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

371–380 of 443 posts

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#371

Post by parski »

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 think the spark that starts the vegan is one reason but as the transition happens you start embracing more of the arguments for veganism.

I decided to switch to a plant based diet for environmental reasons. I calculated my carbon footprint and noticed I could cut it in half by excluding animal products, so I did. Then I learned the health effects by losing weight and stopped having migranes I previously had approximately bi-weekly since late adolescence. They just stopped. The energy dips I used to have after lunch? Gone. Breath smells better. PH balance restored from being way too acid. There are so many things that are just fixed by eating plants instead of animal based products. I also learned to love that there is no bone, sinew or thick rubbery fat in whatever I'm chewing. I used to hate fish bones or a piece of fat in a steak or burger I'd have to spit out in a napkin.

Then it started to dawn on me how inhumane I'd been to other species on the ground of them being a part of my diet. I've always loved animals and the outdoors but some animals I'd been okay with murdering and eating. It just felt hypocritical. Not to mention that my argument for it was that _it tastes good_. Who do I think I am? Scaring and killing living beings because they _taste good_? Fuck me. I don't want to support an industry based on the evil premise of destroying the planet by killing animals because they taste good so from now my money will go to my plant based diet. Less money than before, I might add.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#372

Post by mcv »

lustysocietyorg wrote: post #348
intended wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, 10 years later, there will be fads and forwards which talk about eating "Natural" protein, not this fake stuff. 15 years later, there will be science talking about how micro nutrients are missing from meat substitutes and how a natural, healthy and balanced diet is necessary for human beings.

The nutrition science in 2019 is clear and has been clear for decades. A high carb low fat low protein whole food plant based diet with (cheap) vitamin supplements and maybe linseed oil: - is the healthiest diet. - is the cheapest diet. - is the most efficient and environment friendly diet. - is the most ethical diet with regard to immoral animal suffering caused by humans.

  > A high carb low fat low protein whole food plant based diet with (cheap) vitamin supplements and maybe linseed oil:
  > - is the healthiest diet.
I would love to see the argument for this. I accept that it's the most cheap, efficient and possibly ethical (although there are a lot of ways you can go about producing this food, not all of it ethical), but healthiest? High carbs makes you fat. You need proteins and some fat. Having your diet be all carbs sounds like a bad idea.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#374

Post by Mtinie »

_nalply wrote: post #345
intended wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, 10 years later, there will be fads and forwards which talk about eating "Natural" protein, not this fake stuff. 15 years later, there will be science talking about how micro nutrients are missing from meat substitutes and how a natural, healthy and balanced diet is necessary for human beings.

And there will be a movement "Grow your own meat" which proposes to keep bunnies and slaughter them yourself. Members will be proud to be not grossed out of the gore. Groups will discuss the best ways to feed and slaugther bunnies. They will have Thanksgiving bunnies.

I presume you were pointing this out in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, rather than predicting a future state, but just in case anyone else is curious here’s a 20 year-old reference:

“Backyard Production of Meat Rabbits in Texas”[0]

[0] http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/877...

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#375

Post by Lorkki »

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…

Speaking from personal experience as someone who often seems that way, it's because environmentalism is a rational argument that people can easily approach without having the urge to defend their own morality (which doesn't make for great dinner conversation).

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#376

Post by thom »

opportune wrote: post #347
thom wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what lifelong meat eaters experience, but I just can't comprehend. There is no meat that on its own is particularly tasty to me. Chicken, at its absolute best, tastes like a disappointing roast chestnut. What's worse is meat doesn't really marinade as well as everyone makes out, so often I'll be enjoying a dish but I keep chewing and realise I just like the sauce and then that fades and - yuck - you're left w…

Chicken is about the worst meat to eat on its own, especially if you are baking boneless skinless chicken breasts. Dark chicken meat has actual flavor, so thighs and drumsticks are probably your best bet. If you want good meat with no extra flavoring I recommend good steak (like the $60+ steak you can get at a nice steakhouse). Pulled pork is also good, though it's usually somewhat flavored, doesn't necessarily need…

Again, we just have differently wired taste buds at this point, this stuff is wasted on me, and I do feel genuine sadness about it.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#377

Post by windexh8er »

strken wrote: post #273
nabla9 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the meat in the market is already something else than what people think meat is. Meatballs may have more than half chicken skin. Burgers contain 25% filler. Pink slime (= lean finely textured beef) is a highly processed meat by-product. In the US its processed with ammonia but that's not allowed in EU.

"Pink slime" is made by centrifuging heated fatty offcuts, which doesn't turn my stomach that much. I have a sneaking suspicion that what people find disgusting is the industrial production of meat, and that if Gordon Ramsey had a small and inoffensive centrifuge attachment for his KitchenAid the process would seem less gross.

While your statement is true it's not exactly that straightforward since that is only part of the process and rationale for it. The US has just recently changed course on allowing pink slime to be labeled as "ground beef". Because of those recent changes by the FDA consumers have lost insight to what's in their meat unfortunately.

https://newfoodeconomy.org/bpi-pink-slime-ground-beef-usda-r...

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#378

Post by mcv »

anonu wrote: post #259
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.

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…

> Isn't GMO to create foods that require less pesticides?

That depends entirely on the kind of GMO. GMOs don't exist for any particular single purpose. Some GMOs exist to make it easier to use pesticides. Some GMOs contain pesticides.

Some GMOs have nothing to do with pesticides but add nutritional value. For example, Golden Rice, which has beta-carotene added to increase the vitamin-A intake of the hundreds of millions of people who subsist mainly on rice, generally gets mentioned as the one GMO that's completely positive with no discernible downside: it doesn't mess with ecosystems in any way, beta-carotene is already common in many plants, it doesn't do anything pesticide-related, and it makes people healthier.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#379

Post by mcv »

JackPoach wrote: post #336
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…

There might be a big regulatory war to ban using the word 'meat' in marking substitutes.

There already is to some extent. In Netherland, there's the "Vegetarische Slager" (vegetarian butcher) which produces fairly convincing substitutes of specific types of meat. But they can't call their fake chicken "chicken", or their fake beef "beef", because there's no actual chicken or beef in it. But they do want to make clear to the consumer that they're meant to be substitutes specifically for chicken and beef.

Now they can sell it as long as they spell it differently. So we get lots of fake meat with spelling errors now.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#380

Post by mattmanser »

gotocake wrote: post #33
paulcole wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re very wrong. Vegans/Vegetarians are still sneered at in the US. Any non major city/college town in the South/Midwest is still dominated by meat and the associated culture. Thanksgiving alone is a nearly insurmountable hurdle. “Tofurky” is still a gross joke to most people. You and PG are both vastly underestimating the emotional attachment people have to their current way of life.

To me it just seems like the clearest indication of a bubble in Silicon Valley in particular, and the Bay Area in general. Even putting aside emotional attachment, people actually enjoy the taste of meat and don’t see a pressing reason to stop. Aside from some YouTube hype, I’ve never met anyone offline who thinks the various meat subsitutes are remotely like the real thing. Then again I remember when Soylent was “th…

You're missing pg's point completely.

The present options are rubbish, that's NOT what we're talking about. pg is not talking about Tofurky or tofu, he's talking about lab grown meat.

Lab grown meat tastes, smells, cooks and is textured exactly like meat.

If you can buy something that's much cheaper than meat, but has all the plus sides, why would you choose meat?

Plus on top of that there's been a lot of media coverage the last 2 or 3 years that meat is causing a lot of problems environmentally. So there's an environmental and an economic reason to switch.

Post reply on HN