If everyone ate beans instead of beef
theatlantic.com
If everyone ate beans instead of beef
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#2Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#3Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#4This seems to be neat math more than practical solution.
Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#5What about methane emissions?
Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#6So instead of us feeding the beans to the cows we eat them directly - the extra step makes it inefficient. That makes sense. Unfortunately beans don't occupy the same place in a meal, so the easiest solution seems to be to just not eat beef nor the beans, but then we need a substitute food. This seems to be neat math more than practical solution.
Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#7Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#8So instead of us feeding the beans to the cows we eat them directly - the extra step makes it inefficient. That makes sense. Unfortunately beans don't occupy the same place in a meal, so the easiest solution seems to be to just not eat beef nor the beans, but then we need a substitute food. This seems to be neat math more than practical solution.
Isn't that the whole point of Beyond and Impossible? Make vegetables have the same place in the meal as the meat they replace?
Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#9Re: If everyone ate beans instead of beef
#10So instead of us feeding the beans to the cows we eat them directly - the extra step makes it inefficient. That makes sense. Unfortunately beans don't occupy the same place in a meal, so the easiest solution seems to be to just not eat beef nor the beans, but then we need a substitute food. This seems to be neat math more than practical solution.
Isn't that the whole point of Beyond and Impossible? Make vegetables have the same place in the meal as the meat they replace?