Live data from Hacker News

Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

gigaom.com

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#11

What is it with this modern obsession with not eating meat? Meat is good. It's healthy, it's very sustainable, it's got an incredible protein:volume ratio, and it's delicious.

Very sustainable?

"Food production requires application of fertilizers containing phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium on agricultural fields in order to sustain crop yields. However modern agriculture is dependent on phosphorus derived from phosphate rock, which is a non-renewable resource and current global reserves may be depleted in 50–100 years."

Raising animals to eat is a much less efficient use of non-renewable phosphate than eating plants ourselves.

Source: Dana Cordell, Jan-Olof Drangert, Stuart White. 2009. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 292-305.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378008...

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#12

What is it with this modern obsession with not eating meat? Meat is good. It's healthy, it's very sustainable, it's got an incredible protein:volume ratio, and it's delicious.

> Meat is good. It's healthy, it's very sustainable, it's got an incredible protein:volume ratio, and it's delicious.

I had been doing the low carb thing recently, so I agree with most of this. Unfortunately, the relative scarcity of meat in our history has resulted in our wanting to eat too much of it for our health.

That said, imbalances in our global civilization's distribution of food is a much bigger problem than calories per acre. (I guess one could argue that realistically we need to produce an overabundance of food to compensate.)

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#13
Some people in western culture choose not to eat animal products or meat, and have historically referred to themselves as vegans or vegetarians, respectively. Some of these people make the choice due to their ethical concerns about the food producing animals involved in the process. In this comment, they will be lumped into the group of "ethivegs". In my experience, a fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites and technophobes, and vanishingly few of the technology embracing ethivegs are generally interested in science. Absolutely no ethivegs that I have met has been aware of in vitro meat research. Which is odd, since in vitro meat research meat has the ability to almost completely remove ethical concerns for an animal from the production of food.

Interestingly, PETA has heard of the technology and did a little advertising stunt for the research. Anecdotally, none of my NPR listening or PETA supporting acquaintances have ever heard of this stunt (which was on NPR) or the concept of in vitro meat. Happily, every single ethiveg that I have introduced to the concept of in vitro meat has felt very positive and excited about it.

So in my experiences with ethivegs, the consequence of in vitro meat research coming to fruition is this: eating meat will no longer require an animal to be treated unethically. Interestingly, many ethivegs have lamented that currently "unethical meat eaters" will no longer be punished with mad cow disease, high prices, or nutrient imbalances. However, they are generally more concerned with the ethical treatment of animals than they are with punishing humans who currently eat meat.

I find this interesting because some groups are less interested in correcting the sin, and more interested in punishing the sinner: http://i.imgur.com/Irgo2.gif

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#14

What is it with this modern obsession with not eating meat? Meat is good. It's healthy, it's very sustainable, it's got an incredible protein:volume ratio, and it's delicious.

"Meat is the biggest thing you can steal from some creature, it kind of destroys her presence, and discontinues her future. meat-eating is killing for theft of the functional body.".

Every organism must collect their energy, aminoacid, vitamins themselves rather than stealing from their peers. I am against all eating including eating of vegetables, honey etc and critical of the current earth-based life.

when designing the post-humans we must exclude "eating" for body build-up and energy intake.

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#15

What is it with this modern obsession with not eating meat? Meat is good. It's healthy, it's very sustainable, it's got an incredible protein:volume ratio, and it's delicious.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And some of your claims are extraordinary.

>What is it with this modern obsession with not eating meat?

It's not a "modern obsession". Varying degrees of vegetarianism have been part of human culture since ancient times. People, especially Americans, are eating far more meat than they did 50 or 100 years ago. There is a greater variation, but the mean is definitely rising.

>Meat is good. It's healthy

Meat consumption (particularly red meat and processed meat) has been linked to higher rates of cancer, cardio-vascular disease, and overall mortality in a dose dependent manner. Furthermore, some vegetarian populations are extremely long-lived compared to the their omnivorous peers.

>it's very sustainable

Meat eating is not sustainable at our current technological level. Mass production of animals to be slaughtered for our consumption accounts for the majority of human-caused methane production, causes the majority of anti-biotic resistant disease, requires many times the energy expenditure that growing plant-based foods do and is an enormous threat to bio-diversity.

If all the world ate as much meat as Americans, it would be a disaster in terms of public health and the environment both.

>* it's got an incredible protein:volume ratio,

Protein != intrinsically good.

>and it's delicious.

Taste is subjective, but a lot of people would agree with you.

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#16

What is it with this modern obsession with not eating meat? Meat is good. It's healthy, it's very sustainable, it's got an incredible protein:volume ratio, and it's delicious.

I'm not even going to mention the horrendous ethical issues of meat production industry, but sustainable?

"[...] current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenho...

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#17

Some people in western culture choose not to eat animal products or meat, and have historically referred to themselves as vegans or vegetarians, respectively. Some of these people make the choice due to their ethical concerns about the food producing animals involved in the process. In this comment, they will be lumped into the group of "ethivegs". In my experience, a fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites a…

I'm a highly technical "ethiveg" vegan and every vegan I've met have not only heard of in vitro meat but strongly supports it.

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#18

Some people in western culture choose not to eat animal products or meat, and have historically referred to themselves as vegans or vegetarians, respectively. Some of these people make the choice due to their ethical concerns about the food producing animals involved in the process. In this comment, they will be lumped into the group of "ethivegs". In my experience, a fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites a…

Choosing food on ethical grounds is a load of crap. Here's a counter-example discussing the slavery on California strawberry farms:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/11/in-the-s...

>>> Migrants are among the poorest workers in the United States. The average migrant worker is a twenty-eight-year-old male, born in Mexico, who earns about $5,000 a year for twenty-five weeks of farm work. His life expectancy is forty-nine years. I'm hoping some things changed since 1995, but as someone used to to construction in California and had to compete against dry-wallers earning $3/hour, I am doubtful.

One would have to be very careful in choosing "ethical food," lest they have tunnel vision in only protecting animals, and by their pure nature of replacing lost calories with more vegetables, they encourage more human slavery in the world, and yes... in America.

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#19

Some people in western culture choose not to eat animal products or meat, and have historically referred to themselves as vegans or vegetarians, respectively. Some of these people make the choice due to their ethical concerns about the food producing animals involved in the process. In this comment, they will be lumped into the group of "ethivegs". In my experience, a fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites a…

I'm a highly technical "ethiveg" vegan and every vegan I've met have not only heard of in vitro meat but strongly supports it.

I am not an ethiveg. I ask literally every ethiveg I meet if they have heard of in vitro meat, because asking them is an incredibly easy thing to do, and if they spread awareness and generate support for the science then the world will be a measurably better place. I am impressed that you ask literally every ethiveg you meet if they have heard of in vitro. Keep up the good work, improving the world is the responsibility of all those who can help improve the world.

Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

#20
One of the big trends in current nutritional thinking is that we should eat natural, whole foods... and processing foods, even when done to enhance nutritional qualities, has been a major mis-step.

In-vitro meat and printing steaks on 3d printers sound like a steps in the wrong direction.

Post reply on HN