Live data from Hacker News

Is algae the new kale?

nationalgeographic.com

21–30 of 320 posts

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#21

I've seen this movie, I don't want that life

"[...]

The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.

"We have discovered happiness"—say the last men, and blink thereby.

They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.

Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!

A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.

One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.

One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.

No shepherd, and one herd! Every one wanteth the same; every one is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.

"Formerly all the world was insane,"—say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.

[...]"

(Not sure that blowing up the biosphere, literally so when considering geological timescales, is a better alternative...)

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#22
Only if the rich do it first.

I won't eat bugs, lab grown meat, algae, or any other experimental food until the rich do it first, and do it consistently, not just once as a demonstration.

My logic is simple. If the rich don't embrace an innovation, it tells me that the innovation is either not what it's cracked up to be, that it gives a poorer quality product than the traditional option, or that the rich think the innovation is for suckers or the poor. If that's the case, I'll stick with the traditional option.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#23
post #15

I cannot understand how it is possible that the phrases like "food security" instead of "hunger" became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere. Genuine question, can someone explain that to me without resorting to some sort of conspiracy theories?

Perhaps -- my guess -- its the recognition that they are fundamentally two different problems.

Hunger of the previous generations was mostly due to countries not having enough agriculture or imports to feed their population.

Today with modern farming and agriculture methods, hunger is mostly a distribution issue, rather than a we don't have enough food issue, so now food security is used as a more general term. My hunch is driven by -- may be getting the exact specifics wrong - that countries like America throw away enough food daily to satisfy much of the remaining world hunger.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#26
post #15

I cannot understand how it is possible that the phrases like "food security" instead of "hunger" became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere. Genuine question, can someone explain that to me without resorting to some sort of conspiracy theories?

Nation states don't get hungry. Similarly to 'target neutralization' being called inhuman description of murder, both terms are about exactly what they say they are.

People being hungry near you is an 'individual problem', but with police intact you're roughly fine (under assumptions). If your country is facing food security crisis, it will likely spread to other domains and you are not fine.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#27
post #15

I cannot understand how it is possible that the phrases like "food security" instead of "hunger" became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere. Genuine question, can someone explain that to me without resorting to some sort of conspiracy theories?

So, to clarify, I am not arguing that food insecurity and hunger are two separate things (even though to me it still sounds like some sort of newspeak). My question was more about the speed with which that term became deployed everywhere.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#28

While real sea-grown algae might be light what will happen is the same as with modern animal and plant farming: animals are fed corn which makes their meat sub-par nutrientwise and most of the soil for plants is depleted. So if we now grow algae in "reactors" their nutrient profile will be artificial and out of line of their natural counterparts, thus making them no better than any other modern highly processed food,…

What do you mean sub-par nutrientwise? In terms of average health outcomes, does grassfed beef show a significant benefit compared to feedlot finished beef?

I've seen no direct studies. But there seems plenty of evidence that the fatty acid profiles between the two are very different. And the profile in grassfed is closer to in line with what is currently recommended.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#29

I've seen this movie, I don't want that life

"[...] The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest. "We have discovered happiness"—say the last men, and blink thereby. They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth. T…

For anyone curious, this excerpt is by Nietschze in Thus spake Zarathustra.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#30
post #15

I cannot understand how it is possible that the phrases like "food security" instead of "hunger" became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere. Genuine question, can someone explain that to me without resorting to some sort of conspiracy theories?

> became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere

Except, it didn't?

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...

Just because you are just now noticing something common doesn't mean it recently became common.

Post reply on HN