Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
Personally, I believe that you are convoluting the problem when you frame the matter like that.
Many of us who may have considered the matter of nutrition in any kind of meaningful way would have come across sources of information that shows that a lot of the problems with food supply come from various kinds of processing of foods and stuffing of ingredients to make cheaper and screwing around with oils to make various kinds of artificial oils. The man made meat is likely to suffer from some of the similar kinds of processing issues, even though they are going to try to frame it as if it almost like the same thing and grown from a petri-dish so therefore even better than real meat... blah blah blah.
Many of us who may have considered the matter of nutrition in any kind of meaningful way would have come across sources of information that shows that a lot of the problems with food supply come from various kinds of processing of foods and stuffing of ingredients to make cheaper and screwing around with oils to make various kinds of artificial oils. The man made meat is likely to suffer from some of the similar kinds of processing issues, even though they are going to try to frame it as if it almost like the same thing and grown from a petri-dish so therefore even better than real meat... blah blah blah.
Sure, but this is not a problem with artificiality, it is a problem with production values. The artificial doesn't necessarily have to be inferior to the natural, and where the right values are demanded, can even be superior. Algae oil grown in a lab, for example, can be a cleaner source of Omega-3 than eating fatty fish every day, because of persistent organic pollutants that bioaccumulate in the food chain.
Will the shitburger you suggest come about? Alas, unless there is a change to the general scheme of incentivisation for producers it is almost inevitable. Perhaps one might argue that the natural is heuristically better than the artificial because it places a constraint on the producer not otherwise existing. There's also a conservative argument against the novel because of unintended consequences.
I don't really feel like debating the matter further, even though I still am likely to lambast vegetarians, vegans and artificial meat advocates from time to time and at will.
In other words, there are a lot of reasons be skeptical of those pushing these kinds of ideas, even though perhaps there might be some ways to employ such learnings in beneficial ways, and surely there are some kinds of processed foods that are neither bad for you nor trying to lure you into eating substandard ingredients... just consider how far some of the soy and soy oil propaganda has gotten and even transfats are still used in products and people believe them to be healthy or more healthy when they really should be illegal... an example of such is margarine versus butter, and surely butter is superior in terms of nutrition but margarine is sold as if it were the same thing and its cheaper so people buy it.. what a scam.
It can take a long fucking time to figure out when you are being scammed.. take crisco oil for example.. still on the shelves... people buy it and use it... because they were trying to substitute out saturated fat.. as if saturated fat were bad for you... and if you believe that actual saturated fat is bad for you, then you are totally delusional, and I (that's the royal I) don't really want to hear your delusional ideas about what science supports and does not support... but sure you are free to make such arguments, even if I do not want to hear them... you fuck.
#nohomo.