4 ms·

I have mentioned this several times in comments on other threads, and each time my comment was buried under variations of the same argument: the vast majority o

by lqet 5y ago

I have mentioned this several times in comments on other threads, and each time my comment was buried under variations of the same argument: the vast majority of people cannot be expected to give up meat, and therefore to help both the environment and their health, and to stop killing animals, we should offer them artificial meat. But I very much doubt that the additional crazy overhead of producing and packing and shipping this artificial meat (which as you said is completely unnecessary, as you can just start eating non-hyper-processed vegetables) will result in a net benefit for the planet, or for your personal health. Another thing that concerns me is the centralization aspect. It is still fairly easy to buy meat coming from your local butcher / local animals. Looking at the ingredients of some of this artificial meat, I fail to see how it should be produced by a local shop. You need a supply chain, and possibly special machinery. This may only be carried out by large companies.

windexh8er 5y ago
Most of the "real" processed meat has more overhead than its counterparts. Most people do not buy from a local butcher, to imply otherwise is turning a blind eye. They buy big brand overly processed "meat" that comes in a cardboard box wrapped in plastic just the same. With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. They also taint and pollute groundwater sources and contribute to a significant amount of food recalls due to the above. Lastly in the metro I live there are about a half dozen alt meat "butcher" shops that supply alt meats to consumers and local restaurants. They're insanely popular and have been for over 5 years now. There's great brand recognition of those alt meats on local menus. You don't often see that with "real" meat because there's not as much differentiation in the product in real meats, just price. A lot of the above points are simply ignoring facts and the market. Hopefully, like with EVs, more people can continue to make positive progress and acceptance with alternatives to real meats as we've been seeing.
- lqet 5y ago
  > With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. Why is the overhead exponential in the rate of consumption?
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    Well, the claim isn't "exponential in the rate of consumption," it is "exponential in comparison to alternatives" which is... not wrong really, just complete nonsense. E: Unfortunately "exponential" just sounds too cool, so everybody goes for it. To push back we will need pick something else cool sounding. Maybe "nigh incomparably larger"
    - xyzzy21 5y ago
      Mathematically that's wrong.
      - bee_rider 5y ago
        What is? Their original statement I guess. I think it is more unparsable than wrong. I think the we should invite the philosophers and linguists in. From a programming point of view -- fatal compilation error, "exponential" is not a comparator.
  - windexh8er 5y ago
    Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? I'm not sure I'm following - because when I started to look at the waste in existing livestock lifecycle you begin to understand that it's never been efficient, nor has the industry done much to pivot with better methods. Here's a water footprint comparison [0]. Here's a study that showcases where: "Agriculture accounts for 92% of the freshwater footprint of humanity; almost one third relates to animal products." [1] And here's a study that showcases how many people could be fed by grain given the footprint of food livestock need to be raised and bred [2]. And here's data showcasing the significant delta of available land vs diet types for different nations [3], many being unsuitable without external use of land for food. [0] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221237171... [2] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
dragonwriter 5y ago
> comment was buried under variations of the same argument: the vast majority of people cannot be expected to give up meat, and therefore to help both the environment and their health, and to stop killing animals, we should offer them artificial meat. People historically have largely given up meat because it was too expensive at the time. To help the environment and stop killing animals, we should impose proper Pigovian taxes on meat (and/or the supporting process that directly produce the environmental impacts) so that they disutility imposed by eating meat is properly priced in. (This will also naturally create a demand for alternatives that substitute without the adverse effects to which taxes are attached.)
- toper-centage 5y ago
  No need to apply taxes on meat. Just stop subsidising animal husbandry, as well as subsidising crops dedicated to animal feed, and the true cost of meat will emerge.

by lqet 5y ago

windexh8er 5y ago

Most of the "real" processed meat has more overhead than its counterparts. Most people do not buy from a local butcher, to imply otherwise is turning a blind eye. They buy big brand overly processed "meat" that comes in a cardboard box wrapped in plastic just the same. With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. They also taint and pollute groundwater sources and contribute to a significant amount of food recalls due to the above. Lastly in the metro I live there are about a half dozen alt meat "butcher" shops that supply alt meats to consumers and local restaurants. They're insanely popular and have been for over 5 years now. There's great brand recognition of those alt meats on local menus. You don't often see that with "real" meat because there's not as much differentiation in the product in real meats, just price. A lot of the above points are simply ignoring facts and the market. Hopefully, like with EVs, more people can continue to make positive progress and acceptance with alternatives to real meats as we've been seeing.

lqet 5y ago
> With respect to "crazy overhead" animals require land, food and water at an exponential rate of consumption compared to alternatives. Why is the overhead exponential in the rate of consumption?
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Well, the claim isn't "exponential in the rate of consumption," it is "exponential in comparison to alternatives" which is... not wrong really, just complete nonsense. E: Unfortunately "exponential" just sounds too cool, so everybody goes for it. To push back we will need pick something else cool sounding. Maybe "nigh incomparably larger"
  - xyzzy21 5y ago
    Mathematically that's wrong.
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      What is? Their original statement I guess. I think it is more unparsable than wrong. I think the we should invite the philosophers and linguists in. From a programming point of view -- fatal compilation error, "exponential" is not a comparator.
- windexh8er 5y ago
  Is the implication that alt meats aren't being consumed and therefore more wasteful? I'm not sure I'm following - because when I started to look at the waste in existing livestock lifecycle you begin to understand that it's never been efficient, nor has the industry done much to pivot with better methods. Here's a water footprint comparison [0]. Here's a study that showcases where: "Agriculture accounts for 92% of the freshwater footprint of humanity; almost one third relates to animal products." [1] And here's a study that showcases how many people could be fed by grain given the footprint of food livestock need to be raised and bred [2]. And here's data showcasing the significant delta of available land vs diet types for different nations [3], many being unsuitable without external use of land for food. [0] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221237171... [2] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

dragonwriter 5y ago

> comment was buried under variations of the same argument: the vast majority of people cannot be expected to give up meat, and therefore to help both the environment and their health, and to stop killing animals, we should offer them artificial meat. People historically have largely given up meat because it was too expensive at the time. To help the environment and stop killing animals, we should impose proper Pigovian taxes on meat (and/or the supporting process that directly produce the environmental impacts) so that they disutility imposed by eating meat is properly priced in. (This will also naturally create a demand for alternatives that substitute without the adverse effects to which taxes are attached.)

toper-centage 5y ago
No need to apply taxes on meat. Just stop subsidising animal husbandry, as well as subsidising crops dedicated to animal feed, and the true cost of meat will emerge.