The potential is great but I think it’s better to rethink our current choices and be more conscious with the food that we now have. If we lessen our consumption of animal meat then we can focus on feeding supposed animal feed crops to humans. The use of land and water would be less alongside lower carbon emissions.
We have solutions, or at least ways we could drastically improve things, but I guess folks would rather accept that they’ll be left with algae patties in the future rather than working to limit their animal consumption today. I don’t get it.
I agree with you, and I never said they were mutually exclusive.
My comment was on how, in my admittedly limited experience, people see stories like this and seem to accept that they may have no choice but to eat stuff like this in the future while making no change to their current choices.
Yeah, I think there’s a novelty factor in a lot of “innovations” that claim to be the secret to solving climate change. And while not inherently bad they sort of miss the picture in my opinion. Like, the future, in my opinion, should be made of trains and apartments. The dull things that we know work.
On a much more insidious level (not that I think anyone here has ill intent, nor the people working on these technologies) it almost implies that we don’t have the technology to stop our impact on the climate. We have the technology, it’s all political will.
I get you and that’s why most environmentalists encourage people to go flexitarian instead of fully plant-based. Eating less animal products are no doubt better than doing nothing at all.
I committed to Veganism because it aligns with my personal ethics and so far, the mock meats have been doing great! Even when I was still living in a third world country outside US, I had access to delicious foods.
Humans need some meat in their ration, and lab grown replacements etc are now too expensive for most of the planet.
However, “some” doesn’t mean a burger or two every day, so yes, there’s space for improvement. Meat is really expensive in terms of carbon emissions.
Frankly I’m not sure how one would notably reduce emissions of anything without actual control (like by force) over most of the world, where green stuff is less relevant than hunger and illiteracy.
But maybe it’s best that USA and EU and similar developed countries don’t have that control. I mean, green energy etc sometimes seem more important than actual lives being saved for many.
No, humans do not need meat. This is plain false! You can greatly decrease emissions by cutting out animal consumption and the FAO has been pleading for a global plant based diet for ages…
How much more expensive would such a diet be? Some plant-based foods can cost a lot depending on place and logistics.
That’s the question, and it’s an important one - it’s the same reason as why, say, WWW which started decentralized has become what it is now for most people. People do what’s easier and cheaper for them.
I’m not calling people “soy boys”, but people for whom you have to make such a diet not even plausible, but cheaper or as cheap as the existing ones, do not live in developed countries. Talk about the environment is not worth anything else for them.
I think you are confusing something. Sure, the vegan diet in rich countries is pretty expensive because it is specialized and produced in comparatively tiny quantities. Meanwhile, in the same countries the meat & dairy industry is heavily subsidised and can produce much cheaper. So cheap in fact, that there are incredibly high numbers of milk farmers committing suicide (e.g. see France).
However, look at poorer countries and you see that the cheapest is actually plant based food and meat is actually a luxury. This will additionally lead to more problems because these poorer countries are starting to consume more and more meat because they catch up to the richer countries.
In general, what is expensive and not is often determined by economy, production capacities etc. But if you compare plants vs meats, keeping animals is nearly always inefficient because they use roughly about 80-95% of the invested energy for respiration and their metabolism. Eating the plants directly would cut out the middle man (middle animal if you will). Btw the vast majority of soy, wheat and corn is for animal agriculture, and not for direct human consumption or for biofuels.
But you are definitely correct about vegan food as it is produced in rich countries is not the way to go. But you could say the same for pretty much anything we consume over here. Scaled up to global dimensions, it would be simply impossible for everyone in the world to eat the same amount of meat and dairy as in the US. There is just not enough available land on our planet.
I think that as soon as green alternatives are tastier and cheaper than the alternative, they will become more popular, like how solar panels are popular now that they are cheaper than coal power
Well, yes, this requires production of similar scale at every stage of the chain. With animals it’s animal food, drugs, various machinery in production, etc, which also cost less due to scale on which they are produced.
Green alternatives in this case have a potential to be honestly (without subsidies or anything) cheaper in the end.
The potential is great but I think it’s better to rethink our current choices and be more conscious with the food that we now have. If we lessen our consumption of animal meat then we can focus on feeding supposed animal feed crops to humans. The use of land and water would be less alongside lower carbon emissions.
This is the way.
We have solutions, or at least ways we could drastically improve things, but I guess folks would rather accept that they’ll be left with algae patties in the future rather than working to limit their animal consumption today. I don’t get it.
Who said it has to be one or the other? We can pursue these new methods for tomorrow while simultaneously cutting down on animal products today.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
I agree with you, and I never said they were mutually exclusive.
My comment was on how, in my admittedly limited experience, people see stories like this and seem to accept that they may have no choice but to eat stuff like this in the future while making no change to their current choices.
Yeah, I think there’s a novelty factor in a lot of “innovations” that claim to be the secret to solving climate change. And while not inherently bad they sort of miss the picture in my opinion. Like, the future, in my opinion, should be made of trains and apartments. The dull things that we know work.
On a much more insidious level (not that I think anyone here has ill intent, nor the people working on these technologies) it almost implies that we don’t have the technology to stop our impact on the climate. We have the technology, it’s all political will.
Calling apartments “dull” is a bit generous
But animal meat is tasty 😣. Maybe plant based alternatives or lab grown meat will fill that gap and we can start using the farmland more efficiently
I get you and that’s why most environmentalists encourage people to go flexitarian instead of fully plant-based. Eating less animal products are no doubt better than doing nothing at all.
I committed to Veganism because it aligns with my personal ethics and so far, the mock meats have been doing great! Even when I was still living in a third world country outside US, I had access to delicious foods.
As lactose intolerant, I have been loving how many vegan products (mostly ice cream) have been appearing recently
Humans need some meat in their ration, and lab grown replacements etc are now too expensive for most of the planet.
However, “some” doesn’t mean a burger or two every day, so yes, there’s space for improvement. Meat is really expensive in terms of carbon emissions.
Frankly I’m not sure how one would notably reduce emissions of anything without actual control (like by force) over most of the world, where green stuff is less relevant than hunger and illiteracy.
But maybe it’s best that USA and EU and similar developed countries don’t have that control. I mean, green energy etc sometimes seem more important than actual lives being saved for many.
No, humans do not need meat. This is plain false! You can greatly decrease emissions by cutting out animal consumption and the FAO has been pleading for a global plant based diet for ages…
How much more expensive would such a diet be? Some plant-based foods can cost a lot depending on place and logistics.
That’s the question, and it’s an important one - it’s the same reason as why, say, WWW which started decentralized has become what it is now for most people. People do what’s easier and cheaper for them.
I’m not calling people “soy boys”, but people for whom you have to make such a diet not even plausible, but cheaper or as cheap as the existing ones, do not live in developed countries. Talk about the environment is not worth anything else for them.
I think you are confusing something. Sure, the vegan diet in rich countries is pretty expensive because it is specialized and produced in comparatively tiny quantities. Meanwhile, in the same countries the meat & dairy industry is heavily subsidised and can produce much cheaper. So cheap in fact, that there are incredibly high numbers of milk farmers committing suicide (e.g. see France).
However, look at poorer countries and you see that the cheapest is actually plant based food and meat is actually a luxury. This will additionally lead to more problems because these poorer countries are starting to consume more and more meat because they catch up to the richer countries.
In general, what is expensive and not is often determined by economy, production capacities etc. But if you compare plants vs meats, keeping animals is nearly always inefficient because they use roughly about 80-95% of the invested energy for respiration and their metabolism. Eating the plants directly would cut out the middle man (middle animal if you will). Btw the vast majority of soy, wheat and corn is for animal agriculture, and not for direct human consumption or for biofuels.
But you are definitely correct about vegan food as it is produced in rich countries is not the way to go. But you could say the same for pretty much anything we consume over here. Scaled up to global dimensions, it would be simply impossible for everyone in the world to eat the same amount of meat and dairy as in the US. There is just not enough available land on our planet.
I agree with this.
My point was that the way “first world” eats isn’t scalable, be it the old way or the vegan way, which you said too.
I think that as soon as green alternatives are tastier and cheaper than the alternative, they will become more popular, like how solar panels are popular now that they are cheaper than coal power
Well, yes, this requires production of similar scale at every stage of the chain. With animals it’s animal food, drugs, various machinery in production, etc, which also cost less due to scale on which they are produced.
Green alternatives in this case have a potential to be honestly (without subsidies or anything) cheaper in the end.