Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

css.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 794 posts

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#541

Post by tpm »

tsimionescu wrote: post #531
ownagefool wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the original argument is a good one, but lets try another. If we had fully lab grown meat that was identical to the real thing. How many of us would convert? In theory, we all would. In reality, we still covet mined diamonds, so we'll probably still irrationaly claim there's a difference long after there really is.

> If we had fully lab grown meat that was identical to the real thing. How many of us would convert? In theory, we all would. Why would we all, even in theory? If we could farm animals humanely, grazing them in areas where crops anyway can't be planted, letting them range, giving them a good life where they don't fear predators, don't freeze to death in winter or die of hyperthermia in the summer etc., and then kill…

Even if it would be possible for the farmed animal to really have a fulfilling life (which I don't think is possible in the current, industrialized world), there are still humans who are caring for the animals, there are humans who are killing and dissecting them, and they too are affected by the inhumane process, and I think our empathy should extend to them too.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#542

Post by h0l0cube »

tsimionescu wrote: post #509
0-_-0 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could make the argument that it's possible to ethically raise animals in a way where it's a good deal for both sides, as long as an animal suffers less than it would suffer in nature. If causing unnecessary suffering is unethical, then the opposite should be a moral imperative, so this simple mathematical argument leads to the conclusion that ethically raising animals should be morally superior to veganis…

I don't really find this kind of simple ethical calculus convincing, but I would say that a world where some people continue eating meat and keep raising cows, pigs, chicken, sheep, goats and other animals that would die off if they weren't consumed seems better to me than a purely 100% vegan world. On the other hand, as someone's personal choice instead of worldwide decision, I don't think it seems plausible that be…

> a world where some people continue eating meat and keep raising cows, pigs, chicken, sheep, goats and other animals that would die off if they weren't consumed seems better to me than a purely 100% vegan world

I'm not a vegan, but I've heard this argument before and find it to be confounding. Are we saying that livestock suffer less because they are safe in the knowledge that their species is being conserved? Why would a non-human animal have this kind of existential rumination? (Excuse the pun) And let's say this concern is of real importance, if factory farming ended do you think wild populations of cows, goats, etc. would go completely extinct? (Keep in mind people keep animals as pets, so that's also another means of conservation)

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#543

Post by wccrawford »

DistressedDrone wrote: post #354
XorNot wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bizarre virtue signalling that you should rein in. The entire world eats meat, and you know that. You almost certainly have some opinions on the moral correctness of animal slaughter for food. So it's not a leap of logic to realize that probably there's a significant cross-over between people who have this view but still like the taste. So I have no idea why you feel like this is a "confusing" product to exis…

I don't get what you're trying to say. Of course people like the taste, but why pretend to eat meat? We all know it's not the same. I'd rather have a real version of something I like than a fake version of something I miss.

All other things being equal, so would everyone here.

But all other things aren't equal. One side requires raising and killing animals, and the other side doesn't.

So we're weighing "real thing that kills animals" and "fake thing that's really close, but doesn't kill animals".

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#544

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

This rhetoric only convinces those people who already feel sympathetic to animal-rights arguments. But for example, a significant slice of the world’s population are adherents of religions that downright ordain slaughtering an animal at times, and they will only be alienated by your argument.

Consequently, I feel like health and environmental arguments are better ways to get people to limit their meat intake.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#545

Post by nkozyra »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

See I think Impossible comes as close as you can get right now but Beyond definitely has weird taste/texture qualities. I get an aftertaste with it I do not with Impossible.

Beyond sausage (an easier endeavor because of how much work fennel and casing do), however, is excellent.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#546

Post by entropyie »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

Irish person here with a couple of random facts: - Ireland is one of the larger per-capita beef producing countries - Beef lobby is quite powerful - Our local Chipper / Take Away / "Fish & Chips" shop sells Beyond Meat burgers - As a meat eater who grew up on a beef farm, I can say they look and taste amazingly good... 95% as good as a real burger.

Most cattle are treated well in Ireland, living outside on fresh grass (live exports aside). My main concerns are global resource depletion, biodiversity, deforestation and climate change.

We're beginning to see a real sea change in this meat eating country, meat-free products are popping up everywhere and not just marketed at vegans / hipsters.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#547

Post by nkozyra »

edenhyacinth wrote: post #511
0-_-0 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could make the argument that it's possible to ethically raise animals in a way where it's a good deal for both sides, as long as an animal suffers less than it would suffer in nature. If causing unnecessary suffering is unethical, then the opposite should be a moral imperative, so this simple mathematical argument leads to the conclusion that ethically raising animals should be morally superior to veganis…

I agree - I definitely think that how we treat deer in the UK as a food source and as a wild population is a sensible way of 'farming' animals. My only concern is with domesticated stock. Cows couldn't possibly survive in nature, and would suffer greatly, for example. If we're concerned with raising animals for food that also live enriched lives, do we also have an obligation to breed them in ways that enrich them?

> Cows couldn't possibly survive in nature, and would suffer greatly, for example.

Would they? What do humans provide that domestic cattle couldn't handle on their own?

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#548

Post by dalmo3 »

cubesmarching wrote: post #537
tsimionescu wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not an argument that fairs well on HN in general, but the fact that we can eat something this similar to a burger but without the slaughter of living, feeling, individual being is so unbelievably important and incredible. The problem I have with this argument is that it always seems to me to focus on the life of the animal, but not on the death of the animal. All animals eventually die, and most natural dea…

All humans eventually die, and most natural deaths are far more horrifying than how we would be able to murder other humans, especially in modern times (though even traditional slaughter is nothing compared to dying of cancer, stroke, being murdered in a car crash, etc.) So, I think that it is important how the humans are grown (prisons are absolutely horrible, unacceptable places to live in, and should ideally becom…

Now do one for plants.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#549

Post by ta_ca »

fogihujy wrote: post #424
imgabe wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All living things die and are eaten by other living things. This isn’t wrong, it is the way nature works. Would you have every living thing just...stay alive forever? That’s not going to happen.

You have a valid point; killing an animal in order to eat it is not immoral, assuming you don't let anything go to waste. Factory farming, on the other hand, has nothing to do with how nature works. It's all about who raises the animals and how. It' the same thing with the environmental aspect. If the animals graze all their lives then it might even have a positive effect on CO2 uptake in the long run, and it definit…

> waste

i think this and the sport part of it is the worst of all. there is this popular show on youtube that everyone loves. celebrities eating hot wings. just a small bite and they throw it to trash. no one bats an eye, it is part of the culture.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#550

Post by arrrg »

roenxi wrote: post #467
arrrg wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you view the millions of existences prevented by contraception the same way? Those humans also don’t exist for entirely preventable reasons … This seems like an on its face absurd and pointless argument to me. In these scenarios we are basically talking about unborn hypothetical future cows and from that perspective your argument makes no sense at all. Cattle would obviously continue to exist in some form, even wi…

You've missed the argument - the argument is we have prevented the existence of millions of humans without blinking, many of whom would probably rather exist. Once we've one that, killing off large numbers of animals is an academic point. Who cares if we kill them by preventing their existence or giving them years of life then killing them? They're the lucky ones who got to be born. If you gave me a choice, I'd rathe…

Can you tell me what exactly I missed?

The pill prevents millions of humans from existing and I just cannot for the life of me see any ethical issue with that.

Post reply on HN