Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Food Theory
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

So the human race will never be able to alter its diet so that it can sustain itself without factory farms? I'm not talking about absolutely everything being certified "organic." Just eliminating the worst of these practices. Especially for those of us that can afford to pay for the increased cost of ethically farmed food.

Are you saying that it is futile to try and make things better with respect to the way we eat as a species?

How does a garden in a backyard create a massive environmental footprint? More than industrialized farming per capita?

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I would really like to know what a science guy thinks about all of this.
Post Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Limbs



Joined: 04 Feb 2011
Posts: 910
 Reply with quote  

name wrote:
if all of the agriculture in the world were converted to "organic" tomorrow (no pesticides, no synthetic fertilizers, no genetic engineering), billions of people around the globe would die of famine in the ensuing decades, not to mention the onset of crushing poverty.

if you like the taste better and you have the means - have at it. but don't pretend that your "organic" garden isn't creating a massive per capita environmental footprint. hell, i like a lot of frou-frou foods as well, but i'm not arrogant enough to pretend that the world would be a better place if 6 billion people were each responsible for growing their own damned food. The sheer inefficiency alone would be devastating to humanity and the environment. and that devastation would far outweigh the current and serious problems we have with pesticide and fertilizer safety.

as far as manufactured (i.e. boxed) foods... nothing really wrong with avoiding that shit. but i certainly fail to live up to that one.


This changes nothing for me.
Post Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:52 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
name



Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 955
 Reply with quote  

Limbs wrote:

This changes nothing for me.


two possible reasons for this:

a. you have a weak grasp of logic.
b. your context is purely local (i.e.: "me and my circumstance")

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's "b". it does seem that you are only considering your immediate socioeconomic environment. you speak of people buying "cheap" foods "so they can save up for a flat screen". but your visceral and blanket disgust for the wal-mart consumerism of large swathes of the u.s. has little to do with global realities. trust me, people in africa and asia who are literally dying for access to cheaper agricultural products are not interested in mcdonalds, flat screen tvs, or whatever else you associate with your american caricature.
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:16 am
 View user's profile Send private message
name



Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 955
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
So the human race will never be able to alter its diet so that it can sustain itself without factory farms? I'm not talking about absolutely everything being certified "organic." Just eliminating the worst of these practices. Especially for those of us that can afford to pay for the increased cost of ethically farmed food.

Are you saying that it is futile to try and make things better with respect to the way we eat as a species?

How does a garden in a backyard create a massive environmental footprint? More than industrialized farming per capita?

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I would really like to know what a science guy thinks about all of this.


i'm absolutely not saying that it's futile to try to improve farming. on the contrary, it's absolutely vital that we do. if you're talking about eliminating the worst practices of "factory farming", then you are talking about innovation and advancement, not dismantling the structure of our agricultural industry. my gripe is with people who go off the deep end and advocate that everyone should stop supporting non-organic agriculture (whatever that is) and only grow their own food.

Also the term "ethically grown food" is loaded. what the hell does that mean? if it means no synthetic fertilizers, no genetic engineering, and no pesticides, then there's absolutely nothing "ethical" about it. is it ethical to let billions of people starve so that we can live up to a sanctimonious ideal of living "naturally"?

as far as your last question.... there are tons of reasons. the biggest 2 are (a) economies of scale and (b) research and development.
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:26 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Limbs



Joined: 04 Feb 2011
Posts: 910
 Reply with quote  

The flat screen TVs bit was said partially in jest and was referencing people I know personally. I don't expect nor was I suggesting either of the things you are suggesting. I also think you are speaking out of bitterness for the current organic fad, which I don't blame you for.

So what you are saying doesn't change a thing for me. I will eat what I am comfortable with and (possibly unfairly) judge those who choose to eat and feed their children crap on a regular basis to better afford dumb shit. I'm not talking about choosing the non organic carrots over the organic ones. I'm saying just choose the carrots. Which is actually cheaper than the dollar menu.

I also don't think what you are saying is probable. Companies will always find a way. That isn't the cynical anti-corporationist in me talking either.
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message
name



Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 955
 Reply with quote  

Limbs wrote:
I will eat what I am comfortable with and (possibly unfairly) judge those who choose to eat and feed their children crap on a regular basis to better afford dumb shit. I'm not talking about choosing the non organic carrots over the organic ones. I'm saying just choose the carrots.


i can certainly live with that. maybe i misunderstood your initial post. my impression was that we were talking about "organic" farming, not just healthy eating.
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:26 am
 View user's profile Send private message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

When I say ethically farmed, I pretty much just mean not chopping off chicken's beaks, having cows wade in shit and death, using excessive pesticides that may result in the extinction of insects that are vital to our survival.

If I'm being honest, I don't even know if genetically engineered food or synthetic fertilizers are harmful or not.

I understand and agree with you that it is ridiculous to expect everyone in developing nations to go organic or grow their own food.

But what about people that can afford to purchase food at a price that reflects the amount of work and cost that goes into organic (I just don't know how else to describe it, please don't get hung up on it) farming? Do you think that they/we should purchase organic and boycott farms that farm in ways that we do not agree with or that are harmful to our environment?

It seems like you are arguing against this hard line approach that I don't think anyone has really advocated. Obviously people would starve if the whole world was forced to only purchase their food at Whole Foods.

Do you think wealthier nations attempting to go organic or sustainable is at least a good start?
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:08 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

Here's some food for thought:

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/utah-kfc-asks-customers-drink-soda-support-diabetes-184013972.html
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
name



Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 955
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
When I say ethically farmed, I pretty much just mean not chopping off chicken's beaks, having cows wade in shit and death, using excessive pesticides that may result in the extinction of insects that are vital to our survival.

If I'm being honest, I don't even know if genetically engineered food or synthetic fertilizers are harmful or not.

I understand and agree with you that it is ridiculous to expect everyone in developing nations to go organic or grow their own food.

But what about people that can afford to purchase food at a price that reflects the amount of work and cost that goes into organic (I just don't know how else to describe it, please don't get hung up on it) farming? Do you think that they/we should purchase organic and boycott farms that farm in ways that we do not agree with or that are harmful to our environment?

It seems like you are arguing against this hard line approach that I don't think anyone has really advocated. Obviously people would starve if the whole world was forced to only purchase their food at Whole Foods.

Do you think wealthier nations attempting to go organic or sustainable is at least a good start?


these are some interesting points. but allow me to clarify my outlook on this. your statement abount not wanting animals to be tortured and wallowing in their own filth for no good reason is quite valid. i agree 100%. that shit has nothing to do with keeping costs down or efficiencies up. it's unneccessary and we should be working to end it.

the problem is, very few people stop at the stage of egregious agricultural evils. most folks move on to complain about genetic engineering, fertilizers, etc, etc. as if that were even in the same ballpark, in terms of morally questionable.

furthermore, you state that obviously people in 3rd world countries would starve to death if we all had to buy our groceries at whole foods. but i think you're missing the point. cost is not what i'm talking about. if farmers were restricted to the tenets of organic farming, and even if everyone on earth were given a subsidy to afford all the food they wanted, there is no way crop yields would get anywhere near sustaining the planet. there wouldn't even be enough arable land. poverty would be a secondary issue. we'd destroy the planet first just trying to produce enough for everyone.

as far as wealthier nations, it's really a good question - and a difficult one to answer. i believe you could make a good argument that people who insist on "organic" foods are placing a heavier burden on the rest of society. non-organic source farms are able to produce vastly greater yields per acre due to genetic engineering, synthetic fertilizer, and pesticides. are these additives 100% perfect? absolutely not. and we should be working to improve them. but i can guarantee that your organic produce consumed a lot more environmental and human resources to grow. why do you think it costs more? even if you can afford it, the consequences in terms of natural resources are unavoidable. and i'm not even counting the "hidden" externalities associated with less efficient shipping/supply practices, along with the fact that many people will burn an extra gallon of gas to get to their environmentally friendly whole food market.

essentially, i believe "buying organic" is a luxury - just like buying a lexus instead of toyota. people have every right to spend their money as they wish. but it's annoying when they come back and argue that the lexus is actually better for society. why can't people just say they bought a lexus because it's faster and they like the leather seats; and leave it at that?

i don't think striving for sustainability has anything to do with going organic. the organic industry has tried to conflate the two to sell more shit to people who don't know the difference.
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

name is doing this so much better than I was going to do it if I had the time to do it. Less offensively too, I'm sure.
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:06 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Limbs



Joined: 04 Feb 2011
Posts: 910
 Reply with quote  

I think a Children Of Men situation would do us some good. (Fall back, I'm kidding. Mostly.)
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Alias@anticon.com



Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 739
 Reply with quote  

I love food. all kinds. In the last 3 or so years, food has been just as much of an interest as music. But I won't refer to myself as a "foodie" because that term annoys the shit out of me. I find that most people who refer to themselves as a "foodie" are total fucking food snobs. I don't go out of my way to buy organic, free-range, cage free, etc. I buy food items that I know I will like and that I will be able to work with and be tasty. I love spending between a half hour to an hour per night preparing dinner. It's actually relaxing to me. But don't get me wrong, I'll still devour a Baconator from Wendy's like it's nobody's business. And then the next night I'll make something for dinner that is completely vegan.

here's a few pics of some food I've made over the last few years.



shredded seitan with green beans and shallots in a mustard sauce.



marinated and baked tofu topped with homemade apple sauce, braised kale with garlic and lemon juice and curried Isreali couscous with walnuts and cranberries.



sun dried tomato and basil deep dish pizza. dough and sauce made from scrizzatch.



potato leek soup with fiddleheads.



thai basil chicken curry.



Pra-ram tofu over broccoli, chicken teriyaki skewers and brown rice.




sesame bagels from scratch.



soft pretzels from scratch.
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
zagadka
DARK PAST HAVER


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 4932
Location: Hous of Gaga
 Reply with quote  

I love fiddleheads! yum!
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Finn



Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 53
Location: Boston, MA
 Reply with quote  

name wrote:
as far as wealthier nations, it's really a good question - and a difficult one to answer. i believe you could make a good argument that people who insist on "organic" foods are placing a heavier burden on the rest of society. non-organic source farms are able to produce vastly greater yields per acre due to genetic engineering, synthetic fertilizer, and pesticides. are these "additives" 100% perfect? absolutely not. and we should be working to improve them. but i can guarantee that your "organic produce" consumed a lot more environmental and human resources to grow. why do you think it costs more? even if you can afford it, the consequences in terms of natural resources are unavoidable. and i'm not even counting the "hidden" externalities associated with less efficient shipping/supply practices, along with the fact that many people will burn an extra gallon of gas to get to their environmentally friendly whole food market.


Parts of this paragraph are borderline lunatic. "Sustainable" produce costs more, generally speaking, because yields are lower. That doesn't mean that more environmental resources are consumed. At all. It may mean that more human resources are "consumed," but the employment of human resources has not, to my knowledge, been deemed a negative.

You cannot, in fact, guarantee that this food consumes more resources than other forms of agriculture. This is as ridiculous a blanket statement as the ones you so adamantly oppose. You're deriding the notion of organic as nonspecific, but are insisting that you can prove things about it. What?

People who "insist" on organic food are placing no more of a burden on society than people who insist on the existence of art, or sport, or any other pursuit which perpetuates some model of humanity that is concerned with anything more than supporting the maximum number of human lives on the planet. The argument that these individuals burden society is an insane, mechanistic position to take on what it means to be alive.

It's true that if we suddenly switched tomorrow, many people would die. It's absurd, though, to argue that this is evidence for the efficacy of the current system, or against the wisdom of the proposed one. This is a misleading and arbitrary thought experiment. If ten million people became surgeons overnight, many people would die, but this isn't because we shouldn't have more surgeons. It's because those people who suddenly found themselves surgeons wouldn't know what the fuck they were doing, and would butcher everyone they operated on.

You're correct in noting that a person who drives considerably farther to purchase a (potentially) marginally better product is in fact living hypocritically. But this has nothing to do with the food, and is not really the subject of this conversation.

The number of straw men that you are attacking in this thread is excessive.
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11616
Location: MI
 Reply with quote  

i started eating smaller portions and stoping to eat 3- 4 times a day. instead of eating 2 meals a day till im stuffed to the gills
i also run 6 miles on the treadmill 1-3 times a week

ive lost about 15 lbs in the last three or 4 months id like to get down to about 175 (im at 202 right now) sit up and push ups will start when i get back from vacation(beer gut needs to go)
Post Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:56 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon