Could it be that in the future, fake meat will become dirt cheap?
Will fake meat become the "soylent green" of the lower classes?
Rich white liberals will always get their fresh Atlantic salmon from Whole Foods. Meanwhile, the "have-nots" (by American standards) will be eating an endless supply of tasty fake hamburgers. This is a bit like how the middle class and all those above them quit smoking. Meanwhile, the working class and those below them still smoke. The war against tobacco was a public health victory … sort of. Another analogy might be marijuana. Marijuana was once seen as a violence-inducing narcotic indulged in by blacks, Mexicans and hippies. With "medical marijuana", marijuana came to be seen as a pain killer and appetite stimulant for people with glaucoma or on chemotherapy. Soon thereafter, marijuana became corporate cannabis. Likewise, in the 1960s, rock music was anti-corporate, as was punk in the 1980s. That did not last long. The quality and originality of the music did not last long after that, either. Also, how in the world did feminism so quickly and thoroughly become capitalism? How did it become ... "Frozen"? There might be a couple of patterns here.
What was once seen as anti-establishment rapidly becomes the establishment.
It becomes debased and sold to the masses by corporations.
The rapid rise of fake meat raises another question:
What will be the political ramifications of the collapse of the meat industry?
Look at farms today and yesterday. Today, "small" farmers are in trouble. However, the definition of "small" farms has, historically, constantly been upgraded. In 1850, an average farm might involve the cultivation of 30 acres. https://www.lhf.org/visit/about-the-farms/1850-pioneer-farm/
Most farms in 1850 averaged 160 acres in size, with farmers cultivating anywhere from 25 to 40 acres. Corn, wheat, and potatoes were the three major crops in 1850. Most farmers used their corn crop to feed the pigs that were then sold for profit. Wheat and hogs were cash crops for farmers, and potatoes were a staple with nearly every meal and lasted throughout the winter.
According to the USDA, small family farms average 231 acres; large family farms average 1,421 acres and the very large farm average acreage is 2,086. It may be surprising to note that small family farms make up 88 percent of the farms in America.
In the 1800s each farmer grew enough food each year to feed three to five people. By 1995, each farmer was feeding 128 people per year. In the 1800s, 90 percent of the population lived on farms; today it is around one percent. Over the same period, farm size has increased, and though the average farm in 1995 was just 469 acres, 20 percent of all farms were over 500 acres. And the trend has continued to accelerate.
“Farm and ranch families are facing a great extinction,” says Al Davis, a Nebraska cattle producer and former state senator. “If we lose that rural lifestyle, we have really lost a big part of what made this country great.”
Only about one percent (1%) of Americans are farmers now, compared to 90% in 1800. So that rural way of life actually disappeared long ago. Subsidizing "small" farms would then become the equivalent of the reconstructed "primitive" villages found at world expositions a century ago, stocked with actual indigenous peoples. In fact, that attitude might already be found in the USA. National Geographic magazine was (in)famous for presenting alien, exotic places.
outer space
under the ocean
microscopic lifeforms
natural ecosystems
rare species
foreign cultures
ancient history
But something interesting happened around the 1980s. At the end of every issue of National Geographic, there was one page given over to small town American life. By the 1980s, small town American had already gone the way of Route 66. (National Geographic magazine has itself become a relic, a classic piece of "Americana".) Another rationale for continuing to bail out obsolete "small" farms is that small farms are less polluting.
“We have to think about what we really want rural America to look like,” says Jim Goodman, president of the National Family Farm Coalition. “Do we want it to be abandoned small towns and farmers who can’t make a living, and a lot of really big farms that are polluting the groundwater?” (Large farms, which have more animal waste to deal with because of their size, have been found to pollute groundwater and air.)
That does not make any sense on so many levels. First, there are no decisions being made on what rural America should look like. Historical reality is the only determining factor. The economics of technological progress is the only decider. Second, today's "small" farms would have been considered big farms in the past. Today's modern "small" farms are much more polluting compared to the primitive, inefficient farms of the past. Third, despite the historical trend toward the obsolescence of "small" farms, farmers can feel that their economic troubles are the product of conspiracy.
“I sometimes feel,” says Mary Rieckmann, “like they’re trying to wipe us off the map.”
“I see this as a wholesale removal — or extermination — of our rural class,” she says.
That irrational attitude is dangerous. The distorted perceptions of 1% of the population influences the 20% of Americans who live in "rural" areas (exurbs). This influences elections.
Viager may be a solution.
The US federal government would pay monthly installments to buy the land of distressed "small" farmers. The farm would become government property upon the death of the farmer. The farmers could live out their lives on that land, but not pass it down to their descendants. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/viager.asp
A viager is a real estate transaction, popular in France, where the buyer makes a down payment and then a series of payments for as long as the seller is alive.
Sellers are often widows or widowers who are in need of a regular source of income after the death of a spouse.
For buyers, viagers offer the draw of a home purchase at reduced rates.
One problem is that farmers don't want the farm to fall into the hands of the outside world. They want to pass on the farm to their descendants, just as did their parents and grandparents and so on and so forth. In an interview with Israeli settlers, a Jewish farmer talks about the feeling of belonging that he gets when he digs up pottery in his fields. Historically, this is problematic, because it is many of his "Palestinian" neighbors who descend largely from an ancient Jewish tribes, whereas most of his ancestors were European. The point is that the feeling of belonging to a lineage and being attached to the land is a powerful illusion in the life of farmers. [What It's Like to Grow Up in an Israeli Settlement]
Another problem is that farming involves so much hardship that extreme hardship is seen as merely temporary. Farmers are community minded and see themselves as contributing to the national community in growing food and sending their sons off to war. Farmers therefore expect some "temporary" assistance that they do not perceive as "socialistic". (This is similar to how Americans do not see social security as an entitlement program but rather just a very safe bank that will protect their money until their time of need.) Just like people who have always lived in flood-prone areas, farmers do not have a historical consciousness that this time things are different. There may be one way around the resistance that farmers have to selling their land. The land would not be put back into cultivation.
