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

Beyond Meat S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 439 posts

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#371

Post by vages »

perfunctory wrote: post #369
JohnFen wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (I live in a city, it was easier than I thought it would be to connect with a farmer out in the rural part of my state.) I wish that more people would realize how easy this is! Plus, the quality of the meat you'll get (even if you aren't overtly buying the best possible) simply blows anything you find in the supermarket away. Here's what I've been doing with 4 friends for years now: every year, we go in on buying a…

> ... with 4 friends for years now: every year, we go in on buying an entire cow from a local rancher. With the current global adult (ages 15-64) population of approximately 5B your method would need 5B/4 = 1.25B cows. The current global cattle population is about 1B [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop...

But not all people in the world crave cow's meat.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#372

Post by shafyy »

I recommend watching What The Health (https://www.whatthehealthfilm.com/) - a great doc by the same guys who did Cowspiracy, this time focusing on the health and lobyy aspects of the meat and diary industry.

Negative lobbying is something that fills me with anger unlike any other and not eating meat and diary JUST to stop giving those fuckers my money is reason enough. Of course, there are many other great reasons to do so (animal welfare, environment, health) - and no objectively good reason to eat meat and diary.

And no, reasons such as:

- "We need meat to be healthy"

- "Humans meant to be eat meat historically"

- "I love the taste and this is a free country"

Are either scientifically wrong or not objectively good reasons.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#373

Post by TeMPOraL »

rayiner wrote: post #176
djakjxnanjak wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Help me figure out the right messaging for what we should tell Bangladeshis that they shouldn't eat meat now that they're finally getting to be able to afford it. Are you trying to say we shouldn’t save the world from environmental destruction because it might be awkward to ask some people to switch to fake meat? How about this messaging: “we are destroying the world, we need to stop”

You're not going to "save the world from environmental destruction" by telling people to give up meat, because as India and China (not to mention Africa) develop, meat will become a minor component of their CO2 footprint just as it is in the United States. The anti-meat messaging will be seen as both stupid (because it won't help) and hypocritical ("how about we continue to eat meat, and Americans take their turn liv…

> You're not going to "save the world from environmental destruction" by telling people to give up meat

No, but by convincing people to give up meat, to travel less, to stop using disposable everything, to institute a carbon tax, etc. etd. you just eventually might. As 'Pfhreak wrote elsewhere in the thread, this is not a problem of finding 60%-there solution; it's a problem of repeatedly applying 0.5% - 3% solutions. Every component of CO₂ footprint is a minor one.

Also, don't forget the US is extremely good at exporting its culture. It seems whatever fad happens there, very soon half of Europe does it too, and a lot of other places aspire to it. Doing something in the US is likely to have quite big impact outside it as well.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#374

Post by randomsearch »

sridca wrote: post #255
randomsearch wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Like a meat diet, a vegan diet will indeed be perfectly healthy provided it is reasonably balanced. You need to watch a few things, such as B12 intake. OTOH, there is plenty of evidence as to the negative effects of meat on health - the higher fat intake, for instance, and the increased cancer risk.

> there is plenty of evidence as to the negative effects of meat on health - the higher fat intake, for instance, and the increased cancer risk. Please stop mindlessly spreading this nonsense. Meat is perfectly healthy. http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/

"Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans"

"Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans"

World Health Organisation: https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#375

Post by delaaxe »

aarpmcgee wrote: post #348
Pfhreak wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still periodically eat meat, as I mentioned I did work with a local farmer to buy a whole beef. But it's something special and deliberate -- should we make one of our roasts? We don't have very many, so each one is precious. We use all the bones we could get to make stock, etc. Try to really appreciate the one animal we've had harvested for our family, but still eat vegetarian or vegan on the vast majority of days…

Harvest is an interesting word choice to apply to an animal. Is this common?

It's a common hunting term

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#376

Post by mijamo »

megablast wrote: post #334
wickoff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like the animal is going to live forever if you don't kill it. In nature animals are often eaten alive by predators, die from disease, starvation and get horribly injured in competition for mates. A free range animal that's being humanely put down by a farmer has a much more pleasant life. If you go down this rabbit hole deep enough you can begin to question whether life itself should exist.

I guess you are ok with being farmed in a similar way? Of course not.

Your argument would be valid if they were humans. They are not. I fail to understand why they should be treated as such.

And if we consider animals equal to humans, do we send them to jail if they behave badly? Do we prevent them from being murdered by other animals? Isn't it utterly hypocritical to let animals die by starvation in the wild while preventing farming? What is even the natural habitat of farmed animals like a cow?

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#377

Post by 55555 »

mcrae wrote: post #362
kabacha wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Asian means of eating tofu is fundamentally different from the vegitarian way of eating tofu. The Asian means of preparation is typically 75% tofu and 25% is meat for taste. Am from Asia and I've never heard and seen this in my life. Tofu is _never_ mixed with meat. That's a bit of an absurd statement as tofu and meat have nothing in common unless frozen and deepfried (then tofu has a texture of chicken).

Fairly common in Korean cooking from my experience? Usually some stew with tofu and pork and whatnot. Rarely is it eaten on its own except for banchan/side dishes.

The claim being contested is that pork/beef is mixed INTO the tofu while the blocks of tofu are being made.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#378

Post by apatters »

perfunctory wrote: post #369
JohnFen wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (I live in a city, it was easier than I thought it would be to connect with a farmer out in the rural part of my state.) I wish that more people would realize how easy this is! Plus, the quality of the meat you'll get (even if you aren't overtly buying the best possible) simply blows anything you find in the supermarket away. Here's what I've been doing with 4 friends for years now: every year, we go in on buying a…

> ... with 4 friends for years now: every year, we go in on buying an entire cow from a local rancher. With the current global adult (ages 15-64) population of approximately 5B your method would need 5B/4 = 1.25B cows. The current global cattle population is about 1B [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop...

I miss the days when comments on Hacker News focused on hacking and startups instead of scoring Internet virtue points.

Aside from this figure being totally irrelevant (billions of humans don't like and don't eat beef; the parent is probablya heavy beef eater even by US standards), here's a thought. If the parent is right and the quality is higher, maybe there is an opportunity to build a service which connects people with local ranchers so everyone can do this. That would keep commerce local and reduce the emissions involved in transporting beef around the world.

But no, let's fixate on neo-Puritan finger wagging in every topic on every forum on the Internet. god forbid we have ideas to make things better without judging people for their habits.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#379

Post by Fnoord »

kabacha wrote: post #357
Pfhreak wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still periodically eat meat, as I mentioned I did work with a local farmer to buy a whole beef. But it's something special and deliberate -- should we make one of our roasts? We don't have very many, so each one is precious. We use all the bones we could get to make stock, etc. Try to really appreciate the one animal we've had harvested for our family, but still eat vegetarian or vegan on the vast majority of days…

> I've gone vegetarian, except for a single grass fed animal and then > still periodically eat meat I'm sorry but you shouldn't call yourself a vegetarian.

With all due respect, I disagree. A vegetarian who almost completely follows their diet, is in my opinion a vegetarian the same way as a vegan who almost completely follows their diet is in my opinion a vegan. Why? 1) Defeatist approach (perfectionism) does not work 2) What matters is how the person identifies 3) There are hurdles to overcome when going vegetarian/vegan. These can be related to health, financials, logistics/availability, social situations where an exception could be made, the environment which can be at odds. Should anyone be interested I can give ample amounts of examples for each of these.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#380

Post by Accacin »

pembrook wrote: post #235
Accacin wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not going to downvote you as everyone has an opinion, but this argument is ridiculous. If you're saying everything dies so it doesn't matter, why is it wrong to kill another human? And dying isn't cruel (or the problem - once I'm dead I probably won't care exactly how I died), it's humans killing them that's the problem for people like me. The fact is it's completely unnecessary. We don't need meat and we waste far t…

Using your logic, everything we do can be considered an unnecessary waste of resources. We don't need the internet and cars and air conditioning and plane travel and television and houses and land ownership and governments and militaries, etc. etc. To continue down your slippery slope, you'll find the only proper way to live is to revert to the woods and live as a hunter-gatherer society. Where you chose to draw the…

I mean, I understand where you're going but it's adsurd. Most people if they don't have a car or internet access would suffer some detriment to their life be it social, work related, etc. Everything you mentioned provide benefits to society for existing.

Not growing meat? The big disadvantage to that would be we'd no longer be able to enjoy the taste of meat and the farmers would probably need to find something else to farm.

Post reply on HN