5 ms·

Thanks for a good laugh. FYI fox hunting is banned and your horse is high enough to use for hunting. > credible plant-based meats in 20 years What is a plant-

Thanks for a good laugh. FYI fox hunting is banned and your horse is high enough to use for hunting. > credible plant-based meats in 20 years What is a plant-based meat? I don't know of any plants with muscles.

4ad 14y ago
I downvoted you because you made zero effort in researching what the OP said before acting so dismissive. Depending on where you live, it's possible you never eaten nor seen meat substitutes made of soy, but before refuting a claim you should check some facts, not make a claim based on your own lack of knowledge about the subject. "I've never seen something therefore it must not exist".
- icebraining 14y ago
  Meat substitutes are not meat.
  - 4ad 14y ago
    Op's whole post was about meat substitutes. It was about replacing real meat with something else, a substitute. Op happens to call that substitute "plant based meat". In the context of his post, there is no confusion about what he could have meant.
  - spacemanaki 14y ago
    It's too bad michaelochurch didn't just say "plant protein" vs "animal protein", we could have avoided this inevitable nitpicking over technical details and semantics. Neither you or alexchamberlain actually address his underlying point, so I downvoted you too.
- alexchamberlain 14y ago
  Meat is animal muscle; plants don't have muscle. I have chosen to avoid meat substitutes, but I am aware of Quorn. I just didn't read the OPs post like that.
- malandrew 14y ago
  Soy meat products are absolutely awful. They fail to compete with everything but the most processed cheap meats. Soy hamburgers aren't even as good as the cheapest crappiest frozen bulk-store beef patties. They are a far far cry from being able to compete with a fresh patty made with fresh chuck. One of the biggest follies of the soy meat industry is trying to make their products healthy by default. Until they may a soy-based animal fat alternative, they don't have a fighting chance of competing. People who truly enjoy meat realize the importance of fatty tissue and how it contributes to flavor. Go eat a slice of nicely prepared picanha, fat rind and all, and then show me a soy-based product that is even in the same ballpark.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    Actually, soy "meat" doesn't even get that far - if you look at the nutrition information on a soy burger patty you'll find that it's full of fat. Like, ludicrous portions of fat that would compete with the fattiest ground beef you can buy. And it still tastes awful. In fact, if you look at a lot of soy meat substitutes out there, a lot of them are not at all good for you. The whole "soy meat healthier than real meat" thing is pure perception.
    - malandrew 14y ago
      Interesting. I'm going to have to check out the product packaging next time I'm in the supermarket.
  - kylebrown 14y ago
    I disagree, I much prefer the flavored soy patties eg BocaBurger brand to real hamburgers. They're also easier to prepare (just microwave) and with good mustard, delicious. The problem is that they cost substantially more than ground hamburger, not less (must be the vegan/"organic" lifestyle premium).
- revelation 14y ago
  Human populations, as with any other animal, grow exponentially until a point where the environment can no longer sustain such growth. You can of course use technology to push that further away (case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process). Eventually, though, you'll always get there: that's why plainly stating "humans will have fewer childs" is... I guess naive at best, deceptive at worst (humans will have fewer childs because no one will have the opportunity to). What happened here is that one particular luxury (meat) was cherry-picked, out of ideology, and then coated in the veil of population growth and sustenance. Thats distorting the point, because as the population continues to grow exponentially, any luxury will eventually subside. That can be a car, electricity, a toilet, more than a few square feet for yourself or your basic human rights.
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    > "Human populations, as with any other animal, grow exponentially" The "populations grow exponentially" argument was state of the art in 1798 [-1], but modern science has taught us that populations grow roughly logistically [0], not exponentially. It's easy to mistake for an exponential in the lower part of the curve (which is all the data we had in 1798), but once you know what to look for, you can see the difference clearly [1]. Of particular note, "exponential growth" means you'll see the same percentage growth rate every year, and larger and larger absolute growth. But what we actually see in humanity is that the percentage growth rate maxed out in the mid 1960s (about 2.2%; it's presently below 1.1%) and the absolute growth rate was at its peak in the late 1980s (88 million in 1989, down to about 75 million now) [2]. Every credible estimate of peak human population puts the number in the 9-12 billion range [3]. That's a lot of people, and will perhaps require some cutbacks, but it's nowhere near the dire levels you predict. [-1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Po... is the origin of the idea [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#In_ecology:_modeling_population_growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#In_ecology:_m... [1] http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image004.gif http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_populat... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growt...
- joelrunyon 14y ago
  There are actually quite a few documented problems with soy consumption. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/soy-scrutiny/#axzz1uJmF0GoG http://www.marksdailyapple.com/soy-scrutiny/#axzz1uJmF0GoG
wisty 14y ago
IIRC, you can grow fish-steaks in petrie dishes. The researchers who first did it claimed not to have eaten it (for legal reasons), but claim it smelt OK, when fried in butter. Mince would be easy to make. A real cut of meat (like a rib-eye) would be much harder, but if it's $5/pound for mince "steaks" (patties) and $30/pound for real steaks (massive world-wide demand for tender cuts, but no demand for the tough bits which used to go in hamburgers) then ... well ... people will go for the mince. And science will eventually give us 100% artificial steaks. Delicious, lab grown meat.
uptown 14y ago
Take a look at one of @biz's investments: http://www.thekitchn.com/twitter-co-founders-betting-big-on-a-beyond-meat-a-vegan-meat-startup-food-news-172811 http://www.thekitchn.com/twitter-co-founders-betting-big-on-...

4ad 14y ago

I downvoted you because you made zero effort in researching what the OP said before acting so dismissive. Depending on where you live, it's possible you never eaten nor seen meat substitutes made of soy, but before refuting a claim you should check some facts, not make a claim based on your own lack of knowledge about the subject. "I've never seen something therefore it must not exist".

icebraining 14y ago
Meat substitutes are not meat.
- 4ad 14y ago
  Op's whole post was about meat substitutes. It was about replacing real meat with something else, a substitute. Op happens to call that substitute "plant based meat". In the context of his post, there is no confusion about what he could have meant.
- spacemanaki 14y ago
  It's too bad michaelochurch didn't just say "plant protein" vs "animal protein", we could have avoided this inevitable nitpicking over technical details and semantics. Neither you or alexchamberlain actually address his underlying point, so I downvoted you too.
alexchamberlain 14y ago
Meat is animal muscle; plants don't have muscle. I have chosen to avoid meat substitutes, but I am aware of Quorn. I just didn't read the OPs post like that.
malandrew 14y ago
Soy meat products are absolutely awful. They fail to compete with everything but the most processed cheap meats. Soy hamburgers aren't even as good as the cheapest crappiest frozen bulk-store beef patties. They are a far far cry from being able to compete with a fresh patty made with fresh chuck. One of the biggest follies of the soy meat industry is trying to make their products healthy by default. Until they may a soy-based animal fat alternative, they don't have a fighting chance of competing. People who truly enjoy meat realize the importance of fatty tissue and how it contributes to flavor. Go eat a slice of nicely prepared picanha, fat rind and all, and then show me a soy-based product that is even in the same ballpark.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Actually, soy "meat" doesn't even get that far - if you look at the nutrition information on a soy burger patty you'll find that it's full of fat. Like, ludicrous portions of fat that would compete with the fattiest ground beef you can buy. And it still tastes awful. In fact, if you look at a lot of soy meat substitutes out there, a lot of them are not at all good for you. The whole "soy meat healthier than real meat" thing is pure perception.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    Interesting. I'm going to have to check out the product packaging next time I'm in the supermarket.
- kylebrown 14y ago
  I disagree, I much prefer the flavored soy patties eg BocaBurger brand to real hamburgers. They're also easier to prepare (just microwave) and with good mustard, delicious. The problem is that they cost substantially more than ground hamburger, not less (must be the vegan/"organic" lifestyle premium).
revelation 14y ago
Human populations, as with any other animal, grow exponentially until a point where the environment can no longer sustain such growth. You can of course use technology to push that further away (case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process). Eventually, though, you'll always get there: that's why plainly stating "humans will have fewer childs" is... I guess naive at best, deceptive at worst (humans will have fewer childs because no one will have the opportunity to). What happened here is that one particular luxury (meat) was cherry-picked, out of ideology, and then coated in the veil of population growth and sustenance. Thats distorting the point, because as the population continues to grow exponentially, any luxury will eventually subside. That can be a car, electricity, a toilet, more than a few square feet for yourself or your basic human rights.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  > "Human populations, as with any other animal, grow exponentially" The "populations grow exponentially" argument was state of the art in 1798 [-1], but modern science has taught us that populations grow roughly logistically [0], not exponentially. It's easy to mistake for an exponential in the lower part of the curve (which is all the data we had in 1798), but once you know what to look for, you can see the difference clearly [1]. Of particular note, "exponential growth" means you'll see the same percentage growth rate every year, and larger and larger absolute growth. But what we actually see in humanity is that the percentage growth rate maxed out in the mid 1960s (about 2.2%; it's presently below 1.1%) and the absolute growth rate was at its peak in the late 1980s (88 million in 1989, down to about 75 million now) [2]. Every credible estimate of peak human population puts the number in the 9-12 billion range [3]. That's a lot of people, and will perhaps require some cutbacks, but it's nowhere near the dire levels you predict. [-1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Po... is the origin of the idea [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#In_ecology:_modeling_population_growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#In_ecology:_m... [1] http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image004.gif http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_populat... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growt...
joelrunyon 14y ago
There are actually quite a few documented problems with soy consumption. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/soy-scrutiny/#axzz1uJmF0GoG http://www.marksdailyapple.com/soy-scrutiny/#axzz1uJmF0GoG

wisty 14y ago

IIRC, you can grow fish-steaks in petrie dishes. The researchers who first did it claimed not to have eaten it (for legal reasons), but claim it smelt OK, when fried in butter. Mince would be easy to make. A real cut of meat (like a rib-eye) would be much harder, but if it's $5/pound for mince "steaks" (patties) and $30/pound for real steaks (massive world-wide demand for tender cuts, but no demand for the tough bits which used to go in hamburgers) then ... well ... people will go for the mince. And science will eventually give us 100% artificial steaks. Delicious, lab grown meat.

uptown 14y ago

Take a look at one of @biz's investments: http://www.thekitchn.com/twitter-co-founders-betting-big-on-a-beyond-meat-a-vegan-meat-startup-food-news-172811 http://www.thekitchn.com/twitter-co-founders-betting-big-on-...