While real sea-grown algae might be light what will happen is the same as with modern animal and plant farming: animals are fed corn which makes their meat sub-par nutrientwise and most of the soil for plants is depleted.
So if we now grow algae in "reactors" their nutrient profile will be artificial and out of line of their natural counterparts, thus making them no better than any other modern highly processed food, so we might as well stick to rice and potatoes in that case...
What do you mean sub-par nutrientwise? In terms of average health outcomes, does grassfed beef show a significant benefit compared to feedlot finished beef?
I've seen no direct studies. But there seems plenty of evidence that the fatty acid profiles between the two are very different. And the profile in grassfed is closer to in line with what is currently recommended.
Arguing about whether hydrogen bombs or fission bombs look prettier while radioactive fallout rains down. The conclusions the same: cancer and death, but with sides of obesity, antibiotic resistance, pandemics, and climate change.
For these reasons, eating meat is both irrational and immoral because it's suicidal and omnicidal.
It is sort of possible that if we optimize for yeild, the nutrient value of the algae might decrease. I remember a veritasium video where they showed how increase in CO2 caused plants to grow faster but have less nutrient density
> So if we now grow algae in "reactors" their nutrient profile will be artificial and out of line of their natural counterparts
This is wild speculation. Plenty of scientific research shows that farming plants, algae, and producing fermented food in a controlled environment can be even healthier than "natural" food.
So if we now grow algae in "reactors" their nutrient profile will be artificial and out of line of their natural counterparts, thus making them no better than any other modern highly processed food, so we might as well stick to rice and potatoes in that case...