestimating the cultural significance of meat for a lot of people. As a male, I've seen a fusion between meat and perceived masculinity at many BBQs. It's on par with owning a gun or driving a big truck, etc. It's more than a food, it's often used as bonding ritual for men. Sure, pockets of New England, California and other liberal towns might widely adopt meat substitutes but I…

There is also (perhaps unsurprisingly) a sustained criticism of the meat industry from vegan feminist academia, which links it not only to the idea of meat as something masculine, but also the way we speak of women and meat (or even food in general), from "fine piece" to "chick"/"bird", "cow", "Christmas cake" etc. This is further linked to the exploitation of female animals. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the main proponent of the theory right now.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#294

Post by educationdata »

If meat substitutes are pure chemical, why do you stop there? I mean why social pressure only against eating meat not against eating plants? Yes, there is a difference between animals and plants, but they both have life, right? Why don't you just eat 100% chemicals?

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#295

Post by rtpg »

Small aside about the “small farmers” thing, some of my SOs extended family are farmers. they used to be handling pigs, but for reasons ended up transitioning to growing mushrooms, and the end result for them has been better all around. They also stopped growing rice cuz it’s cheaper to just buy what they need and focus on other food

I bet that most staple foods are already under huge systems and small farmers already can’t compete in that space if only for scale. Ultimately if we end up making everything from corn anyways small farmers won’t have success but that’s the same in every industry (yay for late stage capitalism)

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#296

Post by xnxn »

yesenadam wrote: post #269
xnxn wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I briefly looked at those links. The first one, "Beliefs and Attitudes toward Vegetarian Lifestyle across Generations", says in the introduction "Younger people significantly agreed more with the moral reason and with the environmental reason. People ages 41–60 significantly agreed more with the health reason. [i.e. not in absolute terms, just compared with other age groups] A study publish[sic] in 1992 found that th…

You know, I actually agree somewhat. I almost noted that I was having trouble finding more reliable sources, particularly concerning vegetarianism and veganism in the USA, but thought that would have completely torpedoed my argument. ;)

More seriously: the "environmental" claim rang hollow to me, so I set out in search of some facts, and I think what I found supports that intuition, but the burden of proof is not really mine. (I will retract my "it's animal ethics yo" statement—clearly a reach.)

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#297

Post by awb »

llukas wrote: post #292
everdev wrote: post #291

I'm a vegetarian, but I think he's underestimating the cultural significance of meat for a lot of people. As a male, I've seen a fusion between meat and perceived masculinity at many BBQs. It's on par with owning a gun or driving a big truck, etc. It's more than a food, it's often used as bonding ritual for men. Sure, pockets of New England, California and other liberal towns might widely adopt meat substitutes but I…

You can grill impossible burger just fine.

And there are tons of cars that work just fine and use less gas but people still buy SUVs.

Price and mechanics will move some people but don't underestimate how strong culture is.

Plus it's veggie patties or the Impossible Burger gets locked with hippies, vegans, California, liberals, etc. there will be tons of people who will never touch it.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#298

Post by alrehn »

headbiznatch wrote: post #266
Swizec wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a staunch lover of meat I am fundamentally against meat substitutes. I love vegetarian dishes and eat them often, but I will not touch a meat substitute if I can avoid it. Many asian foods include tofu and that’s fine. My reasoning is that if a dish is supposed to be vegetarian, or it just doesn’t include mat because it doesn’t need to, then keep it vegetarian. Veggies are delicious. Why ruin a perfectly good dish…

I know meta-discussion on HN is frowned upon, but seriously, I just have to ask those who down-voted this comment: why? Just... why? What is the problem with this sentiment with respect to its contribution to this thread? If it helps, I think this is a reasonable point (don't try to fake the meat, just skip it - i've thought it myself often). I haven't commented in here in SO LONG, and I know I will pay for the insur…

Because it's making this statement about what others should do based on a personal preference, and not taking into account at all why people stop eating meat?

As someone who was raised vegetarian I also have next to no interest in meat replacements personally, but they should be great for people who love the taste of meat but want to give it up for ethical/environmental reasons.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#299

Post by wgjordan »

skolos wrote: post #272
wonderwonder wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, Monsanto GMO roundup ready crops are crops specifically modified to be able to take larger amounts of their roundup pesticide, leading to more chemicals being sprayed on our food.

Roundup is a herbicide. Otherwise agree with you - unfortunately GMO does not necessary means less bad stuff.

> Roundup is a herbicide. Otherwise agree with you

Herbicides are actually a _kind_ of pesticide (weeds are a kind of 'pest'), so Roundup is actually both. TIL!

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#300

Post by colechristensen »

wonderwonder wrote: post #264
anonu wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I concur with the sentiment. Isn't GMO to create foods that require less pesticides? So wouldn't that be a good thing if there are less chemicals used on our foods, seeping into our soil and water supply? I never really understood why people are so scared of GMO.... I can see GMO foods being owned by the likes of Monsanto, earning healthy royalties on seeds that cannot bear offspring. I think there should be a GMO op…

Not really, Monsanto GMO roundup ready crops are crops specifically modified to be able to take larger amounts of their roundup pesticide, leading to more chemicals being sprayed on our food.

This isn't true.

Roundup-ready GMOs led to replacement of many more toxic herbicides with glyphosphate. BT GMOs led to much less usage of insecticides on crops.

Post reply on HN