331–340 of 474 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not an abomination to eat natural food. Any carnivore/omnivore would eat a cow if it could. If the cow could speak, I believe their opinion would be otherwise. Humans don't generally appreciate it when lions, tigers, and bears beat them to the top of the food chain. Perfectly natural, that hypocrisy; as natural as your face being eaten by leopards. > The fact that you perceive something natural as an abominati…
Most loving things don't want to die, whether it's to be a meal for something else or any other reason. I don't see how that refutes what looks like the natural drive, at least based on how many have been doing it for how long, of predators to eat meat.
Because I wasn't even attempting to; rather the point is to demonstrate that natural things can be abominations.
And my first comment on this thread was giving appreciation to an (artificial) "abomination" that meant I didn't need a (specific) natural one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being a useful fool here, repeating that outright lie, which has been well debunked even here on HN. The scoundrels committing this blood libel against Monsanto and GMOs count on people like you to propagate their poison.
"Blood libel?" What in the actual f**? Well, if you're going to be antisemitic, then we're done here. Maybe consider getting some help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, why do you think this? Transport needs to be decarbonized, but it's a very tiny portion of our food system's climate impact. Land use is a major portion, but it's still not as significant as cows themselves. Maybe you're underestimating the scale? There are a billion cows on earth that simply wouldn't exist if we stopped eating them and drinking their milk. It's not like a normal natural resource that we're just…
The problem is not cows take up a lot of resources. The problem is their upkeep is too intensive that the economies of scale contribute to large scale destruction of resource. I don't buy the future decarbonization transport argument. It is a mirage. But put that aside. Cows are incredibly powerful creatures. Their uses were in not just taking up a lot of land but also moving lots of farm equipment and cultivating la…
I do agree that there are many problems with our food system beyond climate change, and replacing Big Ag with Big Lab-grown Ag would leave almost all of those problems in place. It's not my preferred solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole insect flour debate is so braindead. We have billions of people to feed. Dried and shredded insects provide a great protein yield, can be produced incredibly efficient, and aren’t as destructive to the planet as lifestock. Many cultures have been consuming insects for ages. There is nothing unsafe, unnatural, or otherwise „bad“ about using insects for food - other than an embarrassing, unreflective revulsi…
You are delusionally ignoring that the issue is with calling blended animal protein a flour.
For that matter, nobody ever suggested replacing wheat flour with insect flour because it has none of the properties required for baking stuff, but rationality was never really relevant on that topic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it’s unnatural to begin with. Other good movements like “organic” worked hard for that label and the producers of those products work hard. I don’t believe oat milk should be allowed to use the word “milk” and if it wants to then should be prefaced with words describing it as “imitation milk” or similar.
> unnatural You keep using that word, but you haven't explained what makes it unnatural. There are people who eat insects right now, and I'm willing to bet people have been eating insects as long as there have been people. It seems more "natural" to me than drinking another aninals lactations. I don't want to eat insects, but you've offered no explanation why it is insufficient to list the ingredients (which is alrea…
The word milk can be traced back thousands of years to the indo-european form h₂melǵ- which means... milk. Your attempt to re-frame this is ridiculous.
> Also, "milk" has referred to any thick, white substance for centuries now. Consider "milk of magnesia".
These are called metaphors. They do not attempt to mislead and confuse people.
The whole point of calling almond juice "milk" is to confuse people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need to fully understand its safety, nutritional content, and long-term health effects. This is the same "reasoning" that ultimately led to ban on most GMO foods like actual long-term tasty tomatos. For some reason we demand significantly stricter controls over anything "lab-grown" than on anything "natural". Note: I'm not calling for lax controls. I'm callling for controls that are not more stringent than those…
> For some reason we demand significantly stricter controls over anything "lab-grown" than on anything "natural". The reason is simple. We haven't co-evolved with lab-grown food for several billion years, or had transmitted cultural experience with it for tens of thousands of years. The recent discovery that artificial sweeteners have unforeseen health effects (hyper-clotting / glucose intolerance) should point out t…
BBC journos have a specific editorial style, and no doubt it influenced this headline, but this isn't to "protect food heritage". Food and drink accounts for a quarter of Italy's GDP. It's about money. Italy has a far-right government, which is extremely open to lobbying from that sector, and "heritage" is aligned with their nationalistic stance. Try to look a bit deeper.
I roughly checked the french press (I don't read italian): there is no account of the "food heritage" argument, but I wouldn't be surprised if the right did put forth the argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're on the intellectual level of a lion, or what? In contrary to lions, you have the brain to think about this, the alternatives to choose from, the digestive tract to handle plant-based food, and the moral capability to understand why killing living beings is bad.
Bad? Apart from your own moral opinion, how is killing bad? Why is killing a plant better than an animal? Because their chemistry includes some sort of pain hormone? So do some plants. This is not an argument either of us can win, because it’s a morality question to which there can be many answers. I simply don’t see how eating only plants is more moral. For all we know free grazing animals that we eat are way more h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But shouldn’t be called “flour”. It’s not. the definition of flour is "ground substances," see also bone flour, fossilized flour, stone flour...
You know very well that the purpose of calling it "insect flour" is to mislead and to normalize it. Nobody cares about "stone flour" etc because it not sold as flour on a shelf next to real flour. It's not intended to mislead.
please don't assume that all languages have the same sneaky sub-meanings, or, if we speak the same language[1], don't assume that everyone is as ignorant or stupid as you are