3 ms·

We've tried many times to make in labs and factories foods that are "better" than what Nature provides, however we've failed every single time, though we have c

We've tried many times to make in labs and factories foods that are "better" than what Nature provides, however we've failed every single time, though we have created a number of large agribusinesses and marketing conglomerates that are really skilled at manipulating people and the political process into believing that unhealthy diets are healthy. If you're right, that would maybe be cool (but then we'd have to consider the inputs to the factories, which'd probably be GMO soybeans and corn, which means we're harming other animals in the process of producing them), but I believe your statement is full of hubris.

ben_w 5y ago
There’s nothing particularly natural about the steaks, burgers, nuggets or fillets you eat: even aside the cooking (quite possibly humanity’s first invention), they are the product of many generations of selective breeding by humans, specifically to maximise value (including taste as a subset) for resource cost (including farmland and time as inputs). And then you have all of the seasoning, for example KFC’s “secret” herbs and spices are from basically all over the planet.
nitrogen 5y ago
We've tried many times to make in labs and factories foods that are "better" than what Nature provides Wild nature doesn't provide very much that is edible by humans, and certainly not enough to sustain a civilization of humans rather than small bands of roving nomads. Nature doesn't care about us, it won't help us, if left to its own devices it would eventually wipe humanity out entirely. We're well, well past the point where we can rely on nature to care for itself or for us. If we don't all take the initiative to intervene and engineer nature for its and our benefit, then only those with hubris will do so. Regarding the hubris of believing that a lab-grown steak could be better than the real thing, physics doesn't change just because it's inside of an animal, so there's no reason to think that we won't eventually be able to engineer muscle tissues that are indistinguishable from real grass-fed beef, given the time and money to do so.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  You should read Euell Gibbons, one of the finest Americans to ever live, gourmand, gatherer, hunter, and writer of Stalking the Wild Asparagus. We are all much closer to edible food in our natural surroundings than you are making it seem. Some skill and processing required, but almost all of the American population is a few hours of foraging away from a nutritious meal. Nature provides PLENTY. Efficiently harvesting it in a sustainable way (i.e., stewardship) is the hard part, and what I believe farming should be all about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euell_Gibbons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euell_Gibbons
  - ben_w 5y ago
    The US population has almost doubled since he wrote that book. While I can easily believe most specific individual humans could (with skill and training) get a good meal after a few hours spent foraging if considered separately, that is very different from saying that all of the population can be fed that way at the same time. The carrying capacity of the planet if we’re “in tune with nature” is the pre-farming population, because even neolithic farms were very unnatural things.

ben_w 5y ago

There’s nothing particularly natural about the steaks, burgers, nuggets or fillets you eat: even aside the cooking (quite possibly humanity’s first invention), they are the product of many generations of selective breeding by humans, specifically to maximise value (including taste as a subset) for resource cost (including farmland and time as inputs). And then you have all of the seasoning, for example KFC’s “secret” herbs and spices are from basically all over the planet.

nitrogen 5y ago

We've tried many times to make in labs and factories foods that are "better" than what Nature provides Wild nature doesn't provide very much that is edible by humans, and certainly not enough to sustain a civilization of humans rather than small bands of roving nomads. Nature doesn't care about us, it won't help us, if left to its own devices it would eventually wipe humanity out entirely. We're well, well past the point where we can rely on nature to care for itself or for us. If we don't all take the initiative to intervene and engineer nature for its and our benefit, then only those with hubris will do so. Regarding the hubris of believing that a lab-grown steak could be better than the real thing, physics doesn't change just because it's inside of an animal, so there's no reason to think that we won't eventually be able to engineer muscle tissues that are indistinguishable from real grass-fed beef, given the time and money to do so.

sjwalter 5y ago
You should read Euell Gibbons, one of the finest Americans to ever live, gourmand, gatherer, hunter, and writer of Stalking the Wild Asparagus. We are all much closer to edible food in our natural surroundings than you are making it seem. Some skill and processing required, but almost all of the American population is a few hours of foraging away from a nutritious meal. Nature provides PLENTY. Efficiently harvesting it in a sustainable way (i.e., stewardship) is the hard part, and what I believe farming should be all about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euell_Gibbons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euell_Gibbons
- ben_w 5y ago
  The US population has almost doubled since he wrote that book. While I can easily believe most specific individual humans could (with skill and training) get a good meal after a few hours spent foraging if considered separately, that is very different from saying that all of the population can be fed that way at the same time. The carrying capacity of the planet if we’re “in tune with nature” is the pre-farming population, because even neolithic farms were very unnatural things.