Are you saying “factory farming” an actual axis of variation people will seek? Or are you arguing that since some species are much more challenging to achieve price parity with, people will keep eating those species too? I think the latter makes sense to me.
I think it goes well beyond species: meat eaters have strong preferences over specific portions (“cuts”). They have very different tastes and textures that I think will be very challenging to replicate. Instead, my expectation is that we’ll get something more similar to the introduction of vegetable shortening: products that replace many animal uses, but not all.
I think most cuts should be something that we could replicate without significant price difference. Or perhaps scaffolding ends up being a challenge. Also probably cultivated gives you more freedom to explore conventionally infeasible options.
I think most cuts should be something that we could replicate without significant price difference.
Sorry, I was a little fuzzy in my wording. My claim is (a) meat eaters have preferences + variety seeking even at the level of differences between cuts, (b) meat replacements will likely get very close to animal meat but not as close as some of these differences, and so (c) humans without a moral objection to eating animals will still eat some animal meat for variety.
For example, people still eat rutabaga, even though for any given rutabaga use other options (usually potato) are tastier and cheaper. People still eat red delicious and other kinds of apples that I think are basically obsolete. Iceberg lettuce is still widely eaten even though there are multiple options with simultaneously better flavor and nutrition. And I don’t think there’s much of a case for lima beans. There are some obsolete vegetables that we’ve stopped eating, but they basically need to be significantly worse, either in the “not worth eating” sense or “too expensive for what you get sense”. In my model a food keeps some market as it still wins on some axis: cost, convenience, storage, flavor, texture, maybe tradition. And to disappear it needs to be beaten on every axis at once (or close enough that it’s not worth the extra cost).
Also probably cultivated gives you more freedom to explore conventionally infeasible options.
I think that’s right, but I think that doesn’t get factory farming to zero: it gives people more options, but a drive for variety keeps all the options in play.
Are you saying “factory farming” an actual axis of variation people will seek? Or are you arguing that since some species are much more challenging to achieve price parity with, people will keep eating those species too? I think the latter makes sense to me.
I think it goes well beyond species: meat eaters have strong preferences over specific portions (“cuts”). They have very different tastes and textures that I think will be very challenging to replicate. Instead, my expectation is that we’ll get something more similar to the introduction of vegetable shortening: products that replace many animal uses, but not all.
I think most cuts should be something that we could replicate without significant price difference. Or perhaps scaffolding ends up being a challenge. Also probably cultivated gives you more freedom to explore conventionally infeasible options.
Sorry, I was a little fuzzy in my wording. My claim is (a) meat eaters have preferences + variety seeking even at the level of differences between cuts, (b) meat replacements will likely get very close to animal meat but not as close as some of these differences, and so (c) humans without a moral objection to eating animals will still eat some animal meat for variety.
For example, people still eat rutabaga, even though for any given rutabaga use other options (usually potato) are tastier and cheaper. People still eat red delicious and other kinds of apples that I think are basically obsolete. Iceberg lettuce is still widely eaten even though there are multiple options with simultaneously better flavor and nutrition. And I don’t think there’s much of a case for lima beans. There are some obsolete vegetables that we’ve stopped eating, but they basically need to be significantly worse, either in the “not worth eating” sense or “too expensive for what you get sense”. In my model a food keeps some market as it still wins on some axis: cost, convenience, storage, flavor, texture, maybe tradition. And to disappear it needs to be beaten on every axis at once (or close enough that it’s not worth the extra cost).
I think that’s right, but I think that doesn’t get factory farming to zero: it gives people more options, but a drive for variety keeps all the options in play.