3 ms·

I'm the opposite, I love meat, but hate the animal suffering. Even if it tastes half as good and costs around the same, I will switch.

by rorrr2 13y ago

prawn 13y ago
"I love mean, but hate the animal suffering." Awkward typo!
sdoering 13y ago
Maybe, just maybe buying animal-products, where the animals didn't suffer, where they were raised species-appropriate, would help, as it would be a ecological signal as well. If more people would do that, a lot more incentives would be there, to not let animals suffer just for human consumption. Since I switched to only eating animal products, where I know, how the animals lived, I do eat a lot less meat. i do pay a lot more (and I do that consciously). And I have the benefit, that it also does taste so much better, that I really enjoy this in more then one way, when I eat it (sometimes pork-steak, sometimes ham, sometimes goat-salami). We buy at a local farm, that raise, slaughter and process the meat all by themselves, and produce at least 50% of the food that is needed for raising the animals on the farm itself. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioland#Certification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioland#Certification) So for me this was a viable alternative - but I could understand, if this is not possible in other circumstances of life.
- paganel 13y ago
  > Maybe, just maybe buying animal-products, where the animals didn't suffer, where they were raised species-appropriate, would help, as it would be a ecological signal as well. This is very hard to do in most of the "first world" places because agriculture or raising animals doesn't scale that well unless you do it on an industrial scale. Now, you and me and a couple of others maybe can afford to pay extra for meat products, but for the vast majority of people who expect a shawarma not to cost more than 2-3 euros the reality is bleaker.
  - wprl 13y ago
    When you consider the real costs of unsustainable, industrialized agriculture† a very different picture emerges. The convenience of industrialized, globalized, corporate food infrastructure doesn't outweigh the long-term costs. This basic misunderstanding of how food gets to your plate was featured prominently in a recent NY Times piece claiming the McDouble was the "cheapest, most nutritious" food ever. The upfront cost reflects the way the food economy is structured. The food economy could be, and is being, restructured in small steps to bring the price in line with industrialized agriculture, if people would make the rational choice for health and lower long-term cost over convenience. I can buy local pork for the same price as industrialized grocery store pork if I buy in bulk, but that does require a chest freezer. (Patchwork Farms, Columbia, MO) † e.g. lower nutritional value, centralization, fewer jobs, lower wages, taxes for subsidizing fast food, questionable human rights and environmental practices, reduced biodiversity, etc., etc.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Did you just call it a cost that farm work would become more efficient and need fewer man hours for the same productivity?
      - wprl 13y ago
        No, mechanization isn't really an issue. Production and distribution are where the problems lie.
- cenhyperion 13y ago
  > Maybe, just maybe buying animal-products, where the animals didn't suffer, where they were raised species-appropriate, would help, as it would be a ecological signal as well. This is almost impossible to do unless you have great connections and a lot of time and money to spare. Somewhere around 75% of beef and 99% of turkey and chicken farming is industrial factory farming. Organic and free range mean almost nothing in regards to animal suffering. Props to you for finding one of the few good farms. If you're concerned about animal suffering not eating meat is the cheap and easy solution at this point. That's why developments like this actually make me excited.
wikiburner 13y ago
Exactly. The benefits to ending animal suffering, the environment, and maybe even human health could be amazing if they could produce molecularly identical artificial meat, but the one interesting aspect of it is that as a consequence of our wanting to avoid animal cruelty, billions of animals will never exist. I know it might be silly to question whether a chicken or cow would prefer existence with a cruel end to nothing, but it's still kind of an interesting thought. As usual, Louis CK put it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3c0THQbdDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3c0THQbdDE
- mistercow 13y ago
  I am pretty OK with not creating experiential entities merely to put them through a lifetime of suffering and a painful end. My ethics don't put that much utility on total amount of experience in the world, so having fewer entities in pain is OK with me.
- consonants 13y ago
  Like the other domesticated animals that once had a vital purpose in human society, there will be people who will continue to raise them simply because they view them as companions and not a commodity. That's a noble goal, in my opinion.
kokey 13y ago
It doesn't even have to taste like normal beef. As long as it can be made tasty in other ways, I would happily pay more than for beef just to have another interesting source of protein.
- asciimo 13y ago
  There are plenty of plant-based products available right now that meet this criteria. Find a local Veggie Grill for a taste. http://www.veggiegrill.com/ http://www.veggiegrill.com/
rsl7 13y ago
As someone who eats an entirely plant-based diet, it sounds like a terrible idea. If it tastes half as good as actual meat, then it will be much worse than even the cheapest, overprocessed soy protein 'burgers' in the frozen food section of the grocery store. Seriously.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Low quality meat can get a hell of a lot of milage, if you know how to use it. Obviously you aren't going to be sitting down in front of a plate of vat-meat and veggies for a candlelit dinner anytime soon, but as one ingredient of many in a cheap but serviceable lasagna? Sure! Don't get me wrong, soy products are great and I eat a ton of them, but they aren't meat. They are a different food in their own right.
- rorrr2 13y ago
  Bull. Shit. My wife is a vegetarian. I've tried probably 8-10 different brands of vegie burgers and chicken nuggets. They don't taste even remotely like meat. Some do taste alright, I admit. Another problem is price. You would think soy products would be cheaper than meat. Nope. So freaking expensive.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > You would think soy products would be cheaper than meat. Why would I think that highly processed products of the isolation and retexturing and reflavoring of soy products would be less expensive than meat, which is usually pretty minimally processed? The raw materials cost of the soy product might be lower (depending on what else is added for flavor and texture, even that might not be true), but you can't really ignore the processing cost.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Sure, it has to be processed, but you get an order of magnitude more food per acre when you remove the cow step. I wouldn't have expected processing to be the vast majority of the cost.

I'm the opposite, I love meat, but hate the animal suffering. Even if it tastes half as good and costs around the same, I will switch.

by rorrr2 13y ago

I'm the opposite, I love meat, but hate the animal suffering. Even if it tastes half as good and costs around the same, I will switch.

prawn 13y ago

"I love mean, but hate the animal suffering." Awkward typo!

sdoering 13y ago

Maybe, just maybe buying animal-products, where the animals didn't suffer, where they were raised species-appropriate, would help, as it would be a ecological signal as well. If more people would do that, a lot more incentives would be there, to not let animals suffer just for human consumption. Since I switched to only eating animal products, where I know, how the animals lived, I do eat a lot less meat. i do pay a lot more (and I do that consciously). And I have the benefit, that it also does taste so much better, that I really enjoy this in more then one way, when I eat it (sometimes pork-steak, sometimes ham, sometimes goat-salami). We buy at a local farm, that raise, slaughter and process the meat all by themselves, and produce at least 50% of the food that is needed for raising the animals on the farm itself. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioland#Certification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioland#Certification) So for me this was a viable alternative - but I could understand, if this is not possible in other circumstances of life.

paganel 13y ago
> Maybe, just maybe buying animal-products, where the animals didn't suffer, where they were raised species-appropriate, would help, as it would be a ecological signal as well. This is very hard to do in most of the "first world" places because agriculture or raising animals doesn't scale that well unless you do it on an industrial scale. Now, you and me and a couple of others maybe can afford to pay extra for meat products, but for the vast majority of people who expect a shawarma not to cost more than 2-3 euros the reality is bleaker.
- wprl 13y ago
  When you consider the real costs of unsustainable, industrialized agriculture† a very different picture emerges. The convenience of industrialized, globalized, corporate food infrastructure doesn't outweigh the long-term costs. This basic misunderstanding of how food gets to your plate was featured prominently in a recent NY Times piece claiming the McDouble was the "cheapest, most nutritious" food ever. The upfront cost reflects the way the food economy is structured. The food economy could be, and is being, restructured in small steps to bring the price in line with industrialized agriculture, if people would make the rational choice for health and lower long-term cost over convenience. I can buy local pork for the same price as industrialized grocery store pork if I buy in bulk, but that does require a chest freezer. (Patchwork Farms, Columbia, MO) † e.g. lower nutritional value, centralization, fewer jobs, lower wages, taxes for subsidizing fast food, questionable human rights and environmental practices, reduced biodiversity, etc., etc.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Did you just call it a cost that farm work would become more efficient and need fewer man hours for the same productivity?
    - wprl 13y ago
      No, mechanization isn't really an issue. Production and distribution are where the problems lie.
cenhyperion 13y ago
> Maybe, just maybe buying animal-products, where the animals didn't suffer, where they were raised species-appropriate, would help, as it would be a ecological signal as well. This is almost impossible to do unless you have great connections and a lot of time and money to spare. Somewhere around 75% of beef and 99% of turkey and chicken farming is industrial factory farming. Organic and free range mean almost nothing in regards to animal suffering. Props to you for finding one of the few good farms. If you're concerned about animal suffering not eating meat is the cheap and easy solution at this point. That's why developments like this actually make me excited.

wikiburner 13y ago

Exactly. The benefits to ending animal suffering, the environment, and maybe even human health could be amazing if they could produce molecularly identical artificial meat, but the one interesting aspect of it is that as a consequence of our wanting to avoid animal cruelty, billions of animals will never exist. I know it might be silly to question whether a chicken or cow would prefer existence with a cruel end to nothing, but it's still kind of an interesting thought. As usual, Louis CK put it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3c0THQbdDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3c0THQbdDE

mistercow 13y ago
I am pretty OK with not creating experiential entities merely to put them through a lifetime of suffering and a painful end. My ethics don't put that much utility on total amount of experience in the world, so having fewer entities in pain is OK with me.
consonants 13y ago
Like the other domesticated animals that once had a vital purpose in human society, there will be people who will continue to raise them simply because they view them as companions and not a commodity. That's a noble goal, in my opinion.

kokey 13y ago

It doesn't even have to taste like normal beef. As long as it can be made tasty in other ways, I would happily pay more than for beef just to have another interesting source of protein.

asciimo 13y ago
There are plenty of plant-based products available right now that meet this criteria. Find a local Veggie Grill for a taste. http://www.veggiegrill.com/ http://www.veggiegrill.com/

rsl7 13y ago

As someone who eats an entirely plant-based diet, it sounds like a terrible idea. If it tastes half as good as actual meat, then it will be much worse than even the cheapest, overprocessed soy protein 'burgers' in the frozen food section of the grocery store. Seriously.

jlgreco 13y ago
Low quality meat can get a hell of a lot of milage, if you know how to use it. Obviously you aren't going to be sitting down in front of a plate of vat-meat and veggies for a candlelit dinner anytime soon, but as one ingredient of many in a cheap but serviceable lasagna? Sure! Don't get me wrong, soy products are great and I eat a ton of them, but they aren't meat. They are a different food in their own right.
rorrr2 13y ago
Bull. Shit. My wife is a vegetarian. I've tried probably 8-10 different brands of vegie burgers and chicken nuggets. They don't taste even remotely like meat. Some do taste alright, I admit. Another problem is price. You would think soy products would be cheaper than meat. Nope. So freaking expensive.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You would think soy products would be cheaper than meat. Why would I think that highly processed products of the isolation and retexturing and reflavoring of soy products would be less expensive than meat, which is usually pretty minimally processed? The raw materials cost of the soy product might be lower (depending on what else is added for flavor and texture, even that might not be true), but you can't really ignore the processing cost.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Sure, it has to be processed, but you get an order of magnitude more food per acre when you remove the cow step. I wouldn't have expected processing to be the vast majority of the cost.