5 ms·

It’s just such a shame all 8 billion earthlings are so addicted to food!

themk 3y ago
There are other foods that do not carry this risk.
malermeister 3y ago
It doesn't need to be produced through the incredible wasteful in-between animal. People can either eat straight up plant-based food, or alternatively go for lab grown meat. There's no need to go through all the inefficiency and suffering of factory farms.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  Are you vegan?
  - malermeister 3y ago
    I am not, but I have a lot of respect for people who are. Personally, I'm too selfish and animal products taste too good.
    - pc86 3y ago
      Maybe you should stick to plant-based food and lab grown meat before telling other people to stop eating animals and go to plant-based food and lab grown meat.
      - malermeister 3y ago
        Why?
- al_borland 3y ago
  I’ve seen videos about lab grown meat being in development. Is it actually available and available at scale? I haven’t looked to see if studies have been done to look at the nutritional profile of lab grown vs normal meat. I’d be curious about that as well before I tried it.
  - kalium-xyz 3y ago
    Its not really economic to grow it at scale and how to scale it up is as of yet unsolved last I checked.
  - lettergram 3y ago
    I find the idea of lab grown meat almost comical… So we have these animals, which eat plants and generate fuel (poop) & food (meat). Our bodies are adapted to eating them, our bodies need the same nutrients, and we’re programmed to enjoy the food. The input to this process is mostly grass and grain, both generated via solar power. Now instead… we take grain, highly process it and make someone few people enjoy, with less nutrients, and likely some unforeseen by products. They can then sell it at a higher price. At the end of the day, we know what works. It doesn’t make sense to try and reinvent the wheel without benefit.
    - roywiggins 3y ago
      Lab-grown meat is meat, not grain. It's produced in bioreactors and the like. It doesn't really exist in any meaningful sense yet, though.
      - lettergram 3y ago
        It also has to have some inputs, which come from things like grain. The more interesting part, is imo there will be a lot of nutrition we miss
        roywiggins 3y ago
        Much meat already uses grain as a substantial part of its input already...
lm28469 3y ago
We waste like 1/3rd of the food and half of the planet is overweight/obese, I think we could slow down a bit tbh
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > half of the planet is overweight/obese, I think we could slow down a bit tbh I don't think half of the planet is overweight or obese due to meat consumption. If anything, take away the meat (or make it more expensive) and it'd probably lead to even more obesity.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    The meat is consumed deep friend and slathered with sugar (barbecue sauce is usually pretty much all sugar). But also, dairy products can be thrown in this discussion too.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    Middle Ages peasants ate meat rarely. They were not obese.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      They also didn't eat a lot of fries, sugared beverages, ultra-processed food, etc... which is easily available nowadays and likely to be consumed when one doesn't feel satiated (e.g. due to meat consumption). That's not to say that there aren't alternatives to meat that also satiate and are nutritious, but most people don't consider them to be equally delicious and therefore they are not as likely to be consumed if meat isn't available.
      - triceratops 3y ago
        That means the obesity isn't due to meat or a lack of meat, per se. It's the diet outside of the meat. > fries, sugared beverages...which is likely to be consumed when one doesn't feel satiated (e.g. due to meat consumption). You know what goes really well with a juicy hamburger or a steak? Crisp fries, and a cool, refreshing, tall glass of Coke (maybe not the Coke so much with a steak), or a frosty milkshake.
danielbln 3y ago
Are you saying we require this late-stage capitalism style factory farming in order to feed 8 billion people? I'm going to say that there is gamut between having a cheap T-bone on your plate every evening and global starvation.
mailund 3y ago
not my field, but isn't meat pretty lossy compression food-wise? IIRC, feeding an animal to later eat instead of just eating what the animal would eat wastes like 90% (not sure of the exact figure) of the calories. So if we just ate the plants directly and easily cover our caloric needs without going through the cow-middleman. Kind of like, instead of feeding the cows a bunch of soy and then eating the cow, just eat the soy as tofu or edamame instead. Of course a lot of people prefer eating meat, but that's besides the point.
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  So you chow down on a nice plate of grass? Humans can't derive nutrition that way.
  - 2024throwaway 3y ago
    This is a valid argument and not at all reductive. Obviously grass is the only plant available to humans to eat. /s
    - slowmovintarget 3y ago
      "...eating what the animal would eat..." There's reason that life on Earth exists in a food chain. In this case many of the animals humans eat consume and digest things we cannot. This particular discussion was about cattle and humans deriving nutrition from the milk they produce and the meat they yield. From that perspective, cows and steers as intermediaries provide such a distinct advantage that genetic mutation that allows some humans to digest cow milk drove the flourishing of those civilizations. Grazing animals, properly fed (this is what we need to fix), eat mostly grass. We need that middle step. Just like we need the intermediate steps of plants extracting nutrients from the soil and turning sunlight into usable calories for us. We can't eat dirt and drink sunshine, either. Of course those aren't the only things to eat. But that's the argument I was responding to. The "cut out the middle man" argument really doesn't work. The argument should be "here are better alternatives."
      - 3y ago
addicted 3y ago
Animal agriculture uses up 80% of the land and provides humanity 20% of its protein. All those addicted people will be able to satisfy their food addiction at significantly lower costs and consumption of resources by switching to a plant based diet. Drastically reduced spread of diseases, reduced overuse of antibiotics, environmental benefits are just bonuses. Not to mention the fact that your grandkids won’t think you’re moral monsters for torturing and murdering sentient beings.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  Meh, I’ve been hearing that for like 30 years (and much of it is empirically correct) but meat consumption has just steadily, slowly increased. I’d bet literally everything that two generations from down from me (which would be basically kids being born starting around now) most people will still be eating meat.

There are other foods that do not carry this risk.

It doesn't need to be produced through the incredible wasteful in-between animal. People can either eat straight up plant-based food, or alternatively go for lab grown meat. There's no need to go through all the inefficiency and suffering of factory farms.

bamboozled 3y ago
Are you vegan?
- malermeister 3y ago
  I am not, but I have a lot of respect for people who are. Personally, I'm too selfish and animal products taste too good.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Maybe you should stick to plant-based food and lab grown meat before telling other people to stop eating animals and go to plant-based food and lab grown meat.
    - malermeister 3y ago
      Why?
al_borland 3y ago
I’ve seen videos about lab grown meat being in development. Is it actually available and available at scale? I haven’t looked to see if studies have been done to look at the nutritional profile of lab grown vs normal meat. I’d be curious about that as well before I tried it.
- kalium-xyz 3y ago
  Its not really economic to grow it at scale and how to scale it up is as of yet unsolved last I checked.
- lettergram 3y ago
  I find the idea of lab grown meat almost comical… So we have these animals, which eat plants and generate fuel (poop) & food (meat). Our bodies are adapted to eating them, our bodies need the same nutrients, and we’re programmed to enjoy the food. The input to this process is mostly grass and grain, both generated via solar power. Now instead… we take grain, highly process it and make someone few people enjoy, with less nutrients, and likely some unforeseen by products. They can then sell it at a higher price. At the end of the day, we know what works. It doesn’t make sense to try and reinvent the wheel without benefit.
  - roywiggins 3y ago
    Lab-grown meat is meat, not grain. It's produced in bioreactors and the like. It doesn't really exist in any meaningful sense yet, though.
    - lettergram 3y ago
      It also has to have some inputs, which come from things like grain. The more interesting part, is imo there will be a lot of nutrition we miss
      - roywiggins 3y ago
        Much meat already uses grain as a substantial part of its input already...

lm28469 3y ago

We waste like 1/3rd of the food and half of the planet is overweight/obese, I think we could slow down a bit tbh

someplaceguy 3y ago
> half of the planet is overweight/obese, I think we could slow down a bit tbh I don't think half of the planet is overweight or obese due to meat consumption. If anything, take away the meat (or make it more expensive) and it'd probably lead to even more obesity.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The meat is consumed deep friend and slathered with sugar (barbecue sauce is usually pretty much all sugar). But also, dairy products can be thrown in this discussion too.
- triceratops 3y ago
  Middle Ages peasants ate meat rarely. They were not obese.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    They also didn't eat a lot of fries, sugared beverages, ultra-processed food, etc... which is easily available nowadays and likely to be consumed when one doesn't feel satiated (e.g. due to meat consumption). That's not to say that there aren't alternatives to meat that also satiate and are nutritious, but most people don't consider them to be equally delicious and therefore they are not as likely to be consumed if meat isn't available.
    - triceratops 3y ago
      That means the obesity isn't due to meat or a lack of meat, per se. It's the diet outside of the meat. > fries, sugared beverages...which is likely to be consumed when one doesn't feel satiated (e.g. due to meat consumption). You know what goes really well with a juicy hamburger or a steak? Crisp fries, and a cool, refreshing, tall glass of Coke (maybe not the Coke so much with a steak), or a frosty milkshake.

danielbln 3y ago

Are you saying we require this late-stage capitalism style factory farming in order to feed 8 billion people? I'm going to say that there is gamut between having a cheap T-bone on your plate every evening and global starvation.

mailund 3y ago

not my field, but isn't meat pretty lossy compression food-wise? IIRC, feeding an animal to later eat instead of just eating what the animal would eat wastes like 90% (not sure of the exact figure) of the calories. So if we just ate the plants directly and easily cover our caloric needs without going through the cow-middleman. Kind of like, instead of feeding the cows a bunch of soy and then eating the cow, just eat the soy as tofu or edamame instead. Of course a lot of people prefer eating meat, but that's besides the point.

slowmovintarget 3y ago
So you chow down on a nice plate of grass? Humans can't derive nutrition that way.
- 2024throwaway 3y ago
  This is a valid argument and not at all reductive. Obviously grass is the only plant available to humans to eat. /s
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    "...eating what the animal would eat..." There's reason that life on Earth exists in a food chain. In this case many of the animals humans eat consume and digest things we cannot. This particular discussion was about cattle and humans deriving nutrition from the milk they produce and the meat they yield. From that perspective, cows and steers as intermediaries provide such a distinct advantage that genetic mutation that allows some humans to digest cow milk drove the flourishing of those civilizations. Grazing animals, properly fed (this is what we need to fix), eat mostly grass. We need that middle step. Just like we need the intermediate steps of plants extracting nutrients from the soil and turning sunlight into usable calories for us. We can't eat dirt and drink sunshine, either. Of course those aren't the only things to eat. But that's the argument I was responding to. The "cut out the middle man" argument really doesn't work. The argument should be "here are better alternatives."
    - 3y ago

addicted 3y ago

Animal agriculture uses up 80% of the land and provides humanity 20% of its protein. All those addicted people will be able to satisfy their food addiction at significantly lower costs and consumption of resources by switching to a plant based diet. Drastically reduced spread of diseases, reduced overuse of antibiotics, environmental benefits are just bonuses. Not to mention the fact that your grandkids won’t think you’re moral monsters for torturing and murdering sentient beings.

mattmaroon 3y ago
Meh, I’ve been hearing that for like 30 years (and much of it is empirically correct) but meat consumption has just steadily, slowly increased. I’d bet literally everything that two generations from down from me (which would be basically kids being born starting around now) most people will still be eating meat.