4 ms·

> Same with meat alternatives. I politely disagree. 1. If you don't want people to expect it to taste identical, don't call it a "meat alternative". Just call

by rlue 8y ago

> Same with meat alternatives. I politely disagree. 1. If you don't want people to expect it to taste identical, don't call it a "meat alternative". Just call it what it is (“soy patty”?), and then people will expect it to taste like that. 2. Have you tried the Impossible Burger? It’s pretty damn close.

seanwilson 8y ago
I'd say if you want to reduce meat consumption because you care about climate change but you'll only switch if alternatives tastes identical to meat you probably don't care that much. Maybe beef burger replacements are coming but we're not going to have indistinguishable alternatives to bacon, whole roast chicken, pulled pork, sirloin steak, duck etc. any time soon so people are going to have to be less picky for global meat consumption to be reduced.
- yowlingcat 8y ago
  Maybe you care about it a good amount but don't believe in consumer climate control? If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming as well as support and push for vat grown meat, you end up decoupling these things. It's important to note that carnivores have existed for many, many years, and that it's also possible to construct clean, sustainable factories but we just choose not to, likely due to a lack of regulatory coordination, interest and pressure. I think it's important to separate the utilitarian argument from the moralistic argument here. Climate change is in large part accreted by large corporations, and the manner that they interact with corporate social responsibility and regulation is largely what has the potential to change things. Beyond that, it's hard (though not impossible) to get the same macronutrient profile without meat consumption. And beyond pure nutrition, many gastronomic entities are simply out of reach. I think you have to really think about what the purpose is of food (lots of sides to that) and not work backwards from the premise that meat consumption is intrinsically a poor choice. Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue.
  - seanwilson 8y ago
    > If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming Is this actually a feasible solution if meat is fundamentally inefficient? "It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs. Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent). Though many of us consume meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feedlots, only a fraction of the calories in feed given to livestock make their way into the meat and milk that we consume. For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-bi... "Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-red... > Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue. I used to think this but it seems really silly to me now. We're going to require cutting edge technology to find a solution to the problem that people are too stubborn to adapt a little to combat climate change? There's plant based alternatives that exist today that taste somewhat like meat that don't require expensive technology and research to produce. We already know how to grow plants on a massive scale and I can't see how vat grown meat is going to compete with that any time soon. The requirement that we must have something that's close to indistinguishable from meat for people to switch seems an impossible bar to reach. Are people going to stick to cow milk until we devise technology to make a milk like product that's indistinguishable as well? Perhaps if meat was taxed based on its contribution to climate change people would be less picky. Waiting on vat grown meat doesn't sound like a realistic solution, especially given what's being said about the time we have to act on climate change.
    - yowlingcat 8y ago

by rlue 8y ago

seanwilson 8y ago

I'd say if you want to reduce meat consumption because you care about climate change but you'll only switch if alternatives tastes identical to meat you probably don't care that much. Maybe beef burger replacements are coming but we're not going to have indistinguishable alternatives to bacon, whole roast chicken, pulled pork, sirloin steak, duck etc. any time soon so people are going to have to be less picky for global meat consumption to be reduced.

yowlingcat 8y ago
Maybe you care about it a good amount but don't believe in consumer climate control? If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming as well as support and push for vat grown meat, you end up decoupling these things. It's important to note that carnivores have existed for many, many years, and that it's also possible to construct clean, sustainable factories but we just choose not to, likely due to a lack of regulatory coordination, interest and pressure. I think it's important to separate the utilitarian argument from the moralistic argument here. Climate change is in large part accreted by large corporations, and the manner that they interact with corporate social responsibility and regulation is largely what has the potential to change things. Beyond that, it's hard (though not impossible) to get the same macronutrient profile without meat consumption. And beyond pure nutrition, many gastronomic entities are simply out of reach. I think you have to really think about what the purpose is of food (lots of sides to that) and not work backwards from the premise that meat consumption is intrinsically a poor choice. Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue.
- seanwilson 8y ago
  > If you eat local grass fed meat and don't support destructive factory farming Is this actually a feasible solution if meat is fundamentally inefficient? "It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs. Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent). Though many of us consume meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feedlots, only a fraction of the calories in feed given to livestock make their way into the meat and milk that we consume. For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-bi... "Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-red... > Vat grown meat technology is progressing at a pretty impressing clip from what I've seen. I think that's probably the technological change that will make this a lack of an issue. I used to think this but it seems really silly to me now. We're going to require cutting edge technology to find a solution to the problem that people are too stubborn to adapt a little to combat climate change? There's plant based alternatives that exist today that taste somewhat like meat that don't require expensive technology and research to produce. We already know how to grow plants on a massive scale and I can't see how vat grown meat is going to compete with that any time soon. The requirement that we must have something that's close to indistinguishable from meat for people to switch seems an impossible bar to reach. Are people going to stick to cow milk until we devise technology to make a milk like product that's indistinguishable as well? Perhaps if meat was taxed based on its contribution to climate change people would be less picky. Waiting on vat grown meat doesn't sound like a realistic solution, especially given what's being said about the time we have to act on climate change.
  - yowlingcat 8y ago