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

Hacking Meat: Can technology make us eat fewer animals?

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

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

#31

Post by bendmorris »

HorizonXP wrote: post #25
ComputerGuru wrote: post #4

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'll bite. 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 obt…

I'm on keto too. But people do have valid, non-health reasons for avoiding meat, including ethical and sustainability concerns. Keto is great for your own personal health, but in some ways people who choose to incorporate large amounts of meat into their diets (like you and I) are basically choosing these personal benefits over the greater good for everyone else.

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

#32

Post by Turing_Machine »

bendmorris wrote: post #11
ComputerGuru wrote: post #4

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…

The phosphate doesn't actually get used up. It winds up back in the ocean from whence it came (most phosphate rock is limestone formed from krill and the like).

There's no reason we couldn't use krill directly. It would be more expensive, but also 100% renewable.

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

#33

Post by Turing_Machine »

blahedo wrote: post #10
ComputerGuru wrote: post #4

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 (or rather, animals) also consume a lot more resources to produce the same amount of available-nutrient output. I'm a meat-eater too, and I agree with your assessment, but it's a little disingenuous to pretend that vegetarians have no reasons for their actions. (Also, IME there are as many reasons to be vegetarian as there are vegetarians---they all have a slightly different answer.)

"Meat (or rather, animals) also consume a lot more resources to produce the same amount of available-nutrient output."

Depends on how it's raised. Grain-fed meat, sure. Grass-fed meat, not so much. People can't digest grass.

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

#34

Post by adrianhoward »

tossacct wrote: post #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 a…

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.

Possibly it's a US/UK thing - but that's pretty much 100% the opposite of my experience.

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

#35

Post by bendmorris »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #32
bendmorris wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The phosphate doesn't actually get used up. It winds up back in the ocean from whence it came (most phosphate rock is limestone formed from krill and the like). There's no reason we couldn't use krill directly. It would be more expensive, but also 100% renewable.

We don't really have the infrastructure in place for doing that at the necessary scale, so it would be so much more expensive as to cause food prices to skyrocket. I'm sure that as supplies get lower more research will be done on recycling phosphate efficiently, though.

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

#36

Post by Turing_Machine »

bendmorris wrote: post #35
Turing_Machine wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phosphate doesn't actually get used up. It winds up back in the ocean from whence it came (most phosphate rock is limestone formed from krill and the like). There's no reason we couldn't use krill directly. It would be more expensive, but also 100% renewable.

We don't really have the infrastructure in place for doing that at the necessary scale, so it would be so much more expensive as to cause food prices to skyrocket. I'm sure that as supplies get lower more research will be done on recycling phosphate efficiently, though.

You don't need a lot of infrastructure. Krill nets are pretty low-tech.

Also, it's not like we're going to wake up one morning and all the phosphate rock is gone (which is the usual unstated assumption with "peak" this or that). The price will go up gradually until the point where alternative sources become more economic.

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

#37

Post by stdbrouw »

kfitchard wrote: post #29
brasmasus wrote: post #21

> ...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

(Disclaimer: I'm the article's author.) Quorn isn't an artificial meat. It's a meat substitute or imitation meat. There are a lot of these on the market right now like Beyond Meat. In-vitro meat actually seeks to grow animal muscle cells. Think cloning steaks :)

I think the OP was pointing out that it's not impossible to convince people to eat stuff like this. If you can get people to eat fungus grown in large vats (Quorn), then with the right marketing you can probably get them to eat artificial meat.

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

#38

Post by exodust »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #4

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.

There's nothing in this article about "not eating meat". The whole point is that meat can be grown in the lab, so you can eat it all you like then.

Meat comes from animals who have pretty miserable lives up until death in the modern factory farm. and then the environmental stress from feeding and transporting livestock is huge. And the protein health benefits comes with some warnings not to eat too much meat! Raw meat is dangerous too, causes much sickness annually. Left over chicken, oops don't touch that.

Tastes great though, so let's grow the world's meat in big vats and the cow can have a well earned vacation. Fair?

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

#39

Post by luser001 »

HorizonXP wrote: post #25
ComputerGuru wrote: post #4

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'll bite. 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 obt…

> (I'm Hindu, so no beef or pork)

Minor nit: I don't think Hindus are prohibited from eating pork. AFAIK.

> And I would bet that my environmental impact isn't all that high.

Ironically this page claims that lamb is the worst of all meats wrt CO2 footprint.

http://ewg.org/meateatersguide/eat-smart/

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

#40

Post by HorizonXP »

bendmorris wrote: post #31
HorizonXP wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. 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 obt…

I'm on keto too. But people do have valid, non-health reasons for avoiding meat, including ethical and sustainability concerns. Keto is great for your own personal health, but in some ways people who choose to incorporate large amounts of meat into their diets (like you and I) are basically choosing these personal benefits over the greater good for everyone else.

Depends on how you look at it though. If you keep your view narrow (not meant as an insult), you're right, our impact on the environment and economy via agriculture is probably higher. Fact is, an animal requires more nutrients and care to raise than a plant. That takes a lot of energy and resources.

If you expand your view, you can actually begin to argue that we might have a reduced impact in comparison to others. There is anecdotal and limited empirical evidence that suggests that people that strictly follow a low-carb diet actually have better blood chemistry that those on a low-fat diet. Lower LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and higher HDL cholesterol levels usually lead to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Not to mention that it's practically impossible to have diabetes. Those on a low-carb diet are usually trying to lose weight, so that helps too, since maintaining a "normal" weight has wider health implications.

My point is that being overweight likely has a larger impact than simply eating meat. Being overweight, you're more likely to have higher healthcare costs, eat more, and require more energy and resources to sustain. If you're lighter, most of these negatives go away. Whether you achieve your lower weight by low-carb or low-fat doesn't really matter. But there are plenty of people that eat low-carb as an actual lifestyle, and their blood chemistry generally indicates that they're healthier overall.

Anyway, to each their own. But this fallacy that meat-eaters are creating an unethical and unsustainable environment is specious. You really need to look at the big picture.

(I wish I had actual sources to cite.)

Post reply on HN