Well, shrimp are a few classifications removed from roaches, they're in the same Phylum, Arthropoda, kind of like Cows are in the Chordata Phylum with snakes ...
If you up and down the Taxonomy hierarchy, we're all eating something less desirable,
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Future Of Food
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, shrimp are a few classifications removed from roaches, they're in the same Phylum, Arthropoda, kind of like Cows are in the Chordata Phylum with snakes ...
If you up and down the Taxonomy hierarchy, we're all eating something less desirable,
But that is all perception.Well, shrimp are a few classifications removed from roaches, they're in the same Phylum, Arthropoda, kind of like Cows are in the Chordata Phylum with snakes ...
If you up and down the Taxonomy hierarchy, we're all eating something less desirable,
I'd rather eat crickets than cockroaches, because I know cockroaches in some cases thrive in human filth. However, if they were raised in a controlled environment, that would neutralize the issue, although I would be no less disgusted at the thought of bug eating. 
No, but they will be if the vegans get there way and manage to force all of us to eat nothing but veg and bugs. Gonna be a lot of back yard BBQ's and disappeared vegans.Wait... are big macs people?
I could see that. I would certainly be more likely to eat less meat than to give it up altogether. So, I guess for my next meal, I'll have a 1/4 pound burger rather than a 1/2 pound burger.
Whew, that was easy.
That might not last forever, assuming the world's population hasn't peaked over the medium to long term. Livestock takes up a lot in the way of resources. I eat a fair amount of meat too, but I tend to think when companies speculate on this, they're primarily speculating on availability, not ethical concerns. If purchasing a steak from the grocery store cost $100 in today's money, fewer people would buy it. Fewer stores would carry it.
Most cultures don't consume as much meat as westerners. I think we're good. There's a lot of animals we could eat our north European friends consume but we don't because they're "cute."
Cuteness doesn't really track the resources required to raise something as livestock. That's the primary issue. The yield involved in raising animals as food doesn't scale as well.
This is an argument that's been pushed for several decades. I'm not worried about it. You want to do your part? Become a vegan.
I don't see that happening in the near future, unless I can figure out a vegan diet that doesn't leave me feeling a bit drained.
You might have misread the tone there. I'm saying that I don't think cute animals necessarily make for more scalable livestock, and depending on general population trends, meat could become a luxury one day.
Make that become a luxury again one day. For most of human history (excluding the pre farming hunter gatherer stage where there were far, far fewer mouths to feed) it has been a luxury. Even well into the second half of the 20th century, it was a relative luxury. Readily available, ultra cheap meat is an advent of the last 30-40 years only and I think it’s plain to anyone with the inclination to give it the most cursory thought that it’s not sustainable even given no further population growth and assuming other countries don’t continue to trend towards western meat-heavy diets. The farming practices required to rear the amount of animals necessary to meet current demand are already destructive - degrading land and requiring huge intervention by way of antibiotics and supplementary feed.
I also think that the quality of the meat has suffered greatly due to those changes in farming practices. That chicken you're eating isn't a patch on what was being served 30-40 years ago, nor is the beef.
Another bizarre recent habit in developed countries is the fact of discarding a lot of parts of the animal other cultures happily consume. Not just liver but well, almost everything. I saw this two years ago in Kyrgyzstan when I, a guest at a rural family's dinner, was offered the sheep's head which I promptly passed to the elders. I do like tongue (beef and sheep) however. Entrails are featured in many cuisines and properly prepared are tasty.
At least in the USA I think a lot of people --and in a broad array of cultures-- who once fancied things like beef tongue, chicken livers etc. drew away from using them as industrial farming changed how the animals ending up as supermarket fare were raised, fed, and increasingly treated with antibiotics to fend off illnesses exacerbated by "factory farm" environment.
Excellent post.
In some of the countries where I have worked, serving meat was a sign of respect (for a guest) and wealth (for the host).
While being able to afford to serve meat at your table has been seen as something that signals some degree of wealth, even when eating meat, sometimes, in our world, kids will turn up their nose at eating different parts of an animal two or three days running, - or eating the remains of a roast, as cold cuts the following day - which is extraordinarily wasteful.
Ultra cheap meat is a very costly (in terms of the environment, animal & fowl welfare, and sheer subjective matters such as taste) social experiment, and not healthy for the environment, or for society.
Nobody needs meat every day, although I will concede that my desire for it increases in the cold, dark, damp, northern winter months. In summer, I can go without meat for a week or more at a time.
Not unless you are prepared to pay a lot more to buy a (free range) chicken from a farmer who reared it, and allowed it to run around doing whatever chickens do when allowed to age naturally. Such chickens are round four to five times more expensive than the broilers available in supermarkets, but they taste far better, and have been treated far better.
If I tell myself that roast chicken is a treat we will have once a month, or, once every six weeks, (and thoroughly enjoy it), then, that it is a monthly treat, rather than something consumed weekly, then, it is easily affordable, and is very much appreciated when we do partake of it.
Agreed.
I spent some time in Kyrgyzstan and noticed that, too.
Mind you, the most prestigious meat they can offer anyone as a sign of respect is horse meat.
Last edited:
Yep, they don’t ranch anymore, they feedlot, use many pounds of corn to fatten them up quickly as possible, and lots of anti-biotics because of the unsanitary conditions which exposes consumers to unnecessary drugs in their meat diet, and hastens the growth of super bugs.
I’ll add this is one of the reasons we desperately need regulations in our lives. Making the most money is not the only priority of this existence. I’ll stop there as this is not PRSI.
Here's an interesting piece on why cows are getting a bad rap from environmentalists when it's just not warranted. We don't need beef or other meats to go away. If people want to eat bugs, rather than real food then more power to them. Just leave the rest of us alone.
https://www.businessinsider.com/giving-up-meat-wont-save-planet-2018-10
https://www.businessinsider.com/giving-up-meat-wont-save-planet-2018-10
Yes they are cute... and ingenious too. They make Thanksgiving fare out of leftover Halloween. And anyway they seem to realize that local hunters are after the deer for dinner options now, not snacks...
I try to make my food choices based on what is most beneficial to my health. The healthiest, most nutrient-dense foods available come from animals. And those nutrients in animal products (meat, dairy products/eggs) are usually much more bio-available than from plants as well. I also keep in mind the fact that agriculture is the single most devastating ecological disaster that man has brought to the Earth, far worse than raising animals for food.
The meat I eat is 100% grass-fed and pasture-raised, so I know it's possible to raise animals for food in a sustainable way. Actually, properly done cattle ranching builds topsoil every year - the growing of food destroys and pollutes topsoil, year after year. Furthermore, agriculture kills millions of animals every year - they are chopped up by combines, poisoned, trapped, shot, etc., so the farmer can continue to grow low quality foodstuffs like corn and wheat, all the while saturating the land with Monsanto-made poisons (pesticides, herbicides, etc.).
No, you are not doing the world a favor by eating a plant-based diet. However by all means eat what suits your ethical and moral compass. I'd like to see feedlots banned and all animals raised in spacious, natural surroundings.
I do realize that everything in this post is merely one man's opinion.
The meat I eat is 100% grass-fed and pasture-raised, so I know it's possible to raise animals for food in a sustainable way. Actually, properly done cattle ranching builds topsoil every year - the growing of food destroys and pollutes topsoil, year after year. Furthermore, agriculture kills millions of animals every year - they are chopped up by combines, poisoned, trapped, shot, etc., so the farmer can continue to grow low quality foodstuffs like corn and wheat, all the while saturating the land with Monsanto-made poisons (pesticides, herbicides, etc.).
No, you are not doing the world a favor by eating a plant-based diet. However by all means eat what suits your ethical and moral compass. I'd like to see feedlots banned and all animals raised in spacious, natural surroundings.
I do realize that everything in this post is merely one man's opinion.
ORRRRRRRR... You are actually wrong. Unless of course, you take a random cow farmer and not the average, in which case you may be right. The 2600 gallons is pretty close to be right for grass fed cows in the US.
The actual source that they quote in your link says 176 gallons for conventional US production of beef. Funny how a site with an agenda can't even quote sources correctly, even when it is in their favor. As a world average, the article quotes 1600 gallons per pound of beef, for conventional production