This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Elessar · 26-30, M
As @JohnRing said, it's a type of diet that involves either relying on a high amount of industrial/processed crap, or a (risky) DIY approach that will most likely result in an unbalanced and unhealthy diet, especially if without medical supervision and/or constant diagnostic monitoring. Its proponents focus only on the good aspects forgetting completely the reasons that make it extremely unpractical and unlikely to become anything more than a niche market, exclusively for wealthy/mid-class people living in wealthy countries.
If the goal is reducing/eliminating farming, we have a much better luck with synthetic meat provided that 1) it'll become much cheaper than now and 2) it can be grown into full muscles/organs than just a messy aggregation of cells that are at most suitable for making burgers.
If the goal is reducing/eliminating farming, we have a much better luck with synthetic meat provided that 1) it'll become much cheaper than now and 2) it can be grown into full muscles/organs than just a messy aggregation of cells that are at most suitable for making burgers.
Elessar · 26-30, M
@Pikachu Well, forcing people to change their diet habits especially in a way that can possibly create problems (from physical, to social and even psychological), would raise ethical questions too.
Not forcing anyone (i.e. the situation we have now), results in extremely low adoption rates to have any observable impacts altogether on farming.
I don't think it works. Similarly to how prohibition didn't work for alcohol.
Not forcing anyone (i.e. the situation we have now), results in extremely low adoption rates to have any observable impacts altogether on farming.
I don't think it works. Similarly to how prohibition didn't work for alcohol.