We have the technology to substitute all the nutrients we don't get from our diet - and a whole lot more that we don't need at all - — Vera Mont
Veganism is a speciesist half-measure. A far more effective solution is – the one which I'm enthused about – vat-grown / 3-d printed meat (i.e. animal protein) that tastes like natural beef, pork, poultry, eegs, etc. — 180 Proof
. "Veganism", to me, is a luddite stop-gap whose time has come and gone. We don't need to eat like cows or eat cows themselves or wind up with "soylent green in people" ... :smirk: — 180 Proof
And yet I continue to thrive! There are no real and false nutrients, just molecules! Chemical compounds that an organism requires to function, not a magic elixir for supernatural beings. There is no mystique to feeding humans. Vitamins and supplements are already used in vast quantities by prosperous western nations - which consume the overwhelming majority of the world's animal products: meat+dairy+plant+supplements - yet we keep getting fatter and less healthy.That's like cheating yourself. You are not being fed with the real nutrients. — javi2541997
That's right. It's not a complete solution yet; it's a step in the right direction. Can you calculate the production of feed and the butchering, processing, packaging, transportation and refrigeration of the meat already use a considerable amount of coal- and nuclear- generated energy, plus the land use (cutting down carbon-capturing trees to make room for cattle) plus the waste methane of cattle and waste products of the associated industries? And weigh that total against the energy needed for vat propagation of meat? They can:My only question here is that this process of synthesising meat surely demands a lot of electricity in these factories. And that electricity has to come from somewhere - currently not renewable energy so this solution to eating meat must come simultaneously with a change over to renewables otherwise it won't solve the fossil fuel - climate change dilemma. — Benj96
The net gain is even bigger, since the meat factories can be located in the cities where the meat is consumed: Tiny footprint on the land; inside a contained and controlled environment, in which the CO2 can be easily captured and recycled. Further advantages: no disease, no hormones, no antibiotics: 100% pure meat, made to taste specifications.An Oxford study in 2011 estimated lab-grown meat production could involve up to 96 per cent fewer global greenhouse gas emissions, 98 per cent less land use and up to half as much energy.
That's right. It's not a complete solution; it's a step in the right direction. Can you calculate the production of feed and the butchering, processing, packaging, transportation and refrigeration of the meat already use a considerable amount of coal- and nuclear- generated energy, plus the land use (cutting down carbon-capturing trees to make room for cattle) plus the waste methane of cattle and waste products of the associated industries? And weigh that total against the energy needed for vat propagation of meat? — Vera Mont
An Oxford study in 2011 estimated lab-grown meat production could involve up to 96 per cent fewer global greenhouse gas emissions, 98 per cent less land use and up to half as much energy.
The net gain is even bigger, since the meat factories can be located in the cities where the meat is consumed: Tiny footprint on the land; inside a contained and controlled environment, in which the CO2 can be easily captured and recycled. Further advantages: no disease, no hormones, no antibiotics: 100% pure meat, made to taste specifications.
Set 'em up next to the greenhouse and use the byproducts for heat and fertilizer; open a food outlet on the same premises, so people can get their fresh meat and veg withing walking distance of their home.
All of these 'problems' are solvable with existing technology.
Only two obstacles: vested financial interest and popular prejudice. (You can bet the former is promoting the latter with every resource they have.) — Vera Mont
It is more complex than we are debating here and I think it is not possible at all to completely substitute the nutrients of animals with some chemical stuff. — javi2541997
And if a cow or plant for that matter, are not made of the same chemicals as I am what's the point in eating them? — Benj96
I'm not sure whether artifical meat manufacturing will outcompete natural processes that have evolved for millenia in the use of energy. — Benj96
Yes, the important thing is never what's good for the world or the people, but what's good for the morbidly obese bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy.Now all that stands in the way is issues of doubt as to the lucrative nature of such an undertaking (the securing of investment) and prejudice (beliefs that it is unnatural and harmful or whatever the case may be). Education and inspiration are most needed here indeed. — Benj96
No, I condemn it. But I acknowledge that it's one of our species' less endearing traits.But after reading your arguments, I think you still defend that we consume animals just for fun or greed. — javi2541997
You're the only one talking about tablets. Nobody's replacing a dripping pink slab of flesh with a pill. In fact, the cultured meat is just that: meat. The DNA comes from a cow, a chicken, a fish or a pig. You can adjust the fat content and texture; you can have a dripping pink steak that contains all of the same nutrients as the one chopped out of the flank of an animal.It is true that thanks to chemistry some scientists developed important tablets full of nutrients which can (more or less...) replace organic food as meat. — javi2541997
What we can do instead, or in the meantime, is eat a vegetarian diet, and if necessary, add in whatever mineral, vitamin or amino acid may be insufficient. The Hindu population of India has managed to keep up its numbers, in spite of wars, foreign occupation and droughts, for a few thousand years with no pills at all. — Vera Mont
Yet once more again: I never have advocated substitution. I only suggested that if you think the vegetable-based diet is missing some nutrients you need for health, you can add them. It's an optional extra. I eat vegetables, grains, legumes and root-crops, supplemented by eggs (from a local free-range farm. I've met the hens; they're not just happy, they're downright feisty.) and dairy products (not currently available from a wholesome source, but my egg supplier is raising goats, so hopefully, soon).If you do not want to eat animals I respect it but I am not agree with substitute them with pills or tablets. — javi2541997
That's not veganism. Not all Indians are practicing Hindus, any more than all Americans are all devout Christians; not all Indians are vegetarian, anymore than all Americans are tooth-and-claw carnivores, and not all vegetarians are vegan.while India is a good example of veganism they also consume animals as chickens — javi2541997
It's never been a question of replacing normal food with pills - not even for astronauts is that a current option. It's a question of changing the way we produce, distribute and consume normal foods.https://thevou.com/lifestyle/how-many-vegans-are-in-the-world/Right now, there are about 5%, equal to 15.5 million people in the US following a vegetarian-based diet, according to the Statista Global Consumer Survey on diets and nutrition in the U.S. in 2022.
However, only 2 million of them – that’s approximately 0.5 percent – lead a purely vegan lifestyle.
That's not veganism. Not all Indians are practicing Hindus, any more than all Americans are all devout Christians; not all Indians are vegetarian, anymore than all Americans are tooth-and-claw carnivores, and not all vegetarians are vegan. — Vera Mont
What natural processes? — Vera Mont
Yes, the important thing is never what's good for the world or the people, but what's good for the morbidly obese bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy.
I despair. This is all coming far too late, in the looming shadow of a retrograde political swing and closing-panic. Half a century ago, we might have been able to avert destruction; even two or three decades' head-start might have mitigated the coming disa — Vera Mont
What I try to say is that we cannot replace the proteins of animals with chemistry or technological stuff. I am agree those tablets or pills are full of vitamins, proteins, energy, etc... but they are just a "substitute — javi2541997
They still eat grass/ crops that photosynthesise (uses solar energy) to generate food. Again.. Whether we feed it to them that grains directly or they are free to eat grass from the ground themselves is irrelevant to the energy source. — Benj96
I don't understand this. If we stop breeding food animals, there won't be any more of them to need the grass and grain. We can eat the grain and leafy plants directly, saving a huge amount of energy on the intermediaries. — Vera Mont
Yes and lose biodiversity in the process. If we don't breed food animals then they will go extinct. — Benj96
Grazing livestock and the specialty crops grown for feed push wildlife, as well as native plants out of their ecological niches, and thus reduce biodiversity.More than 1.7 billion animals are used in livestock production worldwide and occupy more than one-fourth of the Earth's land.
Production of animal feed consumes about one-third of total arable land. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/march/livestock-revolution-environment-031610.html
Not necessarily. We could opt to solve the present ones sensibly, with moderation and forethought.So we just inherit a new set of problems do we not? — Benj96
The way to settle it is to farm people for food also. Then let's talk ethics. People complain about overpopulation, then why not gather a group of people and hunt them for sports? Yes, this sounds crazy -- but is it really?What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat? — Benj96
The way to settle it is to farm people for food also. Then let's talk ethics. People complain about overpopulation, then why not gather a group of people and hunt them for sports? Yes, this sounds crazy -- but is it really? — L'éléphant
Why is it hard for humans to reconcile ethics and eating meat? Because we have the capacity to know the ethics behind it. Our desire for taste of meat overwhelms our desire to recognize the life you snuff out of that living being — L'éléphant
I am not obliged to make that kind of sacrifice for a stranger. — Bartricks
There's no such thing as that, is there? — frank
Maybe. Or maybe their numbers will simply decline from the expendable billions to a cherished few. To a manageable population level, where they provide milk and eggs and wool for their caregivers and stem cells for the meat factories. On a family farm with one or two cows, they would be better treated and more valued than on a factory-sized dairy farm with 2000 cows, which are slaughtered for dogfood at age 5 or 6 when their milk production falls below the financially mandated quota. Beef cattle have a life expectancy of 1-3 years. I'm pretty sure you don't want to think about the 'life' of poultry. None of them have the freedom to mate according to their natural inclination; their genetic makeup is rigidly controlled for uniformity. — Vera Mont
and in labs for nutrional value and correct portion of macronutrient, vitamins and minerals. Of course this research can be expedited by investment and positive public opinion. — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.