And Microsoft suing MikeRoweSoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft) reinforced my skepticism in "operating systems" and "word processors".

The legal matters of a single company are largely unrelated to the industry it operates within, and I don't think this particular data-point should have any bearing on how you think of imitation meat.

The Microsoft lawsuit made me think "microsoft is dumb, I'm glad I use linux". This lawsuit, I think reasonably, makes me think "Impossible foods might be a dumb company, might have a bad legal team etc... I'm glad I eat boca burgers instead".

> People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history ... So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? ... The greatest value of these companies is not in their technology to make "meat-substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to assume that they depend on their brand.

Sure, fine. You can also substitute all of that with "We didn't use to have McDonalds. McDonalds has value by raising brand recognition. We really don't need it though because people can just go home and bake their own bread"

I don't think you're making a point specific to the meat substitute industry here, nor is it really an actionable point. We do live in a society. Companies and brand names do exist. People do have different eating habits and expectations than we did 1000 years ago. What's the point?

Yes. There are many people who strongly believe "if there is no meat, it's not a meal". The only thing that is going to change their mind is something that looks and tastes like meat for a lower price.

"Edible food-like substances" (to steal a term from Michael Pollan) have their place in a society all too obsessed with convenience and time efficiency. I don't think they should ever be a replacement for whole foods and basic staples, but they are a nice and easy way to add flavor to an otherwise bland vegan meal.

Yes, whole foods are healthier, and you can make a nutritionally balanced, delicious vegan meal out of basic grains and legumes and greens and whatnot... but it's a hell lot of work, especially because most of that stuff tastes like nothing.

For omnivores, adding meat to just about anything helps a lot with flavor, between the meat itself and the juices/fats flowing from it. But adding tofu or beans doesn't really add much flavor beyond a little bit of umami. You really have to season or sauce the hell out of every meal to make it taste good. And after a while, everything tastes kinda same-y... more nutritional yeast, more soy sauce, more curry, some generic beige protein, blah blah.

As someone who went vegan starting with whole foods yet never becoming a good enough cook, the fake stuff is in fact a really nice way to change up otherwise boring meals after a few years.

They're still made of grains and legumes and such, but the seasoning is done by Someone Else™ who's much better at it. Yeah, it's less healthy, but...

yeah, and the lower class was unhealthy and malnourished

you're vastly underestimating how much people like the taste of meat. there's a reason why countries up their meat consumption as they industrialize and get wealthier.

I've been vegan for 6 years now, and vegetarian many years before that, and sure, usually I just cook foods that pull from cuisines that aren't heavy on meat, eggs, and dairy. Lots of great curries and stir fries and so forth to choose from.

But sometimes you just need a stupid thing that looks vaguely burger-shaped because your family/friends/coworkers are having a BBQ event and you need to bring something they can throw on the grill because you know they're not going to think about it and you don't want to have everyone poking fun with their lame jokes when you ask them to put the stuffed pepper with rice and beans on the grill for a few minutes. Sometimes you just want to blend in because Todd from accounting is fucking annoying any time he sees you eating something in the break room that's not a ribeye steak or whatever the hell he thinks his cavemen ancestors ate. And sometimes you just want sloppy, greasy comfort food that is absolutely shitty in terms of health but tastes delicious. And sometimes you're just sick of cooking for yourself AGAIN because why the hell aren't there any vegan options at the restaurants near me and goddammit I'm just going to pull those burgers out of the freezer.

I don't think you'll find too many vegetarians and vegans for whom faux meat options are an everyday thing. It depends on what options are available around you, and maybe if you have kids who won't eat anything other than chicken nuggets and hot dogs. But for the most part...it's just nice to have them there when we want them. And to the extent we can also show people "hey, there are foods that look a lot like foods you're already used to, so Todd will also leave YOU alone!" that's great too. So there's value to these products. Sure, not as much as these "disruptive" businesses are trying to imply, but....there's still value.

A decent quality plant based cheese is closer in texture to hummus and is literally, mostly, ground up nuts - you can make it at home in your blender if you want to.

If you’re talking processed American cheese style… that game is probably lost the minute you choose to eat processed American cheese.

It is quite hard for those of us who cut our teeth on processed food, where teams of food scientists have tweaked the formula to create the most crave able version of every food. That's why these meat substitutes are quite appealing.

It's use is not exclusive to racism. To exclude other uses is ironically prejudiced.

If a witness or person in custody of physical evidence can do so, you have a similar problem.

Ok, I was kinda sorta with you until the second time you decided on the ‘flexibility of words’ defense… honestly, if you’d just gone with:

“using a charged term like prejudice to describe disagreement (even when distastefully communicated) over lifestyle choices dilutes the word, and minimizes what it means to someone who experiences true prejudice every day”

or something like that, I think you’d have gotten your point across without the downvotes and discussion.

But maybe that’s not what you meant, and maybe there would still be discussion because what I said ain’t necessarily true - it just sounds hard to argue with.

...except for animals, right?

This is a prime example of the dissonance that comes from having carnism as a dominant ideology for dietary preference.

First, nobody said anything about eating only meat as a diet. I'd wager zero people do that - you would quickly develop vitamin deficiencies and ultimately fall ill and die.

Secondly, you've moved the goal posts to vegetarianism, which is not veganism.

Third, just because a vegetarian diet can be sustainable (in the sense you won't fall ill) doesn't mean it's the natural diet for a human. It's not... Your teeth and many other parts of your human body tell us differently.

Fourth, there are several cultures on this planet that strongly favor vegetarianism, but none are strictly vegan and few are strictly vegetarian. As already pointed out, vegans often have to take supplements to remain healthy. That's biology telling you that diet isn't natural.

Lastly, deciding to be a vegan because you believe current agriculture practices are harmful to the environment is a choice based off your beliefs and therefore is an ideology. That was the original assertion.

I am genuinely curious to know why you say that. The other poster didn't say anything about not eathing fruit and vegetables etc. They said:

=> Making a conscious decision to go against biology and select a different dietary preference is indeed an ideology (unless there is a real medical reason you cannot eat something, such as allergies).

I can't see where in that comment the OP said or implied that it "goes against our biology" to eat fruit and veg etc. It's clear to me that what they said goes "against biology" is not eating any meat. That is what characterises the vegan diet: the absence of meat and animal products, not the presence of fruit and vegetables.

So why did you say that eating fruit etc doesn't go against biology? Who said it does?

Did the OP change their comment between the time you replied to it and the time I read your comments?

Please continue to review the citations I provided, particularly the one from NIH. For an ethical approach, I recommend Peter Singer's "Why vegan?" and "Animal Liberation" should be sufficient. Nothing you've provided has refuted the ethical side of things, either.