4 ms·
This is rehashing obvious information and complete nonsense. That's why companies like beyond meat, impossible foods, etc. exist. It's becoming "vegan" without
by invalidname 4y ago
This is rehashing obvious information and complete nonsense. That's why companies like beyond meat, impossible foods, etc. exist. It's becoming "vegan" without giving up on "meat". Yes, I know it isn't the same. The goal is to get it "good enough" and affordable. Once it's there, a lot of meat eaters will reduce "actual meat" intake and that's "effectively vegan".
Veganism is a growing trend in most places I go. But it will probably not cross the chasm without fake meat. That's the story.
- dang 4y agoPlease don't take HN threads into flamewar on predictably divisive topics. It leads to predictably shallow-indignant threads—the opposite of the curious conversation we're trying for here. Smil may be a provocateur but he's a smart and informed one and his arguments deserve specific responses, not generic dismissals.
- goodpoint 4y agoSay that to the author of the flamebait article.
- dang 4y agoI don't think that's an accurate read of Smil. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32288434. I haven't read much of him, mind you, but I don't suppose most people angrily dismissing his arguments have either. More generally: HN commenters need to stick to the site guidelines regardless of provocation. Would you guys mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? They're pretty clear about cases like this: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
- mrwnmonm 4y agoSerious question, can you see why people are angry here? They actually like to see wisdom and well written articles from this kind of institutions. People are angry here for good reason.
- dang 4y agoAbsolutely, I can see why people are angry – but the reactive style of post that it's leading to is against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and I think this is an interesting test case to make that point about.
- theshrike79 4y agoFake meat is the e-cigarette of the food world. It's a tool that can be used to transition from a bad thing to a less bad thing or even a good thing. Maybe in the future the Beyond Meats of the world are cheaper and clearly better for the environment than meat, but for now they are good tools to prove the doubters that not every meal needs to have a dead animal in it. We are at the point where an average non-meat option in a burger is better than a bad meat burger. The alternative options can't beat a premium burger though - not yet.
- bobkazamakis 4y ago>Fake meat is the e-cigarette of the food world. >It's a tool that can be used to transition from a bad thing to a less bad thing or even a good thing. It works well as a transition, but I don't think the end result is going to be "okay now we drop fake meat" -- there's nothing inherently unhealthy about fake meat.
- smileysteve 4y agoThere are a number of things unhealthy about fake meat; soy is an endocrine disruptor, some of the oils they use are hydrogenated. Black beans are less of an endocrine disruptor and pea protein even better.
- wyre 4y agoNeither the impossible or beyond burgers use hydrogenated oils. The beyond burger doesn’t use soy protein.