421–430 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RealMeat will never be replaced with some mystery goop made of soybean and seaweed powder. You will never have the nutrient diversity of a real living tissue in a mystery goop. And cow body is way more alike to us than seaweed.
I like how you use the term 'goop' to subtly slander something you disagree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make your parent comment wrong, though.
If you honestly believe hogs are destroying the environment in Texas, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s about as hyperbolic as it gets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chickens will probably stick around. A German company has discovered a way to determine a chick's gender while still in the egg. That will end the cruel practice of tossing male chicks into a grinder. And will allow cruelty free eggs to be produced. As long as the hens have space, comfortable quarters, and allowed to keep living in those conditions after they stop laying. For those who are vegan for purely ethical re…
I thought most vegans are against eggs? Laying eggs is cruel to chickens I've heard (just quoting here)
Kill billions and billions of animals for taste - and you're considered normal. Eat rice and beans, refrain from causing harm - you're a freak. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I understand, it doesn't have any kind of boosted resistance or anything, so it shouldn't dominate and replace wild rice the way other modified rice might. That said, if farmers move from producing a wide variety of rice strains to only golden rice, that's still a significant reduction in biodiversity. Maybe they should make beta-carotene versions of more kinds of rice. Mixing in a few greens is surprisingl…
Biodiversity, I think is the biggest problem. The potato blight spread so rampently because mostly one clone of the exact potato was being grown everywhere. Some sort of rice or corn blight would be catastrophic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or we could create a meat tax, stop subsidies, create task forces who actually care about animal welfare and do randomized tests regularly so animal abuse can be limited. It would also help, if governments would actively work on making vegetarian/vegan options more lucrative. All of this is a process that could work out well in 15-20 years. We can, of course, also put animals on drugs so they're high while they live…
Why would they be miserable? Embarrassed by the respectable high-class animals looking down on them for being junkies? Full of regret that they were too high to write that novel, or to travel to a foreign country? Both our plans have the same result: improved quality of life for animals, while still killing them against their wishes. Why not go with the cheaper option?
Apart from that, I think a key fact about industry farming isn't that we are not able to figure out ways to lessen the suffering of animals. Even relatively cheap options like giving them more room to live is something that is dismissed by the industry after all. I think, the general problem here is a cultural ignorance towards the plight for a multitude of reasons. I think, it's worth more changing this with grand incentives and causing a shift to happen than to find creative solutions that reward greed over suffering.
The question - and this is where we seem to differ - is if we want to live in a world where we accept concepts like gestation crates and want to work around that or where we think that this is beneath us and our values.
Since you seem to have a very simplistic darwinistic approach to life as a "high-class" animal, I'm not really sure we could ever meet anywhere in the middle here.
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.
With regard to cows which I know the most about that means letting them eat grass and only providing input when necessary to protect the health of the herd from an unexpected insult, e.g. unexpected drought, or to promote the health of the land. Because I've not tried this on a nationwide scale I can't guarantee that it could be done, but based on the thought I've given to it and my own experience I believe the majority of beef production _could_ be done humanely with the caveat that it would likely be unprofitable to do so given our current economic and cultural landscape.
I don't think dairy can be done humanely at scale for our current consumer price point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you honestly believe hogs are destroying the environment in Texas, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s about as hyperbolic as it gets.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pi...
If so, then I guess we have different definitions of “destroying the environment.” Some damaged farmland, a few possible fishkills, and some erosion are blips on the radar compared to the damage done by industrial farming, suburban sprawl, oil companies, etc.
I guess it is nice to have a scapegoat though — or in this case a scape-hog.
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…
Its when you get into the territory of that "natural flavor" ingredient listing that things get really weird in food. Think la croix soda. Freakish, really unnatural flavor, almost salty even, but somehow they have two things listed. Water, Natural Flavor.
People don't seem to bat an eye at that, but having seen firsthand beverage formulation work (not la croix) its a pretty odd thing. Dozens of small glass vials with oil extracts with intense fragrances of orange, lemon, lime, cherry, etc. Even among one of those, there might be dozens of variants, each a different oil from the plant that produces that orange smell.
How carcinogenic are these things? Do they have any poor side effects? Why aren't they listed individually? Have there been studies on each one?
Its like the FDA caters to large companies not wishing to share beverage and food formulations, despite a cancer epidemic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprised you lump those together. Seitan is the best, but I've never found a tempeh recipe we can tolerate.
I'd rather eat anything other than tempeh - it turns my stomach.