5 ms·

>many promising social, economic, and environmental benefits of a transition to synthetic and plant-based food Can you elaborate on that?

codetrotter 3y ago
“Meat production accounts for 57 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire food production industry. It also results in widespread deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and each of these means that it significantly contributes to climate change.” https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/ https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-env...
- m_a_g 3y ago
  Those are heavily disputed claims.
  - Sharlin 3y ago
    How can they be disputed? It's a fact clear as a day that deforestation in many places is caused by people making room for farmland… that don't produce food for people but fodder for livestock. And livestock has a calorie conversion efficiency much lower than unity. So you need to cut more forest to feed the same number of people. It can also scarcely be disputed that cattle produce large amounts of methane, enough that it's a significant factor in total greenhouse emissions. There's also no disputing the fact that turning uncultivated land into monocultural farmland is a great cause of biodiversity loss – it's essentially the definition of farmland!
    - DrThunder 3y ago
      [dead]
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    Which ones?
  - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
    In what reality ...?! > For instance, replacing beef with beans in the US could free up 42% of US cropland https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184671/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184671/ > Global soy production has increased more than 10-fold over the past 50 years. This has been driven by increased demand for meat https://ourworldindata.org/soy https://ourworldindata.org/soy Sorry but i have to call you out here, because the list of sources is huge and it is even common sense, that meat consumption requires more resources. I think you urgently need to esacpe the bullshito sphere in which this is disputed. It is sickening to read such ad hoc bs on evident and pressing issues.
  - bborud 3y ago
    If you mean the claim that the beef, pork, poultry, eggs and milk represents a huge emissions footprint, then no. That's not in dispute and it isn't particularly hard to prove that by looking at how much of the agricultural output goes into producing these protein sources. And that's _before_ you consider the emissions from raising cattle, swine or poultry. It is also useful to consider the scale of these industries. In terms of biomass, livestock represents more than 30 times the biomass of land based wildlife. In terms of creatures living on land, our food completely dominates the planet. And if you wonder: I eat meat (in moderation) and I plan to continue doing so as part of a healthy, balanced diet. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of the environmental cost of what I eat. If we're going to keep eating animal proteins we can't ignore this as the global population grows, and even more importantly, as more and more of the global population is moving up the wealth ladder (see Hans Rosling's talks and how the global population is moving out of the lower income categories).
    - brvsft 3y ago
      > I do a thing that I consider bad, but I understand that it is bad, therefore I am good. This is always one of my favorite takes.
      - bborud 3y ago
        Are you projecting your own need to have others think you are good? I can assure you I have no need to make strangers think I'm good. The point I was making was that it is possible to know, and acknowledge, that you are doing something that has negative impact without having to deny reality. I don't think anything is gained by departing from what observed reality tells us and turning the discussion into a moral discussion. When something becomes a moral discussion it stops being about solving problems and it becomes a spectacle where assholes unashamedly pleasure themselves in public and expect applause. It solves nothing.
- bloggie 3y ago
  Does synthetic food show or promise improvements in any of these aspects?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jprete 3y ago
  The atmosphere is almost the best example of a commons that we have. If a reason for cultivated meat is greenhouse gas emissions, then Italy misses out on virtually none of the benefits by banning it.
- xinayder 3y ago
  Now can you elaborate on how/why is lab-produced synthetic food based on plants better for our organism? won't they qualify as ultra-processed products, so you're pretty much trading your health for protecting the environment?
  - wredue 3y ago
    Ignoring that cultivated meats should be generally indistinguishable from their host, there are many ways that cultivated meats will be better for humanity Animals tend to be parasitic hosts, which is where lots of our cooking temperature guidelines come from Animal / human viral crossovers can make more deadly virus variants, so reducing that exposure is probably better for us Cultivated meats should ultimately result in lower emissions, so if you’re anywhere near a coal fired plant, that will directly result in lower cancer rates This should similarly have a positive impact on climate change
    - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
      Foodborne parasites are not a major health problem in the developed world. A litany of ills stemming from ultra processed foods are. Your reply doesn't seem to have actually addressed the question raised in the previous comment.
      - bakuninsbart 3y ago
        Ultra-processed does not necessarily imply being unhealthy, and lab-grown meat isn't ultra-processed. Arguably, it is less processed than farm-grown meat. And it doesn't involve the extreme suffering of animals, a point not even raised yet, but far more important than your health.
    - xinayder 3y ago
      Okay but what about the actual benefits for our health? All these things you mentioned have little to no effect on our health (nutrition wise).
      - 3y ago
- throwaway17295 3y ago
  I was under assumption deforestation is mainly happening in developing nations, is meat production causing deforestation in Italy?
preisschild 3y ago
Synthetic meat can be cheaper, more environmentally friendly and more ethical at scale.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  IMHO fake meat is less appealing than regular plant-based options. But if you want people to eat less meat, people need to stop pushing for full-on veganism. Taking away cheese, milk, and eggs is just way too much for many people. Focus on 'less meat, more veg' and you may have a more palatable message.
- ct0 3y ago
  So lower quality than real meat, and higher cost? I only took economics yesterday, but wouldn't that be a net negative on those who go to sleep hungry(children) since costs are higher and a decline in demand for animal meat.
  - TotempaaltJ 3y ago
    > lower quality than real meat Strawman, no one said anything about the quality of the meat. > higher cost Literally the opposite of what GP said? > those who go to sleep hungry(children) Weird appeal to emotion.
    - ct0 3y ago
      Costs are multitudes higher for synthetic meat right now. Some of these decision on paper may sound good, but ultimately will people be able to afford it with all of the environmentally friendly and sustainable boxes checked was my point. Do you like the taste of fake meat?
  - bakuninsbart 3y ago
    Those who go hungry eat beans not meat.
martin_a 3y ago
Not OP, but I think the effects of modern meat production are well known. Especially when we apply higher standards on how to take care of farm animals, there's simply not enough room to fulfill "the meat needs" of an ever-growing population in the world. On the other hand, plants are fine with being stacked and raised by artificial light sources and finely setup nutrient solutions and whatnot. So by changing our food (production) chains to more plant-based, industrialized systems we can reduce the space needed for food production and also the economical and ecological impact.
- TotempaaltJ 3y ago
  > plants are fine with being stacked and raised by artificial light sources and finely setup nutrient solutions and whatnot We also don't even need to do that to produce plenty of plant protein for the world population. Current farming output is way more than enough to sustain us all several times over: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Hmm, stacked and raised... Artificial light... That sounds like how eggs are produced... Broilers are not stacked, but I suppose if land was at premium like in downtowns it could be also be done in skyscrapers...
  - martin_a 3y ago
    Yes, but plants are not breathing, feeling animals.

codetrotter 3y ago

“Meat production accounts for 57 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire food production industry. It also results in widespread deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and each of these means that it significantly contributes to climate change.” https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/ https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-env...

m_a_g 3y ago
Those are heavily disputed claims.
- Sharlin 3y ago
  How can they be disputed? It's a fact clear as a day that deforestation in many places is caused by people making room for farmland… that don't produce food for people but fodder for livestock. And livestock has a calorie conversion efficiency much lower than unity. So you need to cut more forest to feed the same number of people. It can also scarcely be disputed that cattle produce large amounts of methane, enough that it's a significant factor in total greenhouse emissions. There's also no disputing the fact that turning uncultivated land into monocultural farmland is a great cause of biodiversity loss – it's essentially the definition of farmland!
  - DrThunder 3y ago
    [dead]
- Hikikomori 3y ago
  Which ones?
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago
  In what reality ...?! > For instance, replacing beef with beans in the US could free up 42% of US cropland https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184671/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184671/ > Global soy production has increased more than 10-fold over the past 50 years. This has been driven by increased demand for meat https://ourworldindata.org/soy https://ourworldindata.org/soy Sorry but i have to call you out here, because the list of sources is huge and it is even common sense, that meat consumption requires more resources. I think you urgently need to esacpe the bullshito sphere in which this is disputed. It is sickening to read such ad hoc bs on evident and pressing issues.
- bborud 3y ago
  If you mean the claim that the beef, pork, poultry, eggs and milk represents a huge emissions footprint, then no. That's not in dispute and it isn't particularly hard to prove that by looking at how much of the agricultural output goes into producing these protein sources. And that's _before_ you consider the emissions from raising cattle, swine or poultry. It is also useful to consider the scale of these industries. In terms of biomass, livestock represents more than 30 times the biomass of land based wildlife. In terms of creatures living on land, our food completely dominates the planet. And if you wonder: I eat meat (in moderation) and I plan to continue doing so as part of a healthy, balanced diet. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of the environmental cost of what I eat. If we're going to keep eating animal proteins we can't ignore this as the global population grows, and even more importantly, as more and more of the global population is moving up the wealth ladder (see Hans Rosling's talks and how the global population is moving out of the lower income categories).
  - brvsft 3y ago
    > I do a thing that I consider bad, but I understand that it is bad, therefore I am good. This is always one of my favorite takes.
    - bborud 3y ago
      Are you projecting your own need to have others think you are good? I can assure you I have no need to make strangers think I'm good. The point I was making was that it is possible to know, and acknowledge, that you are doing something that has negative impact without having to deny reality. I don't think anything is gained by departing from what observed reality tells us and turning the discussion into a moral discussion. When something becomes a moral discussion it stops being about solving problems and it becomes a spectacle where assholes unashamedly pleasure themselves in public and expect applause. It solves nothing.
bloggie 3y ago
Does synthetic food show or promise improvements in any of these aspects?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jprete 3y ago
The atmosphere is almost the best example of a commons that we have. If a reason for cultivated meat is greenhouse gas emissions, then Italy misses out on virtually none of the benefits by banning it.
xinayder 3y ago
Now can you elaborate on how/why is lab-produced synthetic food based on plants better for our organism? won't they qualify as ultra-processed products, so you're pretty much trading your health for protecting the environment?
- wredue 3y ago
  Ignoring that cultivated meats should be generally indistinguishable from their host, there are many ways that cultivated meats will be better for humanity Animals tend to be parasitic hosts, which is where lots of our cooking temperature guidelines come from Animal / human viral crossovers can make more deadly virus variants, so reducing that exposure is probably better for us Cultivated meats should ultimately result in lower emissions, so if you’re anywhere near a coal fired plant, that will directly result in lower cancer rates This should similarly have a positive impact on climate change
  - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
    Foodborne parasites are not a major health problem in the developed world. A litany of ills stemming from ultra processed foods are. Your reply doesn't seem to have actually addressed the question raised in the previous comment.
    - bakuninsbart 3y ago
      Ultra-processed does not necessarily imply being unhealthy, and lab-grown meat isn't ultra-processed. Arguably, it is less processed than farm-grown meat. And it doesn't involve the extreme suffering of animals, a point not even raised yet, but far more important than your health.
  - xinayder 3y ago
    Okay but what about the actual benefits for our health? All these things you mentioned have little to no effect on our health (nutrition wise).
    - 3y ago
throwaway17295 3y ago
I was under assumption deforestation is mainly happening in developing nations, is meat production causing deforestation in Italy?

preisschild 3y ago

Synthetic meat can be cheaper, more environmentally friendly and more ethical at scale.

bluescrn 3y ago
IMHO fake meat is less appealing than regular plant-based options. But if you want people to eat less meat, people need to stop pushing for full-on veganism. Taking away cheese, milk, and eggs is just way too much for many people. Focus on 'less meat, more veg' and you may have a more palatable message.
ct0 3y ago
So lower quality than real meat, and higher cost? I only took economics yesterday, but wouldn't that be a net negative on those who go to sleep hungry(children) since costs are higher and a decline in demand for animal meat.
- TotempaaltJ 3y ago
  > lower quality than real meat Strawman, no one said anything about the quality of the meat. > higher cost Literally the opposite of what GP said? > those who go to sleep hungry(children) Weird appeal to emotion.
  - ct0 3y ago
    Costs are multitudes higher for synthetic meat right now. Some of these decision on paper may sound good, but ultimately will people be able to afford it with all of the environmentally friendly and sustainable boxes checked was my point. Do you like the taste of fake meat?
- bakuninsbart 3y ago
  Those who go hungry eat beans not meat.

martin_a 3y ago

Not OP, but I think the effects of modern meat production are well known. Especially when we apply higher standards on how to take care of farm animals, there's simply not enough room to fulfill "the meat needs" of an ever-growing population in the world. On the other hand, plants are fine with being stacked and raised by artificial light sources and finely setup nutrient solutions and whatnot. So by changing our food (production) chains to more plant-based, industrialized systems we can reduce the space needed for food production and also the economical and ecological impact.

TotempaaltJ 3y ago
> plants are fine with being stacked and raised by artificial light sources and finely setup nutrient solutions and whatnot We also don't even need to do that to produce plenty of plant protein for the world population. Current farming output is way more than enough to sustain us all several times over: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Ekaros 3y ago
Hmm, stacked and raised... Artificial light... That sounds like how eggs are produced... Broilers are not stacked, but I suppose if land was at premium like in downtowns it could be also be done in skyscrapers...
- martin_a 3y ago
  Yes, but plants are not breathing, feeling animals.