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

71–80 of 320 posts

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#71

Post by bch »

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

> complete protein source

On the “complete protein” concept, by a famous popularizer of plant-based protein-combining[0]

——

There is no need to combine foods at individual meals.

“In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get enough protein ... was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods. Actually, it is much easier than I thought. With three important exceptions, there is little danger of protein deficiency in a plant food diet.”

—-

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_for_a_Small_Planet

Edit: adjust description of what Lappé was popularizer of

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#72

Post by ryandrake »

woodruffw wrote: post #40
poszlem wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, to clarify, I am not arguing that food insecurity and hunger are two separate things (even though to me it still sounds like some sort of newspeak). My question was more about the speed with which that term became deployed everywhere.

I think it’s more likely that you just didn’t notice it. My lay observation is that “food security” has been the standard term in non-profit/NGO contexts for at least 15 years, while “hunger” is still colloquial. My guess for why is precision.

Maybe it's the same Euphemism Treadmill that George Carlin performed[1] about, how "Shell Shock" evolved into the softer, jargony "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder"

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#74

Post by rmujica »

In Chile is common to eat Cochayuyo, a type of kelp without air bladders [0]. Some people are dismissive about its taste, but personally I love it on my Charquicán [1].

It is very cheap and readily available at most fish markets through all the country.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durvillaea_antarctica#Chilean_...

[1]: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charquic%C3%A1n

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#75

Post by forgetfulness »

sometimeshuman wrote: post #70
hammock wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why it's the beans+rice combination that's complete, because they're complementary in composition.

But the truth is that you don't need to eat them in the same meal, and most people don't have a shortage of grain in their diets if they aren't going out of their way to make it so. Porridge in the morning and lentils at lunch and you've done it.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#76

Post by bch »

sometimeshuman wrote: post #70
hammock wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

beans != beans + rice;

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33564109

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#77

Post by yawgmoth »

antisthenes wrote: post #68
yawgmoth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? ...

Yeah! I was thinking "ah the room isn't sealed, nor is the house for that matter" but I can probably get interesting measurements with a simple CO2 meter.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#78

Post by version_five »

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 not hard to understand. Meat tastes good and is satisfying to eat, and is the preferred centerpiece of many cultures' meals. So there is a market to find substitutes that will have the same appeal. Not that I think crickets or algae fill the niche, but at least people are trying something. Vegetarians saying "why doesn't everyone eat just plants, I do it" are ignoring culture and projecting their narrow view onto others

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#79

Post by maxbond »

I've had the pleasure of having freshly harvested spirulina. It was buttery and wonderful and rich, eating a few grams felt like a big slice of chocolate cake.

Eating algae is not a compromise or a burden, it's a fabulous luxury we should all experience.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#80

Post by ravenstine »

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…

> 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.

No, we don't hear about it more because it's not healthful. If it were, the human digestive system would be like that of cattle, but it's not. You can feed everyone carby, fibrous meals, but that's not optimal and not even necessarily better for the environment.

The reason algae is proposed as a way to feed people is that it's not dumping a bunch of carbs, fiber, and incomplete protein down everyone's gullets. Humans don't need to be consuming these things, and there's drawbacks to diets that aren't based on what our species developed to primarily consume over the last 4 or so million years. There's aspects of algae that are preventing it from being a serious food source across the world, but if those roadblocks can be overcome then it can be a game changer because of where it can be grown and what kinds of nutrients it's capable of producing.

In the present, there's no good reason to believe that "everyone" needs to eat more plants and less meat. Meat is a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle, just as are crops. On the contrary to what you're suggesting, and putting aside the fact that fossil fuels are being used throughout livestock and agriculture, individuals can eat whatever they see fit for themselves.

Post reply on HN