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

Is algae the new kale?

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 320 posts

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#61

Post by slothtrop »

marricks wrote: post #39

I love all these whacky avenues people take when eating just plants is a very low foot print option available to almost everyone. We don’t need to eat crickets, we don’t need to eat algae, we don’t need bioreactors for growing meat. I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. You just can’t make a start up on beans an…

Only relatively low footprint. You're underestimating the fossil fuel consumption needed in the form of ammonia (for fertilizer), farming equipment (smelting for steel, also requires coke from coal), transport, manufacturing, plastics (greenhouses, packaging), etc. This is all essential to feed the world, and there's nothing low footprint about it. Btw, compare the consumption needed for a tomato/100g vs chicken, and you'll be surprised.

All of this is a moot point if demand were to stop growing, and that will only happen when population does. Another accelerant is that as more of the world is lifted out of poverty, demand increases. All of the increases in efficiency and swaps for green energy are outpaced by demand, and will continue to be.

Btw, immigrants are not moving to the 1st world so they could consume less. They're going to eat meat, buy gadgets and single family homes. In fact govt policy is counting on it (that's what a GDP increase means, more consumption). Reduction in overall meat consumption helps, but you shouldn't bet on it to end, nor is it the most exacerbating source of emissions (plus, I hope, seaweed infused feed could trivialize methane emissions as it rolls out).

The alternative to lower demand is a staggering transition away from fossil fuels (only like 15% of fossil fuel consumption is for electricity), but that will probably take awhile. Lowering immigration rates would marginally help (probably not as much as people think) but that would be unpopular anyway. It's simultaneously "just" to pad the numbers of those consuming like Westerners (literally what "a better life" describes), and a moral imperative for the same concerned class to pressure Westerners to avoid consuming arbitrary things, or in general. Regardless, increase in consumption will arrive in the rest of the world.

I think expanding access to contraceptives worldwide is probably the greenest possible thing that can be done right now. That's not coming from a perspective of anti-natalism either. EDIT: use your words if you disagree, like adults. If you can't even elucidate how, you should question your premise.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#64

Post by goodpoint »

poszlem wrote: post #15

I cannot understand how it is possible that the phrases like "food security" instead of "hunger" became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere. Genuine question, can someone explain that to me without resorting to some sort of conspiracy theories?

They are not the same thing. Food insecurity is broader than just hunger.

https://foodforward.org/food-security/what-is-food-insecurit...

No need for silly conspiracy theories.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#66

Post by goodpoint »

oifjsidjf wrote: post #3

While real sea-grown algae might be light what will happen is the same as with modern animal and plant farming: animals are fed corn which makes their meat sub-par nutrientwise and most of the soil for plants is depleted. So if we now grow algae in "reactors" their nutrient profile will be artificial and out of line of their natural counterparts, thus making them no better than any other modern highly processed food,…

> So if we now grow algae in "reactors" their nutrient profile will be artificial and out of line of their natural counterparts

This is wild speculation. Plenty of scientific research shows that farming plants, algae, and producing fermented food in a controlled environment can be even healthier than "natural" food.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#68

Post by antisthenes »

yawgmoth wrote: post #42
socialismisok wrote: post #4

We already eat various forms of algae. Some are quite nutritious, some give us tummy troubles, some at excellent sinks for CO2. I'm very curious if we could mass manufacture something like algae and then pyrolize it to get fuel and solid carbon to sequester. If we find some good ideas for kelp, there's whole coastlines whose kelp forests have been decimated. We could start propagating and sustainably harvesting it an…

I recently bought an Algae Powered CO2 scrubber. No idea how effective it is, I wonder what the easiest way to measure is?

A CO2 meter? ...

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#69

Post by forgetfulness »

marricks wrote: post #39

I love all these whacky avenues people take when eating just plants is a very low foot print option available to almost everyone. We don’t need to eat crickets, we don’t need to eat algae, we don’t need bioreactors for growing meat. I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. You just can’t make a start up on beans an…

It's like the phenomenon of businessmen and politicians preferring to dazzle the public with implausible gadgetbahn concepts, instead of opting for presently-existing trains, of the various types that actually exist.

The concrete existence of train technology causes the ball to get pushed further than the the 3D render stage to the far less exciting endeavors of drafting up projects, gathering political support, securing funding, doing environmental impact studies, battling NIMBYs in court, and may end up undercutting the bottom line of auto manufacturers that could make campaign contributions, and won't line up the pockets of visionary consultants writing reports on how other solutions to car traffic and long commutes could be dreamed up.

https://www.cat-bus.com/2017/12/gadgetbahn/

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#70

Post by sometimeshuman »

hammock wrote: post #41
marricks wrote: post #39

I love all these whacky avenues people take when eating just plants is a very low foot print option available to almost everyone. We don’t need to eat crickets, we don’t need to eat algae, we don’t need bioreactors for growing meat. I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. You just can’t make a start up on beans an…

Beans + rice is easily the most common meal on the planet, as the cheapest complete protein source around. We live in a bubble, never mind saving the planet

A quick Google search reveals that beans are not a complete, since they lack several essential amino acids.

Edit: correction, it appears that soybeans are the exception. But when one thinks of having a serving of "beans and rice", soybeans are unlikely to be the bean served.

Post reply on HN