Welp, here come the meat-based plants.
Welp, here come the meat-based plants.
Molecular farming company Moolec has inserted pig genes into soy beans to generate meaty-tasting proteins that can be grown in plants.
You're viewing a single thread.
The lengths people will go to just to avoid learning how to properly cook vegetables...
Eh I'm keen. I didn't stop eating pigs because they taste bad or are unhealthy or whatever. I stopped because it's a moral atrocity.
If someone wants to be like "here is a transgenic soybean that tastes like that thing you like" whether that's crustaceans, pigs, or Apple tart then fuck yeah I'm down to enjoy it.
Plus if it makes it easier for carnists to change more will so that'd be nice.
carnists
That word really does paint a picture of the speaker.
Edit: wow! I did not realize I was in c/vegans. The downvotes just solidified that "picture of the vegan speaker".
It is literally the accepted academic term for followers of the ideology that considers the use of specific non human animals as foodstuffs and materials acceptable. As opposed to various religious ideologies or philosophical ones such as veganism.
Like stuff has names, idk what to tell you. Getting bent up over being part of a named category is as silly as people who insist they're not heterosexual or cisgender or whatever.
If you're interesting in learning about the topic I can recommend Psychologist and researcher Melany Joy's book "why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows" which explores this in a western context.
It is literally the accepted academic term for followers of the ideology that considers the use of specific non human animals as foodstuffs and materials acceptable.
That's fair, but I've never heard it used outside of a vegan talking about how terrible "other" people are.
I also did NOT realize which sub I was on. That's what I get for browsing all and then walking into a non-carnivorous lion's den.
Like stuff has names, idk what to tell you. Getting bent up over being part of a named category is as silly as people who insist they're not heterosexual or cisgender or whatever.
I'm not bent in any way. Like I said, the only people I've ever heard that word used are vegans. And it's always said in a snide way as a derogatory term.
If you're interesting in learning about the topic I can recommend Psychologist and researcher Melany Joy's book "why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows" which explores this in a western context.
Nah I'm good. I love dogs and cows. And cows are tasty too.
It's actually a documented phenomena that carnists feel more negative judgement from vegans than vegans actually judge carnists.
You have to remember that almost all of us were raised carnist, and many spent decades following the ideology before changing our minds. I went vegan at like 25, for all I know you're 21 and will go vegan at 23 thus being a "better" person than me :p
I really would encourage reading, consider that almost all vegans were convinced in the face of inertia and overwhelming social pressure not to change. Consider also that at literally any point in the past we can see behaviours only a minority were calling out which we now find staggeringly cruel.
You don't have to agree, but you only stand to gain by learning.
I'm not in my 20s, I'll say that much. And I'm actually very well read and knowledgeable on nutrition, diet, biology, and medicine. I literally had a medical doctor ask me today if I worked in medicine because of the way I talked.
I was studying on two separate occasions to be a vet and a microbiologist (life had other plans).
I wholly disagree with veganism. I have no issues if someone wants to be vegan, but biologically humans do not work well with it. I do, however, think that most people (mainly in the west) eat too much meat. A normal diet should be around 10% to (max) 20% meats.
We simply cannot extract enough nutrition from a plant-only diet without going to extreme lengths (time, effort, and financial). And even then it doesn't always go well. There are hoards of ex-vegans that gave up because they were literally becoming malnourished despite their best efforts to learn and adapt.
I think it's fine if someone wants to (or needs to) be a vegetarian (pescatarian or lacto/ovo-vegatarian). My MIL got bitten by a lone-star tick when she was a kid, and she contacted that rare condition where the antibodies that the immune system creates to fight off a particular bacteria from the lone-star tick also binds to some proteins in red meat and poultry. She loves the taste of poultry and beef, but gets physically ill if she eats it. But she can eat fish or eggs just fine.
I also agree that the farming/cattle industry in the USA is, for the most part, abhorrent in their treatment of animals. And their extremely liberal use of antibiotics in raising cattle is creating all kinds of problems for us.
Fortunately, I don't live in the US, so the meat where I am is far higher quality with well treated animals. We also do not suffer the kinds of health problems the US does.
One thing that irritates me about vegans in general is how so many promote their way of life as being healthier. The old meme of "how do you know if someone is vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you" is true. I've been told so many times by a person, completely unprompted and without context, that they're vegan (or newly vegan). They go on and on about getting so much better, and how everyone should be vegan, etc. What always fails to be recognized is that they feel better, not because of cutting out meats, but because they cut all the crap processed foods and all the sugars.
The very nature of someone becoming vegan is a lifestyle change, and with that comes a lot of hyper-focusing on what they are eating. And because eating vegan requires tracking and hitting all your macros with the goal of being healthy, it is natural that the process would also steer people away from junk food and processed foods in general.
That is where the health benefits come from with veganism. It's the removal of the well documented and well understood body damaging substances like high-fructose corn syrup.
As for your comment about cruelty. Like I said earlier, I do agree that many modern industrial farms are cruel, but that's an entirely different discussion than the merits of a healthy diet.
Now if you're going to say killing an animal for the purpose of eating it is cruel, then I don't know what to tell you. The vast majority of animals on this planet survive only by eating other animals. And the way they do it is definitely cruel and painful (and often gruesome and horrific).
Even our modern understanding of carnivorous vs herbivorous is changing. We're seeing more and more reports of "herbivores" eating other animals. Like deer eating birds (no, I'm very serious).
It's a simple reality and fact of biology on this planet; including us. Humans do not thrive on a plant-only diet. Meat simply is too nutrient and protein dense to do away with entirely. Should most people eat less meat? Absolutely. But zero meat is out of the question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpxgzGnEF7E
And to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you to quit veganism. I'm just imploring you to be open minded that veganism isn't the answer for most people.
So a lot of this is just straight up wrong but it's so scattershot it's difficult to even address. I fail to see what this has to do with learning about what carnism is.
The stuff about wild animals is just the naturalistic fallacy, like that argument applies equally well against treating illness because in the wild the weak and sick die brutally. It's like, ok? so what? We're not wild snapping turtles, or musk rats, or great white sharks. We can behave in different ways.
The stuff about health is just wrong, there are definitely a few high profile people who have claimed malnutrition however having such broad medical knowledge you will know self reporting sucks and can't be relied on. You'll also know that people tend to rationalise their actions and about the power of the placebo and nocebo effects. Unless they were clinically examined it's not worth much.
The stuff about obsessing over food and time/expense is also false. Most of us just eat whatever and do fine. I mean I have no deficiencies and and only take d3 (Australia, pale, sun is unsafe unprotected had to take when carnist too) and b12 which is cheap. Actual studies reflect similar rates of deficiencies to meat eaters with a few differences like iron being slightly more common than some plant nutrient and generally better serum levels of cholesterol.
All of this is also beside the ethical point. Like it's entirely possible that the moral thing to do is just hard, or even self destructive. Like most people would agree that if you had to take food from someone else who would starve or starve yourself the moral thing is to starve. Fortunately it's entirely possible to live a healthy life on a plant based diet, but even if it wasn't ethics would probably demand being almost entirely plant based and eating the minimum amount of animal products obtained with the least impact to survive which isn't the compromise you're advocating.
Banned for carnist propaganda. It expires in a month, please don't come back with these hot takes when it expires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism:
Carnism is a concept used in discussions of humanity's relation to other animals, defined as a prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.
Just like your reply paints a picture...
How so?
This article is talking about soy beans.