Murder-less Meat- Lab Proteins

[Oniya]

I think I could handle armadillo.  Gator sounds interesting too, and I've never lived further south than Virginia.  I've had eel and catfish, which my mother can't stand, and stories of 'northerners' getting squicked out by crawfish make me giggle.  I could probably handle 'lab meat' if it came down to it, but having seen what overpopulation does to deer - I'd rather eat venison and do my part as an omnivore.

[Xajow]

having seen what overpopulation does to deer - I'd rather eat venison and do my part as an omnivore.

Heh. Good point.

[Trieste]

The attitude that anything made by man is unnatural and dangerous is a fallacy. Men are not some alien thing thrust upon the earth a few thousand years ago. Humans, as a race, evolved through a process as natural as, I dunno, growing a flower. While we have an amazing effect on the world around us, saying that humans and the creations of humans aren't natural is... well, look at it this way: In Elliquiy U, there is an article about a kid who discovered a way for two chemicals to interact to treat the 'natural' occurrence of cystic fibrosis. He would be using chemical injections to alter the natural state of someone's body. It's all in how it's used.

Man-made things are not all bad. We consume synthetic, man-made products a lot. I was helping a friend research vitamin D supplements the other day and came across the fact that we synthesize the most active form of it; this form is beneficial to people whose liver and kidneys can't process the form of the vitamin made in our skin. We synthesize growth hormone for humans and for our food. We eat it when we eat meat. Anyone who is on an antidepressant is most likely eating synthesized hormones. These things help and harm us, but it's dependent on how they are used; they are not inherently bad.

I think there are some things science shouldn't mess with.

I agree with you. There are some things science shouldn't mess with: the things that are working well for us. Science is there as a tool to solve problems that are both out of our control and of our own making. Conversely, there are things that science very much should mess with, in an effort to find solutions to things that will be a hefty problem now or in the future.

Given the environmental impact of the cattle industry alone, "I don't want this fake meat! I want REAL MEAT!" could prove to be a harmful bias in a few decades. Soylent green makes for good sci-fi novels, sure, but it doesn't make it reality. I'm not saying that innovations such as this shouldn't be tested and declared safe. What I am saying is that, if they are tested and declared safe, it probably won't matter because of provincial attitudes about how 'unnatural' it is. I have colleagues who have thrown themselves into developing solutions to the energy crisis and other impacts of overpopulation, whose hard work and dedication could easily be written off as "that's not natural". It's a significant frustration.

[ReanimateMagnus]

Doesn't the bible say that God gave us the animals to eat?

[Will]

Clearly he didn't give us enough of them.

[ReanimateMagnus]

Clearly he didn't give us enough of them.

Clearly we have too many humans to feed.

[Caeli]

That, or we could eat less meat.

Either way, I'm interested in seeing if scientists can make this an affordable option in the future.

[Zakharra]

That, or we could eat less meat.

Heretic! 



Joking of course, but I like meat. A lot, so I'm unlikely to stop eating it.

[Will]

I'm not likely to stop either, but cutting down would do everyone a lot of good.  Meat is a horribly inefficient food source.

[Zakharra]

  Uum.. not rteally. It's a very efficient package of protin* Back before agriculture, meat was about the best way to get food. not to mention the animals hides, bones and orgams provided much needed materials for clothes, weapons and stuff needed to live.

Now in this more modern age, it can be inefficient to a degree to grow and raise, but unless you start killing and locking up meat producers, it's never going to go away.




*it looks wrong, but pased the spellcheck. Huh.

[Will]

  Uum.. not rteally. It's a very efficient package of protin* Back before agriculture, meat was about the best way to get food. not to mention the animals hides, bones and orgams provided much needed materials for clothes, weapons and stuff needed to live.

Now in this more modern age, it can be inefficient to a degree to grow and raise, but unless you start killing and locking up meat producers, it's never going to go away.

This is what I was referring to.  And there is no "can" about it; it's downright wasteful, considering how much grain could be grown with the same space and resources, and how many people that grain could feed.

Whether it's going away or not has no bearing on how efficient it is.

[Zakharra]

This is what I was referring to.  And there is no "can" about it; it's downright wasteful, considering how much grain could be grown with the same space and resources, and how many people that grain could feed.

Whether it's going away or not has no bearing on how efficient it is.

So is mass growing food crops. It's destructive to the land and requires a LOT of work to do. Chemicals andartificial fertilizers and machines to do. Then there's transportation, processing and distribution. The fgact the odiots in the government insist that ethenol be a part of the fuel supply isn't helping either. Now even more corn is grown and used as fuel and less for food.   You also need to use more vegetables in order to get the complete ptorins that is more easily gotten from meat.

[Will]

Nowhere did I say that I expected people to stop eating meat altogether.  So why is getting proteins a problem?  I'm just saying, it's far too big a part of our diet.  We get way, way, WAY more proteins than is necessary.  Eating a few less hamburgers now and then wouldn't leave us hurting for nutrients.

And just because the alternative is somewhat destructive as well doesn't change the fact that raising livestock is an expensive process that results in rather little food.  Obviously any type of agriculture has its effects on the land that is used; it's the productivity that differs here, and quite drastically at that.

And ethanol is a ridiculous idea.  I'm not arguing that.  It also does nothing to make raising cows more cost effective, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Trieste]

Meat is currently the most readily-available protein to people and it contains all of the essential amino acids that we require (this is what is meant when you hear something referred to as a 'whole protein' or a 'complete protein'). But it is not the most efficient source we could cultivate. Things like soy and quinoa would be much better for the land that we currently use to raise animals, and the risk of diseases and infections are much lower with non-animal sources.

Biochemically, protein is not the most efficient way to store energy. Fat is. And biochemically, plant protein is not a whole lot different than animal protein; they both contain the same amino acids, and we can derive the same products from them.

So with regards to the use of land and efficiency there, plant-based protein is actually more efficient.

If you want to talk about transport, both meat and veggies get transported around the country quite a lot. I'm not a logistics expert, so you'll have to do your own research and come to your own conclusions, but musing on it just now I think that probably meat is less efficient to ship and store than vegetables. Vegetables don't necessarily have to be refrigerated the whole way, and meats do. Vegetables can be frozen at the point of harvest, arresting the process of decay, while meat producers put "Fresh! Never frozen!" on their meats as a badge of honor. A handfull of meat is heavier than a handfull of vegetables, so a truckfull of meat will weigh more than a truckfull of veggies, and therefore take more gas to transport.

Overall, I believe that Will is probably right: plant-based proteins are a good deal more efficient than animal-based proteins, and therefore probably more beneficial in the long run to our overtaxed planet.

[Zakharra]

 A ton of meat weighs just as much as a ton of veggies. Trucks and trains can carry only so much and get slapped with fines for being overloaded, so the weight isn't an issue in transporation.

A part of the problem is a lot, and mean A LOT of peoplke like/love the taste of meat. Beef, pork, goat, mutton, chicken, other poultry and seafoods. Unless you're going to outlaw the eating of meat and enforce it with violence, you're never goign to get people to stop eating it.

And frankly it's easier to just murder a few dozen million people in a war than to get legislation like that passed. For my part, I'll stop eating meat when I die. I love it, but I do like other foods. Veggies, pasta, fruits. Meat, for me is part of a balanced diet and  it is a lot easier and cheaper to get than a full vegetarian diet (and a hell of a lot tastier too)

[Will]

Again, with the "stop eating meat" thing. -_-

[Caeli]

Like Will's already mentioned, nobody is advocating no meat at all. I was simply suggesting offhand that it wouldn't kill anyone to reduce the amount of meat they eat for the sake of environmental sustainability.

[Noelle]

A ton of meat weighs just as much as a ton of veggies. Trucks and trains can carry only so much and get slapped with fines for being overloaded, so the weight isn't an issue in transporation.

That's assuming they both take up the same amount of space. You only have so much real estate to work with inside a truck trailer. You can stuff more bags of frozen peas in a given amount of space than you can steak. One ton of steak isn't necessarily going to feed the same amount of people as one ton of frozen peas.

Truthfully, if I had to weigh in on solutions, it would not be to outlaw meat all together, but to encourage people to eat significantly less meat, especially because we already consume waaay too much as it is. Omnivores treat vegetarian fare as if you have to sign your soul away to be able to consume it. This isn't the body of Christ for which you need to be baptized and confirmed, people, these are fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy if you're not vegan. You're missing exactly one food group for the duration of a meal, nobody's forcing you to eat it all the time. Hell, you might even like it!

Myself, I am what I affectionately call a 'cheatertarian'. I was born and raised in the red-blooded, meat-ravishing Midwest and never thought I'd be able to survive as a vegetarian. I went full veggie for awhile, got lazy about it and still don't eat beef and I hate most seafood, but I eat very limited amounts of chicken and pork when it strikes my fancy, which is to say, every now and then. I know how to make good meals without use of animal protein, but I'm not about to mope and complain to others that I'm craving chicken nuggets but "can't" have any. Of course I can, I'm an adult and I can choose! It's a free country, just try and stop me, bitches!

[Zakharra]

Like Will's already mentioned, nobody is advocating no meat at all. I was simply suggesting offhand that it wouldn't kill anyone to reduce the amount of meat they eat for the sake of environmental sustainability.

The problem is it wouldn't stop with that. Encouraging is all and good, but there are people who would do more than that. Tougher regulations on meat products, farms that produce meat and try to introduct laws that 'encourage' people to eat less meat 'for our own good'.

I didn't intend to imply that anyone here might do that, and if I did, I apoligize. However I can see politicans dong exactly that.

[Oniya]

Omnivores treat vegetarian fare as if you have to sign your soul away to be able to consume it. This isn't the body of Christ for which you need to be baptized and confirmed, people, these are fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy if you're not vegan. You're missing exactly one food group for the duration of a meal, nobody's forcing you to eat it all the time. Hell, you might even like it!

Seriously - some of those Indian dishes with the lentils and all the different spices are very nommy.  Portabello-burgers are good too.  Tofu-burgers, not so much - Tofu does better trying to impersonate egg whites or cheese.

[Trieste]

I'd personally like to try my hand at making tofu fresh. I've heard that the stuff that comes directly out of the press - still warm and steaming - is a heckuva lot better than the store stuff. I would guess it's sort of in the same vein as the difference between fresh-baked bread and day-old bread bought at a bakery. So at some point I have to see if any of my friends have a tofu press and connections with a soy farmer.

[Noelle]

Depends on how you make it! I like to press the water out of extra firm tofu, freeze it at least overnight, thaw it, wring out more water, and fry it up like that. It gets a nice, chewy consistency that's comparable to ground beef when it's crumbled and more like a portabello when kept solid.

If you can find soy beans at the store, you can most definitely make your own tofu brick and you can probably MacGuyver a press out of heavy books or summat.

[Trieste]

They sell frozen edamame at the store near here; I buy it for the rats, who love it. I could build my own press easily enough; I just would like to try the process with someone experienced and who already has the equipment before I go trying to make my own stuff.

Thanks, Noelle!

*stops hijacking*

[Lilias]

Greek cuisine, on which I grew up, is quite heavy on the pulse dishes (and generally slanting heavily towards the ovolactovegetarian part of the spectrum). Anyone interested in cutting down on meat could get plenty of ideas there. ;)

[TheGlyphstone]

Like Will's already mentioned, nobody is advocating no meat at all. I was simply suggesting offhand that it wouldn't kill anyone to reduce the amount of meat they eat for the sake of environmental sustainability.

Or we could change the meat we eat. If my Big Book of Useless Information is to be believed, kangaroos produce six times the amount of methane than cows do...if we all switch to eating kangaroo-burgers, it'll be great for the environment.