Slashdot Mirror
Vegan Mayonnaise Company Starts Growing Its Own Meat In Labs, Says It Will Get To Stores First (qz.com)
Chase Purdy reports via Quartz: The maker of vegan mayonnaise has been working on getting lab-made meat onto dinner tables everywhere. It's just that nobody knew about it. Hampton Creek -- a company that built its name on plant-based condiments and vegan-friendly cookie doughs -- today revealed that, for the last year, it has been secretly developing the technology necessary for producing lab-made meat and seafood, or as the industry likes to call it, "clean meat." Perhaps even more surprising is that Hampton Creek expects to beat its closest competitor to market by more than two years. Since it was founded in 2015, Memphis Meats has raised at least $3 million from five investors for the development of its meat products, according to Crunchbase. By contrast, Hampton Creek -- just a 20-mile drive from its Silicon Valley rival -- has raised more than $120 million since 2011. It's one of Silicon Valley's unicorns -- a company that has a valuation that exceeds $1 billion.
Growing meat in their Axlotl tanks......
The Gholas... They're made of meat!
Huh?
...when you have perfectly good animals that are already made out of food?
It's worse than that. Vegans are mostly animal molestors.
Still nature.
> or as the industry likes to call it, "clean meat."
I mean just call it what it is... artificial or fake (shorter, and more precise) meat. So annoying this "industry", always have to imply that something they do is "better", cleaner, or moral (implying at the same time, that what we do is the opposite and wrong).
What's up with this ?
Also, if you don't eat meat, why make (or EAT) fake meat ? Why not stick to grass, nuts, carrots and potatoes and just leave it be ?
It's like mormons. Going around the world and trying to make people think same way they think (the correct way, mind you)..
Just another religion. Keep it to yourself.
This is clearly against the heart of the philosophy.
They are still torturing and exploiting the device of life in an artificial situation.
The real point of vegetarianism/veganism is to live in harmony with the Earth, reducing your consumption of energy by choosing the simplest path available to sustain yourself.
Spending tons of energy and cash to grow flesh in a laboratory is antithetical to this in every way.
Nifty fucking shit. Hey, I could get a jackass in a green visor to say my car has a valuation that exceeds $1 billion - think I can get the guy at the dealership to call me a "unicorn?"
"Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco"
I'm totally going to try this stuff, but I think I'm going to call it decepticon meat instead.
Calling it fake meat would be inaccurate. Soy deli slices are fake meat. This would be meat, just not from an anaimal.
As for "if you dont eat meat why eat this?", anyone who doesnt eat meat because they have an ethical issue with killing an animal but still enjoys the taste and values the level of nutrition provided by meat would be very interested in this.
On top of that, there are many of us who love eating meat but recognize that it's a very inefficient means of making food in a world where food and water scarcity is becoming more and more of an issue and who believe this could be a great way to get meat with less resources used.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I can't imagine anyone being able to afford Vegan mayo. Not only is it prohibitively expensive to import it from Vega, but the Customs charges added on have to make it unobtanium.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Vegan mayonnaise does not exist. By definition, mayonnaise contains egg. That's not just me speaking, it's US law.
so the computer can understand what meat is.
Vegans, annoying the rest of us forever...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
dyslexic jihadists get 27 vegans.
Table-ized A.I.
Cows consume grass -- and in very high volumes. What is the lab grown meat consuming?
I would want to make sure the "lab grown meat" is similar to the real meat, not fed a chemical stew.
Real meat has small quantities iron, zinc and magnesium. Where is lab meat getting these trace contents?
Those essential amino acids are plentiful in high-protein plants like legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains. There's no single plant that will provide you will all of them, but it's really easy to pick a combination of two that will, usually a grain and a legume, or a nut and a seed. That's why large swaths of the world, most of whom are too poor to afford meat, live off staples like rice and beans. Be it the rice and pinto beans of Latin America, the rice and soy beans of east Asia, the wheat and garbanzo beans of the middle east, the maize and tepary beans of indigenous North Americans, etc.
About the healthiest (albeit most boring) diet you could eat would be to lightly snack on the widest variety of nuts, seeds, legumes, and grains you can find slowly across the day, maybe supplemented with some fruits and green leafy vegetables (mostly for the vitamins, not the macronutrients or essential amino acids that are all provided by the "trail mix" core of the diet). Which shouldn't be surprising, because that's largely what our pre-agricultural ancestors evolved to eat, wandering around foraging all day. Meat was a rare treat that we could only begin to eat in quantity a significant way into the invention of civilization (look at our bodies, we are not natural-born hunting machines, we had to invent tools first to enable us to hunt), and then for a large part it was still reserved for the upper classes only.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
"Still, there’s a lot of work left to complete before the company is ready to sell a product, Tetrick says"
Superficially it will look like meat, but when you study the details, I'm sure you'll find plenty of differences. The chemicals that make up a piece of steak, for instance, are not all made locally in the muscle that it's cut from. For instance, the iron comes from red blood cells that are made in the bone marrow. The B12 vitamins are made by bacteria in the gut of the animal. Other things are made in the liver, spleen, gut, kidneys, and even the skin, and all transported through the bloodstream, where they infuse the muscle. Other things come the animal's food, or are made by microorganisms that form a symbiotic relationship with the animal. For instances, cows can survive on grass, but grass contains very little protein. The cow's stomachs work as fermentation tanks, using fungi and bacteria to create proteins (among other things) from grass. If you do a chemical analysis, you'd probably find thousands of different chemicals, made in different places. Some of these chemicals may be vital for our health. Some of them, we haven't even identified yet.
The problem with "fake meat" is that all these nutritional deficiencies are hidden. People just a piece of meat by taste, smell, and texture, not by availability of nutrients. At the same time, the industrial producer is only interested in profit, so they have every motivation to cut corners and produce a cheap but tasty piece of food, with little regard for nutrition.
Potongan Meja 3% untuk permainan Capsa Susun Ayo join di http://dewakartu168.com/index.php
Soon I'll be able to sell regular meat as lab meat to those dirty vegans.
look at our bodies, we are not natural-born hunting machines
Well trained humans are among the best long distance running animal in the world, especially in the heat. By chasing down an animal, until it's overheated and completely exhausted, you can kill it with simple tools. Some tribes still use the technique:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is also not necessarily efficient because it very well can be that more calories were burned running, than a dead animal can provide.
Humans are not carnivores, fruits, roots and seeds were an important part of human diet - at least 50%.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
it very well can be that more calories were burned running, than a dead animal can provide.
No way. That animal weighs about 250 kg, and will easily provide 125 kg of edible meat, at about 3000 kcal/kg. I'm guessing the 8 hour run would cost somewhere between 3000 and 6000 kcal, depending on how fast he was going.
Humans are not carnivores
Humans are omnivores, eating both meat as well as plants, roots, nuts, and seeds. Meat is high in calories and high in nutrients, and it's much easier to get all your essential nutrients from meat.
You assume that a sole hunter would hunt one animal for himself only. This assumption is false and an animal as large as you describe would give a sole hunter the finger. You also assume that the hunter would be able to find and kill a large animal every day, which is even more ridiculous.
Lean meat is certainly not high in calories and humans can only metabolise a few hundred grams of protein per day without getting problems with their health. Ever heard of "rabbit starvation"?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
But current research indicates that humans burn appr. the same amount of calories doing nothing or performing intensive ways of obtaining food. This was tested in current hunter/gatherer societies. So, yes, it is worthwhile doing this.
You assume that a sole hunter would hunt one animal for himself only
No I don't.
You also assume that the hunter would be able to find and kill a large animal every day.
No I don't.
Lean meat is certainly not high in calories
I never said "lean meat", I said "meat". The kudu in the video isn't just lean meat. It's the whole animal.
But current research indicates that humans burn appr. the same amount of calories doing nothing or performing intensive ways of obtaining food.
Not really. Doing nothing burns about 2000 kcal/day. Top athletes can burn up to 1000 kcal/hour.
You assume that a sole hunter would hunt one animal for himself only. This assumption is false and an animal as large as you describe would give a sole hunter the finger. You also assume that the hunter would be able to find and kill a large animal every day, which is even more ridiculous.
The typical size of a hunting party is 3-4 men. So at 125*3000 ~ 375.000 kcal/kg per carcass out of which the hunters would consume 9000kcal/kg to recoup the 8 hour run there is plenty left over for the rest of their group. The average size of a hunter gatherer band can range between ~12 to 50 individuals. If we assume a meat consumption of one kilo of meat per day for each individual in a group of 30 hunter gatherers, one carcass like that would last them for four days. However, a group of 30 would easily be able to field two hunter teams of 3-4 men each (or women, since women hunted in some of these societies) with, one group hunting and one either preparing for a hunt, or inbound with a carcass. At the same time these 6-8 people are out hunting the rest of the group would be out gathering fruits, vegetables, seeds roots herbs to supplement the diet and easily matching the contribution of the hunters while others are making equipment, clothing shelters etc... in short religionofpeas numbers seem perfectly plausible to me, especially since hunter gatherers ate every scrap of the animal down to the offal and the marrow in the bones and then used inedible parts including bones to make arrowheads, harpoons spear heads, knives and sinew to make rope, thread and as a component in bow making. Leather of course would not have been wasted either nor would horn or the wool of the animal if any. Many apex predators leave that stuff behind, a large animal killed by humans was likely to completely disappear simply because every bit of it's carcass was used up for some purpose.
Lean meat is certainly not high in calories and humans can only metabolise a few hundred grams of protein per day without getting problems with their health. Ever heard of "rabbit starvation"?
I think that if hunting was an inefficient activity humans would not have continued doing it for millions of years. Rabbit starvation is also one of the reasons why the women would be out gathering fruits, vegetables, seeds roots herbs to supplement the diet while the hunters were doing their thing. There is a good reason why hunting and gathering is a package deal. I live in a region where there are still aboriginals who largely live off of hunting and let me tell you something, these are supremely practical and no-nonsense people who would not bother with hunting if meat was not a viable source of nutrients. They certainly would not hunt animals purely for the fun of, many of them still pray for the spirit of the animals they kill.
"There's no single plant that will provide you will all of them". There are many plant based foods which provide all of them. Off the top of my head soya beans, lentils, kidney beans, tempeh and tofu. http://jacknorrisrd.com/comple... http://www.veganhealth.org/art...
The big misconception going on here is that Hampton Creek is developing lab meat for vegan consumption. Actually this will be a totally different market, sold first to environmentally conscious meat eaters and then, as the process scales up and comes down in cost, as a replacement for meat in the regular marketplace.
Vegetarians might eat lab meat because their objection to meat is specifically the idea of killing for it, but veganism is a religious movement that is going to automatically reject it as being 'artificial' and therefore objectionable as a cheat around the pose of self-denial inherent in eating nothing but plant matter. Hampton Creek is in this because the company is already a supplier of those vegan products that are made to resemble meat in cuisine, without being close enough for vegans to consider it cheating.
Schmeat.. Yum
Well, we're looking at a serious problem: Growing meat is expensive. Less so in terms of money, but in terms of energy. Animals waste a lot of the precious energy we pump into them to live rather than to grow meat. Unfortunately animals need to live to grow meat. Classic catch 22.
If we find a way to create meat in a way that consumes less energy than it takes to grow meat in animals, that's a huge step forward. Simply because more and more people want (and can afford) to eat meat. And we simply cannot produce that much. The choice is probably going to be growing meat in tanks or not have meat at all, because with more people wanting to eat, food prices will go up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're chipping in to pay farmers to collect semen and artificially inseminate cows, goats and sheep every time you buy meat and dairy.
I'd like to grow my meat ;) If it has to be in a lab, so be it.
A lot of vegetarians can't handle meat without getting sick because their body stops producing enzymes to help digest it. A lot of people are going to get sick and confirmation bias kicks in. It will be the new MSG.
As long as its GMO free, grass-fed, and organic I'm in! /s All in all a cool concept though. Thinking globally, perhaps if it becomes more affordable this is something that could be used to combat world hunger in areas of the world where it isn't practical/possible to raise traditional livestock.
I think that if hunting was an inefficient activity humans would not have continued doing it for millions of years.
Exactly. And if you look at our physical differences with other great apes, pretty much everything you see makes us better (long distance) runners. Humans have lost most of their body hair, to make sweating more effective. We have less muscles overall to save weight and increase flexibility, efficient bipedal motion, bigger buttocks, more flexible neck, and long tendons to act as springs to store energy. This suggests that persistence hunting was not a fad. It was a major phase in our development as a species.
You're an animal. A perfectly good one. Made out of food. But we don't eat you. Why? Because we respect the life and potential and feelings you represent, and find the idea of causing you pain, or harm, or loss of life, to be repugnant.
Some of us extend that to other animals. Consequently, we don't want to eat those other animals any more than we want to eat you.
For us, "clean meat" as TFS has it, is very welcome.
So that's the point.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Off the top of my head it seems to me these guys were caught doing some pretty heavy channel stuffing in the last few months.
For hire.
It's only fair to warn you, Mr. Chairman, that much of my evidence will be highly nauseating; it involves aspects of human nature that are very seldom discussed in public, and certainly not before a congressional committee. But I am afraid that they have to be faced,; there are times when the veil of hypocrisy has to be ripped away, and this is one them.
You and I, gentlemen, have descended from a long line of carnivores. I see from you expressions that most of you don't recognize the term. Well, that's not surprising-it comes from a language that has been obsolete for two thousand years. Perhaps I had better avoid euphemisms and be brutally frank, even if I have to use words that are never heard in polite society. I apologize in advance to anyone I may offend.
Until a few centuries ago, the favorite food of almost all men was meat-the flesh of once living animals. I'm not trying to turn your stomachs; this is a simple statement of fact, which you can check in any history book...
Why, certainly, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to wait until Senator Irving feels better. We professionals sometimes forget how laymen may react to statements like that. At the same time, I must warn the committee that there is very much worse to come. If any of you gentlemen are at all squeamish, I suggest you follow the senator before it's to late...
Well, if I may continue. Until modern times, all food fell into two categories. Most of it was produced from plants-cereals, fruits, plankton, algae and other forms of vegetation. It's hard for us to realize that the vast majority of our ancestors were farmers, winning food from the land or sea by primitive and often back breaking techniques; but that is the truth.
The second type of food, if I may return to this unpleasant subject, was meat, produced from a relatively small number of animals. You may be familiar with some of them-cows, pigs, sheep, whales. Most people-I am sorry to stress this, but the fact is beyond dispute-preferred meat to any other food, though only the wealthiest were able to indulge this appetite. To most of mankind, meat was a rare and occasional delicacy in a diet that was more than ninety-percent vegetable.
If we look at the matter calmly and dispassionately-as I hope Senator Irving is now in a position to do-we can see that meat was bound to be rare and expensive, for its production is an extremely inefficient process. To make a kilo of meat, the animal concerned had to eat at least ten kilo's of vegetable food â"very often food that could have been consumed directly by human beings. Quite apart from any consideration of aesthetics, this state of affairs could not be tolerated after the population explosion of the twentieth century. Every man who ate meat was condemning ten or more of his fellow humans to starvation...
Luckily for all of us, the biochemists solved the problem; as you may know, the answer was one of the countless byproducts of space research. All food-Animal or vegetable-is built up from a very few common elements. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, traces of sulphur and phosphorus-the half-dozen elements, and a few others, combine in an almost infinite variety of ways to make up every food that man has ever eaten or will ever eat. Faced with the problem of colonizing the moon and planets, the biochemists of the twenty-first century discovered how to synthesize and desired food from the basic raw materials of water, air and rock. It was the greatest, and perhaps the most important, achievement in the history of science. But we should not feel too proud of it. The vegetable kingdom had beaten us by a billion years.
The chemists could now synthesize and conceivable food, whether it had counterparts in nature or not. Needles to say, there were mistakes-even disasters. Industrial empires rose and crashed; the switch from agriculture and animal husbandry to the giant automatic processing plants and omniverters of today was often a painful one. The danger of starvation has been banished forever, and we have a richness and var
Just gross.
Not just top athletes. A 90 kg man running at a slow to medium pace will burn around 1000 kcal/hour.
While we did evolve to eat meat, we weren't designed for it. We could change our diets, adapt to the new conditions, and eventually evolve to be efficient without eating meat.
I have no plans along these lines, but it could be done.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not really. Doing nothing burns about 2000 kcal/day. Top athletes can burn up to 1000 kcal/hour.
Your logical fallacy is moving the goalposts. A lot of the time spent "hunting" is actually spent sitting still. And meat is so energy-dense that you don't necessarily need to do it every day.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This will allow people objecting to slaughter of actual animals to eat the necessary protein, which is good.
However, there is no mention of the "carbon footprint" of this method — how much electricity, labor, and materials is it going to take per pound? The (real) meat is wasteful, we are told. Will this be better?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Artificial insemination is perfectly reasonable, it's common for humans to do to other humans (my kids were actually produced this way due to some fertility issues we were having).
You want something to make a stink about?
What if we put portals into cow's bodies so we could just reach in to collect samples to analyze their digestion?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
There are videos of this, it's rather gross (OK, very gross is more accurate).
Full disclosure, as a child my family raised, butchered, and ate cows, pigs, chickens and rabbits. But we didn't put portals in our cows...
BlameBillCosby.com
That lied on the label, and was accused of buying up their own product off store shelves to boost their standing?
No, we're not perfectly good food. We're disease vectors. All critters that practice cannibalism show a high incidence of diseases that pass through that, with the exception of some interesting spiders.
How can you claim to extend that respect to "the life and potential and feelings" of predators when you deny their existence. Give you a hint. feel those eye teeth. We're omnivorous predators, and have been for a long, long time.
There is good reason we call the most murderous Humans "butchers"- history has taught us that once you can look a cow in the eye, then split its skull with a hammer, you are pretty much ready to do the same thing to people. Torturers are usually people with a background in killing animals. Serial killers almost always begin their career killing animals.
Yet in this thread a disgusting number of people dismiss the advantage of synthetic meat eliminating the need to kill anaimals. I think this speaks volume of the current neo-liberal warmongering targte audience Slashdot seeks. Evil on the rise, especially in the USA, as America prepares its population for war with Iran. So the neo-liberal idiots that voted for Clinton, yet cheer Trump's wars, are going to be proud to express their lack of interest in animal suffering. Those Japanese doctors who called their Human victims 'logs' during WW2 clearly share a near identical pschological make-up to far too many of Slashdot's remaining visitors.
But then Clinton loving neo-liberals don't lose a moment's sleep over America's destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria. Some animals are more equal than others- eh guys.
If it ain't Dukes, it pukes.
A lot of the time spent "hunting" is actually spent sitting still
I was commenting on the GP who said "performing intensive ways of obtaining food", such as running for 8 hours after the kudu, as from the link to the youtube video I posted up the thread.
The switch from hunter/gatherer to farmer caused humans to actually shrink in length, and that's been explained as due to the far less varied diet of the farmer, especially far less meat. Those hunter/gatherers did get a good amount of meat in their diet, the main reason to switch to farming is that your food supply becomes so much more reliable even if it's less nutritious and definitely less varied.
That KFC was accused of doing some years back (and was BS). Funny someone managed to pull it off. If this turns out to be the exact same thing as regular meat. minus the killing of an animal with no weird side effects (in the RL one does NOT get superpowers from eating toxic stuff sadly), then it's a viable option. Puts the farms out of business tho so there will be a disruptive economic impact as well.
Well, you need to run about 7.5 mph, which I wouldn't call "slow". And very few 90 kg men can keep that up for long enough to burn a large amount of calories.
Muslim companies start creating "artificial depictions of Mohammed" which combine light in such a way that there's never actually a full image of Mohammed in one place, but when you look at it you see what looks like an image of Mohammed anyway.
We can follow up with special Amish computers built out of wires instead of transistors because computers built that way can do exactly the same thing as normal computers while being less objectionable to Amish principles.
Maybe instead of creating artificial meat, they should figure out that their aversion to real meat has gone just a little bit too far? If you're making fake meat out of soy, that's a little weird, but people grow soy all the time. If you're developing a complicated and obviously inefficient laboratory growing process just so you can indulge in eating meat that doesn't violate your taboo against meat, things have gotten out of hand and you probably should take a second look at your taboos.
If it becomes cheaper to artificially manufacture meat, what are we going to do with all those obsolete cows? The species will go extinct in a generation if it's not economical to keep them.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Humans are designed to eat meat. We require large amounts of unique amino acids that are virtually impossible to get from plants. Why cater to those idiots?
Actually it's very easy to get amino acids from plants. Any one grain + any one legume = the complete complement of amino acids.
As for humans being designed to eat meat- the communities that have the longest living populations (such as various Mediterranean regions, and parts of Japan) have always eaten very little meat., and usually just fish when they do have meat.
I eat meat, I like meat. I'm not coming at this as a vegetarian, just pointing out that you're incorrect. We don't require huge amounts of meat. We can get amino acids very easily from plants. Vegetarians most certainly are not idiots- they just have a different lifestyle to you and I. (and they'll probably live longer as a result of it)
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
a lot quicker and cheaper than shipping it all the way from Vega (26 light years)
if god had meant for us to be vegans, we'd have dead brown eyes and go moo. we are at the apex of the food chain for a reason. embrace it.
This is not veganism the way veganism was meant to be. The point of veganism is to defend animals from human abusers by refusing to partake in their slaughter for human consumption.
Eating pretend meat is still eating meat, at least symbolically. You can sit in a restaurant and eat a black bean burger, but you're sending the message that it's okay to eat burgers. Nobody sitting 10 feet away can tell that you're not eating meat. They think you are.
Calorie approximations are pretty approximate, but IIRC the Harvard study puts a 185 lb man (approx 80 kg I think) running 7.5 mph (about 12 km/h) at 1000 kcal/h. 90 kg can get away with a little slower. 10 km/h is pretty standard for those 10k learn to run groups, so although it's (sadly) not something the average person can just get off the couch and do, it's a long way from elite athlete status.
I ran 10 km up a hill once with a semi-elite marathoner. She was very encouraging.
For people to think THIS is a good idea and GMOs are an evil scourge on the face of the planet just proves that they are nuts. Organic, free-range, fair-trade, locally-sourced, non-GMO nuts.
This is an interesting article as it comes to me just after reading about the tic that can make you allergic to red meat. There's a particular sugar in the tic's saliva and once your body reacts to that you become allergic to meat containing the same sugar, primarily the red meats. This lab grown meat could be produced with the genes for producing that sugar disabled so that it would become hypo-allergenic for people who have been affected by the tic bite.
I hope someone mentions this to them.
the communities that have the longest living populations (such as various Mediterranean regions
Meat has always been popular around the Mediterranean. Beef, lamb, goat, and plenty of seafood. For some reason (I blame Ancel Keys, who visited the area during Lent), people have popularized the idea that the Mediterranean diet was low in meat. That's just wrong.
Vegan's rail against GMOs but expect us to eat this sh*t.
The Vegan 'philosophy' (if you can call it that) states that Vegans may not eat, own, or use anything with an even remotely animal origin. Therefore this vat-grown 'meat' cannot be Vegan: they had to get the DNA from an animal.
the communities that have the longest living populations (such as various Mediterranean regions
Meat has always been popular around the Mediterranean. Beef, lamb, goat, and plenty of seafood. For some reason (I blame Ancel Keys, who visited the area during Lent), people have popularized the idea that the Mediterranean diet was low in meat. That's just wrong.
And not all Mediterranean communities have especially long lives; but the ones that do have lower meat intake. (they eat some, mainly seafood when they do). Same with Okinawa in Japan which is also home to the oldest living people, It's common with every one of the communities on earth with large numbers of people reaching 100. They all eat very little meat. (although they also all eat at least some meat).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
In the US, to be called mayonnaise, the food must contain eggs. If it's vegan, then it's not mayonnaise.
So vegans want to promote centralized big corporate industrial production at the expense of local sustainable economies. Not a wise choice.
I can produce tons of meat on pasture locally without the need for industrial or petroleum inputs.
Stick with the real meat.
I'm with you all the way on this one, except that meat is high in calories. Wildlife typically has very little fat, and meat itself has about 1200 kcal/kg. Not much compared to e.g. nuts and seeds.
(randomly chosen source: http://matvaretabellen.no/beef... )
Meat could also be preserved and stored, a valuable property. Animals provided much more than just meat. Tendons, fur, minerals (in bone), omega-3 fatty acids (the brain), to mention a few.
Of course humans are omnivores. Only idiots say otherwise.
Good comment.
Just to add to the discussion: People used traps, snares, pits, and nets to catch their prey thousands of years ago. It's not like humans had to spend eight hours running after animals to get their meat.
I've seen natives in Africa make bird traps out of bushes and bark. Took'em less than five minutes without using any tools, and the bird supply was endless.
Which came first? Does veganism cause insanity, or vice versa?
Except industrial chemicals are notorious for causing Cancer and all sorts of other fun stuff.
You think your ranch grown ones fed on hormones, antibiotics and feed-that-isn't-the-natural-diet is free of carcinogens or other harmful substances? You think that nice sizzle on your steak isn't carcinogenic? Enjoy your illusions.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
On the other hand, we have people who are currently subjecting themselves to be lab rats, testing whether we can survive without meat.
You might want to check out the millions (now hundreds of millions) in India who have done fine without meat from before Christ was born. 30-40% of India is vegetarian and has been for much longer than most long-term tests if you open your eyes.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-hampton-creek-just-mayo/
Hampton Creek never publicly admitted its numbers were wrong. It scrubbed its site of sustainability claims, and the Cookie Calculator vanished. Such quiet backpedaling might be forgivable at many young companies—overeager math isn’t unheard of in Silicon Valley. But at Hampton Creek, it fits a pattern of mistaken or exaggerated claims that may prove to be deliberately deceptive.
In August the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department launched probes of Hampton Creek for possible securities violations and criminal fraud. The investigation follows an Aug. 4 Bloomberg article that revealed the company deployed a national network of contractors to secretly buy back Just Mayo from grocery store shelves. Hampton Creek denies any wrongdoing. When news of the SEC inquiry became public, the company’s founder and chief executive officer, Josh Tetrick, wrote in an e-mail, “We’re aware of the informal inquiry and we’ll be sharing the facts, as opposed to the inaccuracies reported by Bloomberg.” The company declined to comment on the DOJ investigation.
You assume that a sole hunter would hunt one animal for himself only. This assumption is false and an animal as large as you describe would give a sole hunter the finger. You also assume that the hunter would be able to find and kill a large animal every day, which is even more ridiculous.
The typical size of a hunting party is 3-4 men. So at 125*3000 ~ 375.000 kcal/kg per carcass out of which the hunters would consume 9000kcal/kg to recoup the 8 hour run there is plenty left over for the rest of their group. The average size of a hunter gatherer band can range between ~12 to 50 individuals. If we assume a meat consumption of one kilo of meat per day for each individual in a group of 30 hunter gatherers, one carcass like that would last them for four days. However, a group of 30 would easily be able to field two hunter teams of 3-4 men each (or women, since women hunted in some of these societies) with, one group hunting and one either preparing for a hunt, or inbound with a carcass. At the same time these 6-8 people are out hunting the rest of the group would be out gathering fruits, vegetables, seeds roots herbs to supplement the diet and easily matching the contribution of the hunters while others are making equipment, clothing shelters etc... in short religionofpeas numbers seem perfectly plausible to me, especially since hunter gatherers ate every scrap of the animal down to the offal and the marrow in the bones and then used inedible parts including bones to make arrowheads, harpoons spear heads, knives and sinew to make rope, thread and as a component in bow making. Leather of course would not have been wasted either nor would horn or the wool of the animal if any. Many apex predators leave that stuff behind, a large animal killed by humans was likely to completely disappear simply because every bit of it's carcass was used up for some purpose.
A small comment about everyone's assumptions: It seems that most hunter-gatherers consume far more of the animal than muscle tissue. Which just means that hunting is even more efficient than the numbers you give.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
This is true - but we didn't know that until very recently. And it's not why we don't eat each other; resistance to doing that has been in place for longer than anyone remembers, free of knowledge or common experience with consequences to health. Free enough, in fact, that cannibalism keeps showing up in various forms, just as do other unhealthy but socially disfavored practices such as bloodline incest. There's been no inherent knowledge of the unhealthy nature of the act until someone actually engages in it, which, being very rare, hadn't been in the general knowledge base of the people until very recently.
Avoidance of cannibalism has been about empathy, primarily. For the victim, for the victim's relations. Knowledge about prions is, relatively speaking, a brand new factor. In one sense, it's good we know; in another, we don't have to, as cannibalism represents an obvious failure of empathy, a critical factor in healthy socialization, and the vast majority of people integrate the idea without needing a medical justification.
Also, just as an aside, there are plenty of red health flags WRT eating meat of other species. That should be sufficient to start up several relevant chains of thought that support what I've described here.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That's a very recent bit of knowledge, and one that was not available for most of history - yet we still didn't eat each other. Even the most ignorant and isolated peasants didn't do it. Try again. This time, think about empathy.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'll be first in line to buy a slab of delicious Maybe Meat!
Oh no, wait, no I won't.