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

301–310 of 443 posts

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#301

Post by ngngngng »

greglindahl wrote: post #288
ngngngng wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunting is most likely the best option from an animal ethics standpoint. Although it doesn't scale well. But make that point to a vegan and suddenly they're vegan primarily for environmental concerns.

It's almost as if other people disagree about what the best option for their personal viewpoint is.

I just think it's all more complicated than people want it to be. Some choices in life MIGHT have a slight net positive on the environment or on animals deaths. But then people get so invested in the outcomes that they paint it as completely black and white.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#302

Post by dc_gregory »

awb wrote: post #297
llukas wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Never is a strong word; especially when people idolise high end athletes that turn to a vegan diet for an edge (i.e. MMA)

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#303

Post by mrob »

llukas wrote: post #229
cco wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We should develop an extremely potent and long lasting opioid that's destroyed by cooking (maybe some peptide could work). It needs to be powerful enough that we can keep the animals constantly high for their entire lives. Alternatively, figure out a practical "wireheading" brain implant with the same effect. Animals do not have any ambitions or desire for self-actualization that would be thwarted by this, and we already assume they have no right to life, so the arguments used against doing this to humans do not apply. With enough drugs/brain stimulation they could be perfectly happy in a factory farm.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#304

Post by Cactus2018 »

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…

> or even legal

Food of the Gods, by Arthur C Clarke (1964)

https://write.as/r9ov30n76ib5u.md

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#305

Post by ngngngng »

I don't hold too many theories that the majority in the tech community disagree with. But one of them is that we consistently underestimate nature. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I just can't believe we can artificially mimic what an animal is able to produce, better than the animal can do it and for less money.

When we raise chickens, we're not only generating chicken meat, we're also making eggs, and chicken poop used for fertilizer. So you not only have to mimic chicken meat, you also have to make it cheaper even after the chickens costs were lowered due to egg and fertilizer production.

Good luck.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#306

Post by headbiznatch »

alrehn wrote: post #298
headbiznatch wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This reply is worth a thousand down-votes. I see where you are coming from and I appreciate that you shared it in words, not just a click on a down arrow. Thank you.

But I still think the down-voters are taking it personally. I don't believe anyone is actually being chastised for their position by this commenter. I took it as offering another option - instead of telling someone who likes meat that you have a great substitute that tastes just like meat and they'll never know the difference, try saying "there are many ways to prepare any of a large variety of vegetables - maybe you can enjoy vegetables as much as you enjoy meat if you find some recipes you like". Maybe those dishes will taste "meat-like" or whatever, but there is value in saying "Stop trying to fake it. Embrace the choice to do it differently."

For the record, I personally believe that this is a more honest tack for someone who is pursuing the option for ethical/environmental reasons.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#308

Post by philipkglass »

haisch wrote: post #268

There are various moral dilemmas that are brought up when discussing diet involving animal foods: 1) Environmental impact 2) Animal suffering 3) Nutrition Often times people focus on number 1 in spite of number 2 or 3. What if moving away from animal foods in our diets causes an increase in heart disease, cancer and overall mortality? https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases... With 3% of emission…

In the meantime the best we can do is buy locally sourced, grass fed foods that are net zero emissions.

That is effectively calling for a drastic reduction in meat consumption. If people ate only grass fed animals there would be a lot fewer animals to eat overall. Add "locally sourced" and the consumption limit is lower yet for most people.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#310

Post by inerte »

Meekro wrote: post #253
leroy_masochist wrote: post #89

I live on and help operate a small family farm (230 head of grass fed cattle) and I don't think that meat substitutes will hurt our sales or margins, unless and until their quality results in a broad shift in societal attitudes that leads to meat itself becoming illegal. I do absolutely think that it will reduce the demand for industrially farmed, feedlot-fed, commodity-priced meat, and this is a good thing.

Where should I be shopping, to ensure that my meat comes from family farms like yours?

Search for “csa meat”. Community Supported Agriculture. It’s a good start.
Post reply on HN