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

Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 474 posts

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#401

Post by yamtaddle »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #380
yamtaddle wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some form of power" != oil and gasoline. > Thanks for being patient with my stupidity. No problem.

So, just to be clear, if you are in some random place in the united states, the energy you will use to charge your car's battery is most likely to come from renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and very unlikely to come from oil/gasoline, natural gas, or coal? And I should, in fact, feel stupid because this is an extremely apparent/obvious fact to actually smart people?

> So, just to be clear, if you are in some random place in the united states, the energy you will use to charge your car's battery is most likely to come from renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and very unlikely to come from oil/gasoline, natural gas, or coal?

Nobody in this chain of comments was concerned with most of this, so it hardly matters (to the discussion at hand) what I answer, or cite, or whatever. That's much of the problem with what you've been posting. All that was originally claimed was that broader EV deployment will tend to reduce petroleum use, so may be viewed as a threat by petroleum industry, which... I mean, yes, that's obvious. I would certainly find evidence to the contrary quite surprising.

> And I should, in fact, feel stupid because this is an extremely apparent/obvious fact to actually smart people?

No—because you keep trying to argue against the proposition you want to argue against, instead of the one that was actually advanced, which is why I've twice tried to redirect you back to the actual topic. The "but much electricity comes from burning fossil fuels!" observation isn't terribly interesting even when it isn't a non-sequitur, but given the topic at hand, which was narrowly about effects of EV deployment on the petroleum industry in particular, it's also being mis-applied.

We could get 100% of our electricity from coal, for instance, and the original claim might still be true. Technically, we could even get 100% of our electricity from petroleum, and it might still be true—though in that case I'd certainly allow that it wouldn't be obviously-true.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#402

Post by hammock »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #361
nemo44x wrote: post #64

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.

But what's so inherently dangerous about it being "unnatural" that it should require a similar level of mandated warnings on the packaging as cigarettes? Do you think unnatural medicines produced in a lab should carry a similar warning compared to their natural remedy counterparts?

I agree. Cigarettes have too many “warnings”

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#403

Post by prottog »

Gud wrote: post #370
phpisthebest wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes... That is why many rational people do not support this idea of unlimited democracy. The founders of he US knew very well the perils of unlimited democracy and that is why they not only attempted to check government power, but check the power of the majority I dont want to be ruled by either a government in washington, nor a majority of my neighbors

then how do you explain Switzerland, where people vote on referendums every quarter? What the world needs is more power to the people, not less. Populist movements only grow because the insulated ruling class don't listen to the people(and often don't give a shit).

Switzerland is very much an exception to the rule, and even it has a written constitution limiting the government's power. "More power to the people" works when operating within a culture that values attributes that lead to a stable, wealthy society over time, and with limits to what the people can make government do. Otherwise it becomes, as they say, two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.

The Swiss do have a popular vote on things, but they aren't, for example, voting themselves free lunch and ponies for all. I don't know whether that's because the government is prohibited from providing free lunch and ponies or because the majority of people culturally value hard work and saving over immediate gratification and are educated enough to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Either way, it would not work out as well in places where one or both of those things are not true.

Let's pick out some recent results from Switzerland:

In 2022, voters rejected "Ban on animal and human experiments" and "Popular initiative against factory farming", and approved "Limiting tobacco advertising".

In 2021, they rejected "Federal Act on greenhouse gas emissions" and "For clean drinking water and healthy food", and approved "Ban on full facial coverings".

In 2020, they rejected "Affordable housing" and "Ban on financing weapon production" and approved "Paternity leave".

In 2019, they rejected "Stop the Sprawl", and approved "Gun control directive".

From this, I can gather that the Swiss as a whole are sensible people who understand that voting for things that sound good on the surface like "ban factory farming" or "more affordable housing" might lead to worse problems down the road than what it is they are trying to fix; and that they have a strong sense of cultural identity, as shown by the ban on full facial coverings.

I would imagine the same questions would yield vastly different results in other places. The proposition system in California resulted in Prop 13, arguably one of the worst policy disasters ever in that state, looking back almost 45 years later. Now the San Francisco city government is talking about paying every black resident a lump sum of $5mm and a guaranteed high income for the next 250 years; what do you think a binding popular referendum would do in that city?

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#404

Post by 3np »

xdennis wrote: post #319
9dev wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The animals robbed of their life entirely for that major part of yours would like to have a word with you. It's not like meat is the only thing tasty or joyful in life.

Food is tasty and no amount of your religious preaching is going to change that.

Equally arguable: Rape feels good and no amount of preaching is changing that. Has similarly been part of human culture for time immemorial.

I still consider it desirable to reduce the amount of rape to 0, regardless of how important it might feel to rapists.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#405

Post by stu2b50 »

briandear wrote: post #194
000ooo000 wrote: post #11

If food heritage is so important to the people of Italy, and they agree that lab-grown meat is vastly inferior for all of the claimed reasons, I imagine lab-grown meat as a product would just flop. Why ban it, unless it's all just political theatre?

If “climate” is so important to the people of California, and they agree that the ICE vehicle is vastly inferior for all the claimed reasons, I imagine ICE vehicles as a product would just flop. Why ban it, unless it’s all just political theater?

Negative externalities require external interference in market economies to produce the socially optimal outcome. Climate change and pollution are clear examples of negative externalities.

As it happens, the farming of meat actually has severe negative externalities in this case. If anything, it's farmed meat that should be restricted by the government in that model.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#406

Post by prottog »

mrguyorama wrote: post #369
fnimick wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are a lot of things that make your life better at the expense of society has a whole There's no better example of this than the discussion on health insurance here on HN a few days ago, where people with health insurance were opposing universal healthcare because they'd have to "compete with the general public for treatment access". How do you fight it though? There's no incentive for anyone to willingly choo…

There are incentives. Selfishness isn't everyone's driving factor, unlike what extremely selfish people want you to believe. Plenty of people believe in morals and other reasons to help their neighbor at their own expense, and these feelings seem to follow a high level of education and awareness of your fellow human beings.

As long as you don't think that just because someone doesn't agree with your way of helping fellow human beings, they are necessarily uneducated or heartless.

As an example, just in the last six months or so, I took considerable time and effort out of my day to help absolute strangers in two different occasions to change their flat tires. Both times I was soaked through in sweat by the time I was done, but I was happy to help. Does it follow from my willingness to do this that I would be in support of, say, a government program for roadside assistance (call it AAA-for-All)? Hell no.

America once excelled at civil society, but over time government has subsumed more and more of those functions; to everyone's detriment, if you asked me.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#407

Post by wolfi008 »

lormayna wrote: post #271
wolfi008 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are calling Meloni's government "left-wing"? Italy has not had a government so far right since WW2. > like forcing us to eat worms instead of pasta Nobody is "forcing" you to anything. That's misrepresenting reality to a degree that's not even funny had you used /s tags.

> You are calling Meloni's government "left-wing"? Italy has not had a government so far right since WW2. Sorry, just a typo. I obviously would like to say right wings. > Nobody is "forcing" you to anything. That's misrepresenting reality to a degree that's not even funny had you used /s tags. It seems that you don't get my points: I am not saying that EU want to force anybody to eat worms, I am saying that right win…

Ah I see. Thanks for clarification.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#408

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

somenameforme wrote: post #400
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh good, we have our WEF boogie men, who I guess the Italian government is currently taunting. I expect they'll experience some comeuppance from the WEF? Or is this one of those "the enemy is both powerful and weak" situations where the WEF has incredible promised power, but still seems utterly ineffective? The same shadowy forces can easily change the definition of what constitutes lab grown meat, circumventing the…

The WEF messaging is not a secret, neither is their membership list (at least for corporations). They're pushing for lab meat hard. [1] And that sample is just a fragment of what's out there. Just do a quick search for something like "site:weforum.org lab grown meat". And so this really changes this issue. For instance, in America Kroger is not only the largest grocery chain but also affiliated with the WEF [2]. So i…

Are you saying the American farmer doesn't have massive lobbying power and government support? And again, this is taking away consumer choice by explicitly siding with the Italian farmer. It's explicitly anti-consumer.

I also think you have the push/pull the wrong way - Kroger wants a say in WEF's decisions, it's not controlled by the WEF. It's always going to do what's best for Kroger.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#409

Post by PM_me_your_math »

9dev wrote: post #46
lm28469 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to be "far right" or "nationalistic" to not want to destroy your economy

If your economy is entirely dependent on a doomed industry, maybe, instead of artificially keeping it alive, focus on modernising that economy instead?

Food is a doomed industry? Maybe for the people who want to eat insect burgers.

Re: Italy moves to ban lab-grown meat to protect food heritage

#410

Post by unixgoddess »

withinboredom wrote: post #381
unixgoddess wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are there really hours worth of travel in the netherlands? or perhaps you meant travel by bike

> are there really hours worth of travel in the netherlands? By car, yeah. By bike? You're crazy -- but totally doable. If you wanted to hit all the major population centers (Maastricht, Nijmegen, Enschede, Groningen, Amsterdam, Den Hague, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Eindhoven), you'd be driving for about 10-12 hours ... with lots of boring farmland in between.

I underestimated its size... thought it was much smaller
Post reply on HN