Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

How reluctant are you to give up your meat habit?


  • Total voters
    196
Status
Not open for further replies.
I always took a packed lunch.
Everyone else had dinner money so we did too, think my mum didn't want me to feel I was differen. Even more so than at that school than at the private school she didnt want me to go to on scholarship cos I could be the poor kid. Didn't entirely get that but frankly that particular school has turned out some horrendous examples of human beings and I am happy as being me as I have turned out, as a result of my life without someone fucking about with it, even if it is me.
 
from here

Print a burger​

A handful of firms are now working on 3D printers that could construct this dinner while you wait, by printing thousands of pre-programmed, sliver-thin layers, stacked on top of each other.
The "ink" used is your food in paste format: printers that can design bespoke pancakes, ice cream and confectionery are already popular in some high-end supermarkets.
However, Ms Almy says companies are now testing the water with much more sophisticated versions. 3D bio-printing can print cells and materials together to create a more complex structured product, like a marbled beef steak.

They've been doing that for years on Star Trek with replicators.
 
Sorry for literally responding to the OP rather than some other proposition that was in your head. :rolleyes:

1636096075619.png

The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.

If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.
 
View attachment 295510

The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.

If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.

I was simply highlighting the absurdity of the OPs "post-meat future". Perhaps they meant "post-meat future in Western Europe" or something, because whatabouting the other uses for the soy found in factory-produced vegetarian sausages isn't something that's relevant to quite a few meat eaters in the rest of the world.
 
That said, market forces will present some more alternatives. I know but this whole thing is about market forces.

As long as markets remains a thing, this will certainly be the case. But of course some leftists get upset when you remind them that market forces will be evident in a society based on capitalist economics.
 
View attachment 295510

The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.

If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.
Surely there are other alternatives for livestock than feeding them soy and clearing forests to grow it.

Plants raised for human consumption will also need space to grow and given the relative lack of nutritional density/calories we will need a lot of space for that.
 
Surely there are other alternatives for livestock than feeding them soy and clearing forests to grow it.

Plants raised for human consumption will also need space to grow and given the relative lack of nutritional density/calories we will need a lot of space for that.
No, at this level of meat production there is no alternative.
Plants raised for human consumption are far more efficient in terms of calories provided per hectare of land use, as, as we've already established, raising animals requires lots of land to be used to grow plants for them anyway.
Don't being so dense.
 
No, at this level of meat production there is no alternative.

I wouldn't be so sure. Stuff like insects and algae might be able to fill in the gap somewhat. As with the transition to a post-carbon energy economy, I don't think there will be a one-size-fits-nobody solution.
 
, as we've already established, raising animals requires lots of land to be used to grow plants for them anyway.
Don't being so dense.
As we've already established animals can be grazed on land that's unsuitable for growing crops for human consumption.
 
As we've already established animals can be grazed on land that's unsuitable for growing crops for human consumption.

This alone would not produce the quantities of meat people currently eat in wealthy countries. Not even close
 
As we've already established animals can be grazed on land that's unsuitable for growing crops for human consumption.
Yeah, pasture. I know. What % of animals eaten worldwide (and not in some fantasy pastoral North of England/Ireland) are raised on such land?
 
This alone would not produce the quantities of meat people currently eat in wealthy countries. Not even close
It's the inevitable consequence of having "high quality meat" only - all ethical and pastoral and friendly smiling farmers with small herds... ops! That's super expensive now. Only the super rich can afford it. Bye
 
No, at this level of meat production there is no alternative.
Plants raised for human consumption are far more efficient in terms of calories provided per hectare of land use, as, as we've already established, raising animals requires lots of land to be used to grow plants for them anyway.
Don't being so dense.
I don't think this is true at all, even if I ignore your inability to insult me properly
 
View attachment 295510

The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.

If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.
I've not been convinced either way on the soya argument tbh.

It may be that it is grown for animals to eat with human consumption largely an added extra or it may be grown for humans to eat with the waste and inedible parts used for animal feed. There are arguments against it being grown for animal feed as they could just be fed something cheaper but perhaps that ignores that feeding animals different foods can affect their growth and the amount of meat that need to be produced to feed appetites and the market. There are also issues around land use and clearance for farmland. A lot of deforested land is used for cattle and Soy at different times.
 
There are also issues around land use and clearance for farmland. A lot of deforested land is used for cattle and Soy at different times.

Used for cattle and cattle feed then. Or, to put it another way, used for cattle.
 
This alone would not produce the quantities of meat people currently eat in wealthy countries. Not even close
So the level of meat consumption can be addressed, but not in the nonsensical way prescribed that advocated people eat something like 20g meat a day since no one is going to bother doing that, which I suspect is the real point of saying something like that.

How much of the animal is wasted? Are the quantities of meat inclusive of organ meats for example? I don't recall the last time I saw a KFC Chicken Liver burger, for instance (though they may well do)?
 
I think it's entirely dependent on the individual. But I don't feel morally compelled to eat no meat and I don't believe there is a good environmental argument for it either. Addressing factory farming is one area of concern where all can agree, but unfortunately given the nature of the vegan position that won't happen
So it's the fault of the vegans that factory farming can't be stopped? Seriously. Take a look at the bullshit you're posting.
 
Used for cattle and cattle feed then. Or, to put it another way, used for cattle.
I have no doubt that removing cattle from the situation would reduce the problem but how much and how significantly without looking at the issues around soy. As popular as soy is among many of those who currently don't eat meat I can only see it getting more popular if there are less cattle. If the crop is still economically viable without the animal feed component deforestation may continue to be a serious issue.
 
It will just go underground with poaching and illegal animal rearing and of course there won't be any checks on the welfare of the animals or oversight of the slaughter because you won't know where it's happening. :(
The bizarre excuses and blame shifting just keep on coming!
 
It's nice that you think animals aren't already being fed the cheapest stuff farmers can get away with but I don't think it has much basis in reality.
I'm sure many do but where money can be made by investing in a more calorific or nutritious food or some other way of boosting growth to get a bigger or quicker return I'm sure plenty take that option.
 
View attachment 295510

The 'clearing rainforests to make soy mince' thing is utter horseshit and nobody who comes out with it does so in good faith.

If you want to keep eating meat that's fine, but you can't whatabout your way around the fact that doing so has a disproportionate impact on land and water use and climate change.
It's really becoming embarrassing to read the blatant lies and mistruths being posted by the meat fans in this thread.

Just about every study has arrived at the same conclusion: in the face of climate change and the oncoming environmental disaster, the world has to eat less meat. Yet this is one simple fact many seem unable to comprehend or accept, or just go into Trump like denial in response.
 
As an aside, it's interesting to see the explosive growth of non-dairy milk. The usual suspects will whine about its supposed awful taste or manufacture ludicrous fantasy stories about how its environmental impact is somehow worse than dairy, but they'll be lying as usual.

 
As an aside, it's interesting to see the explosive growth of non-dairy milk. The usual suspects will whine about its supposed awful taste or manufacture ludicrous fantasy stories about how its environmental impact is somehow worse than dairy, but they'll be lying as usual.

Anyone know which is best for baking?
 
Anyone know which is best for baking?
HTH HAND



 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom