The Future Meat factory for synthetic artificial meat has just opened!

[Christophe]

2nd brain or not, I prefer to become a vegetarian too rather than swallowing up these industrial excrements filled with additives, anabolics and germicides.

It already exists ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Nah, nah. We sell it to you for what it is, not like in the photo from Brazil (by Terry Gilliams) or we sell you the dish in the photo and we bring you colorful porridge! With the fricadelle we cultivate a paradox: we really know what we are buying, but we don't really know what we are eating!

[Janic]

Christophe "26/06/21, 16:50

Something to satisfy all the vegans, vegetarians and vegans in the world soon?

we tend to confuse vegan and vegan. Vegans are opposed to all uses of animal products and therefore these products have an animal origin., Therefore synthetic meats are part of it.
On the other hand, vegans do not consume meat for biological reasons because of their inadequacy to human physiology, which results in short or longer term dysfunctions depending on the individual and therefore with the objective of preserving their health. . thus these "synthetic" meats are no better suited. There remains the flexitarians or other corpse eaters who may be interested.

[Obamot]

When I see that the Swiss had a historic opportunity to vote to get out of the pesticide nightmare and that the plan was, if the initiative had passed, that this would have potentially reduced animal husbandry and therefore internal meat production by almost 'a third, and that they did not seize this historic opportunity, I wonder why, and I tell myself that there are at least 3 reasons:

1) the votes were rigged (if only by the deceptive campaign waged with heavy resources before the vote)
2) we tend to overestimate the capacity for discernment of citizens whose heads have been stuffed with fake news for decades (and which was revealed to us by the covid crisis) ...
3) even highly educated people are not too aware of being manipulated or of being very ignorant in many areas, for them the consumption of meat is a subject that does not matter to them, so we set the bar too high, we should already start by reducing smoking and alcoholism ...

If you see others ... don't be shy

[Janic]

If you see others ... don't be shy

a standard! The overconsumption of medical petrochemical drugs and its vicious circles!

[Moindreffor]

No, that's not it, Moindreffor, in bad shape as he is, claims that the "vegans" have “No brain”.
Either ... But 1) it is he who is in bad shape and 2) it is not possible.

Besides, it's so stupid that he didn't answer!

We don't push people to make a fool of themselves, damn it!

not answered quickly enough, sorry, I'm busy elsewhere ...

you have grasped the "humor" or "provocative" side, what I just wanted to highlight, by "brainless", is the low level of reflection in certain procedures, "we did not make it work too much his intellect "to get there

as proof, it is very easy to plant a "vegan" by opposing him these very many contradictions, or those of the "vegan philosophy"

for me as soon as we propose an "innovation" based on exclusion, on rejection, it is a bad innovation, we do not unite around an exclusion ...

and beyond the "vegans" we can just take the "vegetarians" who for me are taken hostage by the system they denounce, because we offer meat substitutes, of course, but always and again too much in reference to this meat. they no longer want, so there is slippage but not rupture, and this is a problem for me because in a period when you have to go quickly, only rupture would be effective, if there was a real need

the flexivorous model would certainly be the best, but the compromise is not economically profitable, because it does not create niches to be exploited, everything already exists, so no big profits to be made quickly, but very quickly ecologically beneficial in the medium term

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

the flexivorous model would certainly be the best, but the compromise is not economically profitable, because it does not create niches to be exploited, everything already exists, therefore no big profits to be made quickly, but very quickly ecologically beneficial in the medium term

???????

[Janic]

Moindreffordereflexion wrote:

the flexivorous model would certainly be the best, but the compromise is not economically profitable, because it does not create niches to be exploited, everything already exists, so no big profits to be made quickly, but very quickly ecologically beneficial in the medium term [/ quote

: shock: ???????

as stupid as usual! The flexivore exists, in the minds of those who know nothing about it, of course, that's what all those who do not eat exclusively bidoche, but also fruits, vegetables, seeds, almost everyone do. therefore flexivorous.
So in what way this supposed "compromise" would not be carrying, since it is already it for heaps of centuries and millennia everywhere on this earth.

[Moindreffor]

When I see that the Swiss had a historic opportunity to vote to get out of the pesticide nightmare and that the plan was, if the initiative had passed, that this would have potentially reduced animal husbandry and therefore internal meat production by almost 'a third, and that they did not seize this historic opportunity, I wonder why, and I tell myself that there are at least 3 reasons:

1) the votes were rigged (if only by the deceptive campaign waged with heavy resources before the vote)
2) we tend to overestimate the capacity for discernment of citizens whose heads have been stuffed with fake news for decades (and which was revealed to us by the covid crisis) ...
3) even highly educated people are not too aware of being manipulated or of being very ignorant in many areas, for them the consumption of meat is a subject that does not matter to them, so we set the bar too high, we should already start by reducing smoking and alcoholism ...

If you see others ... don't be shy

I don't know if you live in the city or in the countryside

but in the countryside, the tracks rise up against the wind turbines that the people of the cities naturally want to put at home, their landscape is already eaten up by the towers, so well we can well screw up the countryside landscapes in the air. '' to have shit to watch, and generation after generation we will have the high tech fields, the vintage ones, and the fields of ruins ...

others want to suppress the cows, it pollutes, etc ..., therefore let us suppress the permanent meadows with the few hedges that remain and replace by fields by magnificent cultivated fields and bare for part of the year, it gives beautiful torrents of mud, it occupies the population by giving back such beautiful scenes of solidarity after ...

around my house every year, we see a meadow disappear, then the following year the hedge that was around, then the slope, to such an extent that we even modify the population of raptors, we see typical species of steppes that smolder on the ground take root ...

1) rigged vote
2) little discernment of citizens
3) manipulation of opinions

for me that characterizes only one thing, you do not accept that others may have different ideas, you pose as the one who holds the truth, and if it was you who was all or in part in the error? in any case you are in the rejection, the exclusion therefore in the inability to bring together and the rejection of the Swiss shows it well, they have come together on traditional common values ​​because even if these values ​​must evolve they are more reassuring than the divisive, exclusive and rejection ideas ...

so as long as you are in "you are just idiots" "you are going straight in the wall", "stop the slaughter", THAT'S the right way, listen to the new messiah, the truth, everyone is lying to you except us , it will not work because we do not want exclusion but we must come together to find the real good ideas

[Moindreffor]

Moindreffordereflexion wrote:

the flexivorous model would certainly be the best, but the compromise is not economically profitable, because it does not create niches to be exploited, everything already exists, so no big profits to be made quickly, but very quickly ecologically beneficial in the medium term [/ quote

: shock: ???????

as stupid as usual! The flexivore exists, in the minds of those who know nothing about it, of course, that's what all those who do not eat exclusively bidoche, but also fruits, vegetables, seeds, almost everyone do. therefore flexivorous.
So in what way this supposed "compromise" would not be carrying, since it is already it for heaps of centuries and millennia everywhere on this earth.

quite simply poor stain, because we do not create immediate wealth with an old system, you live in a capitalist world, where money is king, you constantly denounce it, for chemistry, petrochemistry, pharmacology, but you are too narrow-minded and too sectarian to see that this system also applies to the "organic" that you defend, your mind is too limited by your beliefs

20 years ago the telephone companies lived off telephones, the telephone still exists, but telephoning has become free, profit is elsewhere it is this concept that you are unable to understand, so in agriculture profit does not is not about respect for culture it is about increasing margins, as long as you stick with your ideas from the 70s you will still and always miss the mark