Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Idle Science

Asia's Richest Man Is Betting Big On Silicon Valley's Fake Eggs 269

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the tastes-like-what-vegans-think-eggs-taste-like dept.
Daniel_Stuckey writes with more news about science making non-human animals obsolete "Li Ka-shing, widely billed as Asia's richest man, announced a $23 million Series B investment in Hampton Creek Foods through his fund Horizon Ventures on Monday, bringing the food technology startup's total take to $30 million after initial investments by people including Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems. Bill Gates is also an investor and fan. The egg replacement still requires fine-tuning, according to Hampton Creek CEO Josh Tetrick, but the company's mayonnaise replacement is already on shelves at stores including Whole Foods and some of the largest retail brands in the country. (Mayo is usually made with eggs and vinegar.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Asia's Richest Man Is Betting Big On Silicon Valley's Fake Eggs

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Wednesday February 19, 2014 @10:02AM (#46285905)

    Eggs are dirt cheap and plentiful.

    Eggs are cheap compared to meat. They are not cheap compared to soybeans and grain. They are plentiful in first world grocery stores. They are not so plentiful in the diets of third world children.

    The taste should not be a problem. As someone who has a small flock of chickens in my backyard, I can tell you that the factory farm eggs you buy don't taste like "real" eggs either.

  • Re: Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Wednesday February 19, 2014 @10:08AM (#46285959) Homepage Journal

    We're talking about vegans here, though, and if they enjoy their breakfasts so much, why do they need fake eggs? What's wrong with their normal vegan breakfast that they have to eat fake animal protein?

    They aren't making egg replacements to cater to vegans. Think of all of the processed food like mayo, cookies, etc. which contains eggs. If they can create a cheaper, effective replacement for eggs then it would reduce the demand for factory farm produced eggs (which is how a majority of all eggs are produced).

    Having been to one of those factory farms... or rather, having been within olfactory range of one, I can't say I don't like the idea of obsoleting them.

  • Re: Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Evtim (1022085) on Wednesday February 19, 2014 @02:07PM (#46288717)

    Is that so? I wonder what happens with a person if he/she grew with normal diet and was put on vegan? I am not sure this is entirely healthy...

    The Dutch are the tallest nation on earth because they eat very protein rich stuff [diary products]. That was on the news not so long ago...and you know what - funny but taller people are more successful in life. It's probably due to cognitive bias, the same one that makes people forgive the trespasses of beautiful people more readily that those of ugly people. So there is something in us that values height and perhaps it is connected via something like [illustration only example] "tall person - has access to protein rich food - good mate".
    Also funny that all vegetarians I know [not even vegans] are on average not very tall or wide and honestly will have a difficulty to compete with meat eaters if we were in the "kill or be killed" situation.

    So, as the food supplies begin to dwindle [they will eventually as will everything in a finite system with infinite growing demand] we will see more and more propaganda to switch to "eco food" like insects, microorganisms ans so on. It totally amazes me when people nonchalantly say "well, if we want to feed the ever growing population we will have to switch the menu" and no no one says "why are we so stupid to continue our infinite growth".

    So 3 billion meat eaters on earth or 6 billion vegetarians or 10 billion vegans or 20 billion fungi eaters [numbers purely for illustration] - why one is "better" than the other? The impact on the eco system would be the same. Actually more because those 20 billion might still want heating, clothing and mobile phones...
    I think however, that one IS better than the rest - namely the largest number possible that gives everyone the richest and healthiest diet possible in a sustainable manner, according to who we are.

    Who are we? We are omnivorous and without meat we won't be even here. I will not go into details, since my knowledge is not professional but I have heard many times that meat eating [also very important - fish eating] gave us the spare energy to grow the brains that made us human. Cooking the food was the next revolution. With more concentrated source of food you need less of digestive system so you can shrink it while expanding other parts of the body. I see in my mouth the cutters of the rabbit, the canines of the tiger and the molars of the cow. And I ain't going to argue with 4 billion years of evolution and will oppose those who not only fight it but do it for the wrong reasons.

    In conclusion I would rephrase the OP. "Forcing or manipulating people or society to not be omnivorous [as we want, please, are entitled to and, if you are religious, were made to be] is dangerous, useless and often stupid and could be therefore be called unethical".

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein

Working...