What about Quorn's 'mycoprotein'? They've been making it for years, and people have been eating it. There's some controversy, of course, but go into any grocery store and it's there. Not half bad either imo.
Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
21–30 of 53 posts
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#22Some 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 expectan…
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#23One 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.
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 expectan…
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's hardly the same thing. Getting paid vs being "caged" then killed is a very different argument.
In my opinion, slavery is far worse than death. Could you imagine working under a hot sun for 15 hour days only to wake up and do it all over again everyday for the rest of your life? Supposedly, this stuff was banned throughout the whole world but it is still ubiquitous. People and politicians actively encourage it by looking the other way, not caring, or justifying the use of slavery because of a pretty contract.
I do feel some pity for the animals dying for my own health, but in the same token, if I was not dependent on the local super-market, I would end up hunting it myself. For certain, America treats its animals far better than other countries. I won't eat veil, shark fin, or foie gras. There is a huge difference between inflicting outright suffering and growing an animal for the purposes of slaughter.
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#25What 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, and red meat in general, has got a bad rap because of various studies linking it with poor health (i.e. cancer and cardiovascular issues).
Personally, I would argue against it. We know from anthropology studies that humans only evolved to our current state because we started to eat larger quantities of meat. Fact is, there is no better source of nutrition and calories when you're looking at foods obtainable from the environment.
In the 20th century, we're in a different situation. Food and calories are easy to come by, to the point that many Westerners are gluttonous and we eat too much. We don't need to eat meat to obtain more calories, removing it as a requirement from our diets.
Vegetarians will argue that their diets have less of an impact on the planet, and that they're healthier overall. You can argue that point either way, but anecdotally, I've met few vegetarians that are actually "healthy." Many do not understand that if you remove meat as a source of protein, you need to supplement it with another source. Vegetarian sources of protein are not very protein-dense, so you need to eat a lot of food to get your daily requirement. Moreover, you need to ensure that you're obtaining all of your essential amino acids, which many plant-products don't provide. That's why Indians, a predominantly vegetarian society, will eat rice with daal. Rice lacks lysine, which daal contains. Together, they are a whole source of protein.
I've personally tried the vegetarian diet, and it's not for me. It's not for everyone. I found that to hit my protein requirements, I had to eat a lot of carbohydrates along with it, which meant a lot of calories.
Right now, I'm overweight, so I'm trying to hack my diet and lose weight in a completely different way. I eat absolutely no carbohydrates. All I eat is lamb (I'm Hindu, so no beef or pork), fish, and poultry. I also eat lots of green vegetables, nuts, mushrooms, and cheeses. Oh, butter and heavy cream too. It's called the ketogenic diet if you're interested.
I've never felt better. No intestinal issues or bloating. I'm losing weight steadily. And I get to eat awesome, healthy meals that taste amazing. And I would bet that my environmental impact isn't all that high. My grocery list is very simple, sticking to the outer corridors of the store.
It's not for everyone. But it works for me. I would bet that most studies that say red meat is bad, didn't control for carbohydrates. The biochemical processes that occur in the body in reaction to carbohydrate intake is likely what contributes to the issues surrounding red meat. Of course, few studies have been done to confirm this because of a general disposition that high-fat diets are bad.
In summary, people are against meat because they keep hearing that it's bad. They don't seek out alternate opinions, and would rather be ignorant than educate themselves.
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#26What 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 definitel…
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#27Some 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 expectan…
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#28I have a different hack: Eat kosher or organic meat.
I do that because my body does not work right. Eating better quality food has substantially reduced the amount of food I require on a daily basis. It seems especially helpful with meat, probably because toxins concentrate in the fats as you go up the food chain, so the negative impact of bad practices multiplies.
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#29> ...but we’re still years away from seeing viable, affordable artificial meat – and probably many more years from convincing the public to eat it. What about Quorn's 'mycoprotein'? They've been making it for years, and people have been eating it. There's some controversy, of course, but go into any grocery store and it's there. Not half bad either imo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn
Re: Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 responsibil…
Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line.