Impossible Burger

[TipsyTraveler]

Even if it could someday be proven beyond doubt that animals do not have the capacity to experience complex social emotions like love and empathy, we still know that they experience pain, fear, and stress. And, in my mind, that’s reason enough to treat them with compassion.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

It'll be interesting to see how long "animal emotion deniers" linger, as compared to other deniers of scientific evidence such as climate change deniers and such.

To attempt to equate those that say animals don't have human emotions to climate change deniers is disingenuous. at best. We can measure and observe higher temperatures and declare that yes, they are higher temperatures. We can't observe an emotion. We can only observe behavior and guess at whether there is emotion behind it. Crocodiles cry? Does that mean they're sad? Cat's fight. Does that mean they're mad? Dogs have sex. Does that mean they love? There is no real proof other than the supposition that because humans feel emotions, the more like us that we think something is, the more likely it has them.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

So you aren't really saying anything, then, are you?

Third time is usually the charm. But you're wrong again. Strike three. You're out.

 

[georgina]

They have Impossible burger sliders at Nomad Lounge in AK. Really good. I'm not a strict vegetarian but I am trying to eat less meat.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

vegetables have feelings too

Veggie lives matter.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Well, having tasted an Impossible Whopper, I think they simulated the taste and texture of meat right. But I can see the costs going down. I distinctly remember technologies that seemed way too expensive since the target was early adopters, but with economies of scale the price did go down. My first DVD player cost $1000 and now I can buy a Blu-Ray player for $50. A recordable CD used to cost $15 and the recorder about $2000, but now it’s a quarter and maybe $15.

The ingredients are inherently cheaper than meat, so the projections aren’t just pie in the sky. However, they’re getting massive demand right now with a limited supply, and they can charge a lot for it. It’s not sustainable with a single factory in Oakland, but it could be once the processes are mature and they have multiple factories around the country or even the world.

Big difference between a genuine new technology and a variant of what we already have. What they're serving isn't revolutionary, isn't new, and wasn't impossible before they came around. In fact veggie burgers have been around for over 20 years. And I can do just as much for the environment far far far cheaper by buying a more reasonably priced product rather than be suckered because someone says their aim is to save the planet, an aim they aren't even close at the moment to achieving. Using your Blue Ray example, imagine if someone came along right now and said they had a revolutionary new blue ray that was going to save the planet and sold it for 5 times the price of a blue ray. And then when the price is pointed out they say well our aim is to eventually price it lower and if you'll just pay these unreasonably high price, well we'll save the planet. Why should I be suckered into paying 5 times more for something than it is worth just because someone says in the future if blah blah blah, we're going to save the planet when in fact, as it currently is, it won't make even a scratch, let alone a dent?

 

[Hikergirl]

It'll be interesting to see how long "animal emotion deniers" linger, as compared to other deniers of scientific evidence such as climate change deniers and such.

"Animal Emotion Deniers" that's a new one

Look, I'm an animal lover, I have a house full of pets that I love and I "think" they love me.
But I also know that we are animals and as much as some don't like to face facts, some animals just make good food for other animals.

 

[bcla]

Big difference between a genuine new technology and a variant of what we already have. What they're serving isn't revolutionary, isn't new, and wasn't impossible before they came around. In fact veggie burgers have been around for over 20 years. And I can do just as much for the environment far far far cheaper by buying a more reasonably priced product rather than be suckered because someone says their aim is to save the planet, an aim they aren't even close at the moment to achieving. Using your Blue Ray example, imagine if someone came along right now and said they had a revolutionary new blue ray that was going to save the planet and sold it for 5 times the price of a blue ray. And then when the price is pointed out they say well our aim is to eventually price it lower and if you'll just pay these unreasonably high price, well we'll save the planet. Why should I be suckered into paying 5 times more for something than it is worth just because someone says in the future if blah blah blah, we're going to save the planet when in fact, as it currently is, it won't make even a scratch, let alone a dent?

Well - we can see what they have now, which is a product that costs a little bit more than ground beef and where the actual product is remarkably similar. They have a single plant in Oakland, California trying to churn out worldwide demand. Right now they're very much an artisan producer trying to meet worldwide demand, but in the end they're not doing anything so complicated that it can't be replicated 100 times as long as they can produce enough heme. They're essentially a microbrewery right now, but from everything I understand about how they make their product, they could scale like how Anheuser-Busch makes beer. And for as much flak as A-B gets, they could easily make something that would pass for an expensive beer and frankly have.

The issue is that nobody else (save maybe Beyond) really has anything that's close. Other vegetarian patties are sold as vegetarian alternatives and not substitutes. And why rail on marketing? There's nothing unusual about a "save the world, one sandwich at a time" theme.

Currently they're operating on almost free publicity, word of mouth, and novelty. Long-term they can't survive unless they bring down the price. At least at my local BK a Whopper is $4.99 and an Impossible Whopper is $6.29. That doesn't really seem all that much of a premium in a market where new adopters often pay double or triple I could easily see them bring down the price because their model would seem to scale if they could develop size. And I could really see that happening if they get bought out by some company like Nestle (which is developing its own alternative), Coca-Cola, or a large meat producer like Tyson or Perdue.

 

[Quartz01]

Veggie lives matter.

OMG that’s hilarious. Unfortunately I’ve heard that joke like a million times from my flat Earth uncle at every gathering. It really irritates him that I don’t eat meat.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

"Animal Emotion Deniers" that's a new one

Look, I'm an animal lover, I have a house full of pets that I love and I "think" they love me.
But I also know that we are animals and as much as some don't like to face facts, some animals just make good food for other animals.

I’m having a hard time following your logic here. Humans are a food source for some animals — leopards, lions, and crocodiles, for example. Are you suggesting that as an animal that serves as a food source for another, we don’t have value beyond that? Our lives aren’t worthy of being preserved, and we shouldn’t do what we can to minimize suffering as best we can for whatever time we have here on earth?

 

[TipsyTraveler]

.....Coca-Cola, or a large meat producer like Tyson or Perdue.

And those three companies are also moving into the plant-based market with their own products.

 

[Hikergirl]

I’m having a hard time following your logic here. Humans are a food source for some animals — leopards, lions, and crocodiles, for example. Are you suggesting that as an animal that serves as a food source for another, we don’t have value beyond that? Our lives aren’t worthy of being preserved, and we shouldn’t do what we can to minimize suffering as best we can for whatever time we have here on earth?

I have never claimed that animals don't have value over being a food source, but that doesn't change the facts that animals ARE food sources. It is just nature.
If a person chooses to refrain from eating them that is great, however there is no moral superiority in doing that, since that is what we human animals are designed to do. I am not morally conflicted about doing what nature intends of me, and I can still manage to be an animal lover. YMMV.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Well - we can see what they have now, which is a product that costs a little bit more than ground beef and where the actual product is remarkably similar. They have a single plant in Oakland, California trying to churn out worldwide demand. Right now they're very much an artisan producer trying to meet worldwide demand, but in the end they're not doing anything so complicated that it can't be replicated 100 times as long as they can produce enough heme. They're essentially a microbrewery right now, but from everything I understand about how they make their product, they could scale like how Anheuser-Busch makes beer. And for as much flak as A-B gets, they could easily make something that would pass for an expensive beer and frankly have.

The issue is that nobody else (save maybe Beyond) really has anything that's close. Other vegetarian patties are sold as vegetarian alternatives and not substitutes. And why rail on marketing? There's nothing unusual about a "save the world, one sandwich at a time" theme.

Currently they're operating on almost free publicity, word of mouth, and novelty. Long-term they can't survive unless they bring down the price. At least at my local BK a Whopper is $4.99 and an Impossible Whopper is $6.29. That doesn't really seem all that much of a premium in a market where new adopters often pay double or triple I could easily see them bring down the price because their model would seem to scale if they could develop size. And I could really see that happening if they get bought out by some company like Nestle (which is developing its own alternative), Coca-Cola, or a large meat producer like Tyson or Perdue.

I see their marketing for what it is. It is nothing more than fluff trying to convince you you're doing something good for the planet to hoodwink you out of more money than you need to spend when in fact they aren't. And I don't believe some fairy tale that some how economies of scale is going to bring the price of this down from $13 a pound to $2 a pound. I'll believe it when I actually see it. And until I see it, I'm not buying the just subsidize us and we promise we'll eventually save the planet line. It's just like a Tesla. I'll buy one for around town if I want one. But Not because I'm buying into the we're eventually going to have a safe and sane battery with 10 times the energy density of TNT that can go 1,000 miles and be charged in 10 minutes nonsense.

OMG that’s hilarious. Unfortunately I’ve heard that joke like a million times from my flat Earth uncle at every gathering. It really irritates him that I don’t eat meat.

The mere fact that someone doesn't eat meat, doesn't irritate me. And I don't think it alone would irritate that many other people either.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I have never claimed that animals don't have value over being a food source....

On the previous page you posted this:

Actually yes. You confuse "love" for their instinct to protect their offspring in order to keep their species going.
They know their place in the food chain, they know they exist as some other animal's food source. They don't even know they know it, they are animals it is just in their DNA.
That is where we human animals come in. It is in our DNA to consume them.

Which made it sound like you believe animals function more or less as unthinking, unfeeling robotic creatures who are only operating on instinct and the only comprehensive capacity they have is to understand that their purpose is to reproduce and be eaten. Because, after all, they are animals and are part of the food chain. But then you kept mentioning that WE are animals, and since we also have a place as prey in the food chain, yet also experience all kinds of complex emotions and (hopefully) have value beyond just being someone else’s food source, I was just trying to understand how you reconciled these things. Especially because you then went further to say you think your pets love you. I was having trouble sorting out your views and making them consistent and sensible in my head, that’s all.

.....but that doesn't change the facts that animals ARE food sources. It is just nature.
If a person chooses to refrain from eating them that is great, however there is no moral superiority in doing that, since that is what we human animals are designed to do. I am not morally conflicted about doing what nature intends of me, and I can still manage to be an animal lover. YMMV.

Well, I don’t know that it’s correct to discuss things in terms of nature’s intentions, since nature isn’t a sentient being and therefore doesn’t really have wants and intentions. Whatever we choose to do — eat other animals or not, protect ourselves from predators or not — becomes a part of the “nature” we live in.

If you’re talking about “nature’s intentions” in the raw and primal sense, as in what the human experience has looked liked throughout much of history when we were hunting animals for survival, then I personally have no problem “going against nature” in that case. After all, nature “intends” for us to sleep in huts and caves, travel everywhere by foot, have no control over the number of children we have, and die from simple bacterial infections. Nor is it really “natural” to buy our food at the grocery store.

Nature gave us humans an extraordinary capacity for intelligence and we have mostly chosen to use that intelligence in ways that make our lives safer, longer, and more comfortable for ourselves and others. Where one decides to draw the line in regards to which “others” also deserve to benefit from our progress differs, of course. Personally, I try to make choices that extend those benefits to as many living beings as possible since I’m fortunate enough to live in a time and place where I can so easily abstain from causing harm in the name of survival. YMMV.

 

[Hikergirl]

Oh brother, you win @TipsyTraveler you are the better human being.
Now you'll excuse me while I go pop some nice juicy steaks on the grill for my family and my dog.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Oh brother, you win @TipsyTraveler you are the better human being.
Now you'll excuse me while I go pop some nice juicy steaks on the grill for my family and my dog.

Weird, I didn’t know we were in competition for that title. When you were talking about nature and DNA and food sources and the reasons you make the choices you do, I didn’t take it that you were trying to “win” something or prove yourself morally superior. But when I explain my reasons for making a different choice, that’s what you accuse me of.

 

[bcla]

I see their marketing for what it is. It is nothing more than fluff trying to convince you you're doing something good for the planet to hoodwink you out of more money than you need to spend when in fact they aren't. And I don't believe some fairy tale that some how economies of scale is going to bring the price of this down from $13 a pound to $2 a pound. I'll believe it when I actually see it. And until I see it, I'm not buying the just subsidize us and we promise we'll eventually save the planet line.

As someone who works in the technology industry and with friends and relatives in the biotechnology industry, I've seen costs go down. The manufacturing and assembly of burger substitutes isn't where their costs are coming from. They're folding their technology costs into it. I can easily imagine that the prices will go down quickly.

 

[Searc]

Oh brother, you win @TipsyTraveler you are the better human being.
Now you'll excuse me while I go pop some nice juicy steaks on the grill for my family and my dog.

We had venison kebabs on the grill.

 

[vacationer1954]

To attempt to equate those that say animals don't have human emotions to climate change deniers is disingenuous. at best.

The same was said about climate change denial years ago. And not that many years ago, at that.

But I also know that we are animals and as much as some don't like to face facts, some animals just make good food for other animals.

No doubt, but first and foremost it isn't so much about that as it is the callousness by which we've taken pasture animals and put them into CAFOs.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

The same was said about climate change denial years ago. And not that many years ago, at that.
No doubt, but first and foremost it isn't so much about that as it is the callousness by which we've taken pasture animals and put them into CAFOs.

Here is the rest of my quote for context.
To attempt to equate those that say animals don't have human emotions to climate change deniers is disingenuous. at best. We can measure and observe higher temperatures and declare that yes, they are higher temperatures. We can't observe an emotion. We can only observe behavior and guess at whether there is emotion behind it. Crocodiles cry? Does that mean they're sad? Cat's fight. Does that mean they're mad? Dogs have sex. Does that mean they love? There is no real proof other than the supposition that because humans feel emotions, the more like us that we think something is, the more likely it has them.

Again we can measure global temperature averages and see that yes indeed they have gone up. People can haggle and higgle about the causes, but denying that temperatures are going up is to deny reality. We cannot observe emotions. There is no emotion thermometer we can look at and say oh yes, that's love. And that's anger. All we can do is observe behavior and guess whether there is human type emotion behind it or not. Big difference between global warming denial and not believing that animals have emotions. The former is denying measurable facts. The latter is making a different conclusion from observed behavior regarding something else that is unobservable. There is no denying facts involved. One can observe my dog's behavior toward me and conclude just as reasonably, pack instinct as one can conclude he loves me without any denial involved. And that's a difference you're all too conveniently ignoring in your statement. Does my dog have emotions? I'd like to think so. But if someone says it's instinct their guess is just as good as mine.

But speaking of global warming, regarding that pasture finishing you want. That would increase land usage for U.S. cattle by the size of Wyoming, increase water usage by U.S. cattle 35%, and last but not least, the piece de resistance, increase greenhouse gas emissions by U.S. cattle 500%.