Hacker News Reader

Comment by satvikpendem | Hacker News Reader

No, but it is an animal suffering solution, if you count that fact that many if not most people will not reduce their meat consumption, so the way to achieve your goal (if reducing animal suffering is your goal) is not to change people's inherent behavior (significantly), because they will not change, but by offering alternatives that align with both your and their goals.

In other words, meet people where they are, not where you want them to be. There is a reason decades of vegan propaganda (I don't use this word in the negative way but in its original neutral definition) haven't made much of the population vegan but foods like Impossible/Beyond Meat have made significant in-roads to reducing animal suffering.

I predict we will all be vegan in 100 years, not because we decided to stop eating meat, but because we moved to lab-grown meat and other such alternatives.

View on HN

In ancient Greece they supposedly ate meat only during festivals. That was not only better for people but also allowed animal populations to recover.

I firmly believe that the level of meat consumption today is unnaturally high, simply because people of the old did not have refrigeration, to say nothing of how the animals are raised today. I eat meat here and there, and I enjoy it, but try to limit consumption to a few times per month.

Another point of reference: the Church forbade Crusaders to eat meat from warm-blooded animals more than two times a week. If a warrior under full armor is good with two portions of meat a week, most of us should be too.

I doubt the crusaders were really "good." Most likely nearly all soldiers historically were badly malnourished, but considered expendable and many were going to die no matter what. That isn't to say contemporary humans don't still overeat, probably everything, not just meat. Neither the calorie nor protein requirements of a sedentary office worker are comparable to a medieval soldier.

I had always thought they had some sort of special treatment but wasn't sure of their social status. I found a bit on that:

https://www.quora.com/Where-specifically-did-the-Crusaders-c...

"Most seem to think they were warrior monks, or high ranking nobles or poor peasants. In some cases that’s correct, but on the whole often not the case.

Most who fought in the holy land and there were other places where they had crusades, were usually lower nobles, knightly class or franklin, usually richer farmers. They weren’t poor peasants, but they were no rich kings either. They were often people who could barely afford to travel accross the land and have some equipment. Not for nothing did the Byzantine empire get pillaged sometimes.

Picture them as mostly young men of upper middle class background, basically comparable to your modern day average college or university brat. They were relatively well off, but not exactly rich upper class either. Basically up and coming social climbers."

> I firmly believe that the level of meat consumption today is unnaturally high, simply because people of the old did not have refrigeration, to say nothing of how the animals are raised today. I eat meat here and there, and I enjoy it, but try to limit consumption to a few times per month.

It depends on how you define "natural." In our hunter-gatherer days, it was very common to eat meat, and lots of it, since we did not have much caloric intake through plants alone. We see this today in certain tribal groups that still have that way of life.

That is to say, appealing to nature is not a good argument and is in fact considered a logical fallacy [0], because not all that is natural is good and not all that is unnatural is bad.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

How much -- not whether -- something is natural is determined by the statistical processes that make the thing. "Appeal to nature fallacy" misses that critical point.

When what is essentially an ultra processed high saturated fat vegetable mix is worst tasting and ~50% more expensive than the thing its trying to replace, I dont think the market will respond in the long run. Everyone I know treats these products like a novelty, nothing more.

Beyond meat and impossible burgers taste just as good if not better than ground beef burgers. Further, taste and preferences change given enough exposure.

You can call it ultra processed but so is livestock production.

There is a difference between steak and ground meat. Also: not sure what burgers you're eating but apart from the novelty factor it's not even close in favor of real meat

> Also: not sure what burgers you're eating but apart from the novelty factor it's not even close in favor of real meat

My point is that some people actually prefer veggie or “fake” burgers and if tomorrow beef didn’t exist people would be more than happy with what currently exists today. It’s not like there is a huge gap there. Most people like the burger for the additions anyway.

I think there is a flaw in this way if thinking.

Some people != all people

You are also assuming that most people like the burger for the addition (which may be true, but it's hard to know this for sure)

If tomorrow beef didn't exist the burgers would disappear as a regularly consummed food.

Sure that's true livestock are processed as well, but one of the benefits of going vegan is healthier eating. You can't even call impossible burgers healthier.

As far as taste, I'll admit that meat burgers are much more variable whereas impossible's are just one product. So it's more consistent compared to all the bad options you have for meat burgers.

But compared to a fresh unfrozen well-grilled burger there's absolutely no comparison. You are simply not making a serious argument to say impossible's taste better than that, to the point that I think you could be trolling.

At best you can say they aren't terrible, but again they're more expensive.

As far as beyond's go, they're even worse than the worst frozen burgers I can find.

> but one of the benefits of going vegan is healthier eating

Veganism is about not using animal products. It says nothing about the health of the diet. That some people incidentally eat healthier through becoming vegan says nothing about veganism as a whole.

> But compared to a fresh unfrozen well-grilled burger there's absolutely no comparison. You are simply not making a serious argument to say impossible's taste better than that, to the point that I think you could be trolling.

I agree, which is why I mention that lab grown meat (that tastes identical to naturally raised meat because, well, it's all the same cells in the end) is the answer over trying to get everyone to change their behavior.

> Veganism is about not using animal products. It says nothing about the health of the diet.

When I google "why be vegan" all the top 5 results are "because of health". So objectively, you are wrong.

It sounds like you have an idealistic view of what it means to be vegan that flies in the face of reality.

What about human suffering? I get your argument for reducing animal suffering, but is this even viable considering the degree of development around the world and the reliance on protein from animal sources?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com