/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.11882760]

Let's talk food ethics and dietary philosophy.

I've been reading the book "botany of desire" recently. Excellent book. The author seriously examines the domestication and proagation of several plant from the plants perspective. He assert that the domestication of these plants have made them the more successful plants in the flora Kingdom. After all, procreation and the ongoing existence of a species is any living things most basic, core objective.
If we look at the numbers of wild to domesticated animals, it's pretty obvious that domesticated animals have been more successful in this regard. If we all went vegan, this would change very drastically and most domesticated animals would go extinct within a generation or two, save perhaps a few retained for petting zoos. They would quickly become a failure species. I understand that this does not take into account any suffering, but as long as we are eating animal produce that is ethically raised, then our relationship with livestock is essentially just a symbiotic relationship that guarantees domesticated animals ongoing success.

So what CAN we do to be more ethical with the way we get food? Growing your own. The real animals that are in danger, the ones that actually need our help, are wild animals. Wild animals who's rangeland is disappearing to create suburbs and farm land. If you have a yard it is morally imperative that you at least supplement your diet with a home Garden instead of taking up former habitat and water to have a useless lawn.

The best thing you can do is get your meat from a farmer that you can trust is raising your meat ethically or better yet to raise your own, AND actively garden. If you are a vegan, I ccan understand the reasoning, it's a noble sentiment and I respect that. But if you are a vegan and NOT a home gardener then you're a fucking hypocrit. Vast soya fields are NOT a brave new world, they are an ecological dead-zone.

[Anonymous No.11882765]

>>11882760
Pollan is such a fucking hack.

[Anonymous No.11882769]

>>11882760
Define objectively what an animal's purpose is, and what defines ethical in the meat cycle. Also restate your question in simple, concise terms instead of meandering and prodding the subject.

[Anonymous No.11882798]

>>11882769
Objectively, an animals purpose is to secure it's existence and procreate.
My question is: what can we do in terms of the way we produce food to promote the welfare of animals in general.
By the objective purpose of any living thing (exist and procreate), veganism will not meet that objective. Continuing our symbiotic relationship with livestock and lessening our land impact by producing our own food will.

Is that what you were looking for 10th grade English teacher Mrs. Anderson?

[Anonymous No.11882828]

>>11882798
I don’t believe we can truly raise animals for consumption of their products ethically, personally. Although I am not a vegan because I simply don’t care about the suffering of certain animals. I’m convinced the only ethical thing to do would be to let them go exitinct. I don’t think the horror of factory farming is doing them any favors just because it keeps them around.

Also I have a sizable lawn but my county has been in a drought for several years and I can’t even keep grass alive. Gardening is t practical for me at all although that would be cool to grow my own food.

[Anonymous No.11882844]

>>11882828
How is it possible that you cannot differentiate factory farming from the alternative?

And why do you think that just because you can't keep grass alive that everyone else shares your problem?

[Anonymous No.11882854]

>>11882760
I can appreciate this sentiment, and often find myself in it. Often I do indeed dream to grow my own sustenance, at least in part. be that meat or vegetables.
But at the same time I'm a hypocritical creature of convenience.
And frankly that's the bigger problem, even vegans in all their "moral righteousness" are often creatures of convenience, slobbering up factory made alternatives.

[Anonymous No.11882856]

>>11882760
Read industrial society and its future.Why do you think mass extinction of animals and explosion in unsustainable human life is occurring?Personally i don't care for food ethics.just my 2 cents.

[Anonymous No.11882927]

>>11882828
I'll agree with you in that you used the word "factory farm". They are horror. I have started cutting out meats that are the worst culprits for factory farming like chicken. The only way we could guarantee that all meat is raised ethically is if we get rid of our "meat every day, every meal, and at every income bracket" mentality that has made factory farming the mega-industry it is today. But if we are talking about hobby farms, or even just smaller scale independent farms then that's another story.

And unless you are literally living in the gobi desert then gardening is never off the table. There are plenty of extremely low water use vegetables you could rely on. Pic related is a Jerusalem artichoke, these need no upkeep, virtually no water and are delicious, crunchy snacks. They even self seed for the following year, they're like weeds, I couldn't get rid of them if I tried. Got even less water than that? Plant some prickly pears and in a couple years they'll be producing delicious little fruits for you. Anyone who says they can't garden where they are either are making excuses or don't know what their options are for growing food where they live.I'd be more than happy to get you a plant list for you if you'd like.

[Anonymous No.11882939]

>>11882927
>Factory farming
Opinion discarded, you can't think for yourself when you just repeat scare words like that. Grow up puppet boy

[Anonymous No.11882941]

>>11882760
domesticated animals won't go extinct, you idiot
Their numbers will go down, but they won't die out

Wild animals don't particularly need our help, they just don't need any more fucking with

There are plenty of wild, previously domesticated animals that do just fine

I once had a guy tell me that cows would die out in the wild if it were for farmers pumping them with antibiotics, and I can't believe he didn't understand that the only reason they need so many antibiotics is because we're awful to them

Saying animals wouldn't survive without us is only kinda true for the species that we actively fucked over and are starting to actively raise and release to bolster populations, but domesticated animals are fine

[Anonymous No.11882959]

>>11882939
Literally "huh" ?

[Anonymous No.11882977]

>>11882939
Yet it’s accurate and you know exactly what someone is talking about when they say it,right?

[Anonymous No.11883000]

>But if you are a vegan and NOT a home gardener then you're a fucking hypocrit. Vast soya fields are NOT a brave new world, they are an ecological dead-zone.
Strawman. More than half soy fields are for cattle feed anyways. A vegan diet isn’t and doesn’t just have to be monoculture soy. A vegan diet isn’t an end all to agricultural ecological

[Anonymous No.11883013]

>>11883000
*but its a good start
Fucking jewgle covering the post while im typing with an ad

Also wild bovine, pigs, chickens, have and always will exist. I don’t see why the burden of slaughter en masse suddenly falls upon vegans because of non vegans bringing in and domesticating invasive species. Preserves exist for a reason and animals can exist within an agricultural system without having to be milked and killed

[Anonymous No.11883031]

>>11882977
It's meaningless but it shows that the person saying it is an idiot

[Anonymous No.11883039]

>>11883013
Theres no point in keeping animals around if you don't eat them or harvest their work

[Anonymous No.11883045]

>>11883031
What term would you prefer people use instead, snowflake-chan?

[Anonymous No.11883054]

>>11883000
You're just trying to derail dialogue with trivial hair-splitting. I was obviously just using soya as an example, the same criticism applies to literally any commercial crop. They are all mono-cultural feilds that are raised through heavy inundation of chemicals and over-extraction of the lands resources.

[Anonymous No.11883068]

>>11883045
How about farms?

[Anonymous No.11883071]

>>11883031
>it's meaningless
Apparently not because everyone understands what it's supposed to be describing. Even you.
>it shows that the person saying it is an idiot
Exactly what pedantic term would you prefer in order for me to get on your level of intelligence, oh keyboard scholar?

[Anonymous No.11883072]

>>11882765
excellent contribution excellent

[Anonymous No.11883073]

>>11883054
>heavy inundation of chemicals and over-extraction of the lands resources

Hahahaha how can you type that without kys?

[Anonymous No.11883082]

>>11883068
Farms is so general though. That isn't communicating the idea at all. Are you saying there is no difference between the agricultural practices of a hobby farm and some sort of Monsanto mega farm?
Fucking useless.

[Anonymous No.11883097]

>>11883073
Want to explain your objection to my statement instead? Genuinely would like to have an intelligent discussion desu.

[Anonymous No.11883107]

>>11883031
Is Industrial livestock agriculture better? What difference does it make what you call it? You’ve heard of the industrial revolution, right? Advancements of automated farm technology, antibiotics, hormones etc that are different from the vast majority of history? You couldn’t even raise chickens fully indoors until like a hundred years ago. Whatever you feel about the ethics of it all there was a huge change in modern farming.

[Anonymous No.11883112]

>>11883082
Using 'farms' doesn't show your bias and would require you to think about what you are trying to say instead of just spouting meme phrases like a tard. Maybe educate yourself before you try to convince others

[Anonymous No.11883128]

>>11882798
Objectively, a domesticated species of animal has the purpose of becoming food. This includes health and procreation. The question of promoting their welfare is quite moot in that regard, as long as it's a means to secure our chain of production. The distinction between plant and animal kingdom is, to us, rather insignificant in the sense of nutrition or enjoyment of consumption.

My point was that your objectives are quite obtuse. And we don't have to speak this academically or eloquently.

[Anonymous No.11883162]

>>11883054
And thats why I still recommend a polyculture, youre hair splitting what im saying, veganism is the best base to work from right now is my main point

[Anonymous No.11883166]

>>11883112
yeah, wow I am such a tard for using a specific term to refer to a specific sub-catagory of farming. What was I thinking? so uneducated.

ok dude, re-read the original post you were reacting to and see if its understandable if you subbed out all subcategorical names of farming for for just "farming". I was referring to multiple scales and styles of farming in the same post. if I didn't use the specific words for what I was trying to discuss it would make no fucking sense.

[Anonymous No.11883168]

>>11882798
Do you not have any people to worry about like your whore mom or faggot dad or kids so you need to worry about some imaginary problem so you have a purpose? If you are going to be a food Nazi maybe do something useful like getting fags banned from food prep

[Anonymous No.11883170]

>>11883039
Pollination cycle begs to differ, biodiversity isnt just something for the sake of it

[Anonymous No.11883178]

>>11883168
Take your pills

[Anonymous No.11883182]

>>11883162
you can't convince me there's anything wrong with eating dairy or animals that were treated well and raised and slaughtered humanely. the exact same considerations should go into deciding whether to eat animal products as whether to eat a vegetable. there are no easy ways out or shortcuts: you need to take ethical responsibility for every decision you make. just being vegan doesn't give you any kind of leg up in that regard.

also i've got a bone to pick with you about honey. it's perfectly possible to farm honey in ways that don't at all harm bees, and it's really important that bee populations be preserved. they literally generate many times more honey than they need, whereas agave plants certainly do not generate enough nectar to replace the demand for honey.

[Anonymous No.11883184]

>>11882927
Thanks for the info

[Anonymous No.11883190]

>>11883166
you're being trolled because someone on 4chan decided that you're unironically passionate about something and people can't STAND that shit. don't worry about it too much, they're probably just jealous that you have a hobby that isn't hentai

[Anonymous No.11883200]

>>11883166
Yeah you are brainwashed and use your scare words instead of thinking.. you have no thought of your own and just repeat factory farming factory farming over and over. It's sad and funny that your brain has been hijacked and you think you are a good person

[Anonymous No.11883209]

>>11883200

[Anonymous No.11883217]

>>11883170
No one gives a shit about your college boy lingo in the real world fag they see a monkey they want to eat or take the fur from they don't care that the monkey pollinates the coconut tree

[Anonymous No.11883220]

>>11882760

[Anonymous No.11883230]

>>11883182
>you can’t convince me that killing when you absolutely dont have to is wrong
Okay, then what even is the point of arguing about ethics then when you have a predetermined mindset? You talk about carrying capacity and land use and while a lacto vegetarian diet ranks very well, its still second to veganism. It doesn’t take into account pollution and greenhouse emissions. “Ethical dairy” on an industrial scale is nonexistent. Young male calves get slaughtered for veal, young female calves get ripped away at birth to be tortured and constantly impregnated. And killed when the teet runs dry.

I can’t really argue against harnessing milk from a cow on a pasture that is naturally lactating and doesn’t have to feed any calves, but this just isn’t reality an overwhelming amount of the time

>you need to take ethical responsibility for every decision you make. just being vegan doesn't give you any kind of leg up in that regard.
Despite the objective overwhelming fewer deaths? Less greenhouse emissions? Less land taken up with more efficient capacity?

[Anonymous No.11883236]

>>11883217
>durrr they got no purpose

>k they do but actually I change my mind on what I meant

/pol/ is on 4chan, not 4channel

[Anonymous No.11883237]

>>11883220
Wholesome

[Anonymous No.11883248]

>>11883162
you never mentioned poly-culture before so that's not hair splitting at all. You're just trying to throw that back at me.

So obviously that would be better but its still inadequate, theres still the issue of pesticides, herbicides, ecosystem fragmentation (in the instance of fences), land disturbance, errosion, invasives, etc that are not adressed. still an ecological dead-zone, just slightly less dead with poly-culture. Also there are a lot of preferable agro options that we could talk about using in a perfect world.

For example, lower intensity grass fed beef in the North American prairies would be a great option for ecological integrity because cattle grazing habits and feces are not dissimilar to those of buffalo. so grassfed cattle would be the closest land-use we could get to preserving natural steppe grassland, next to making it a protected grassland area with re-introduced buffalo.

but in both the cases of low intensity grass-fed cattle rangeland and polyculturalism, that is not really the way it works out when issues of $$$ comes into play. So again, the only way to take a dent out of the damage caused by big agriculture practices would be to take matters into our own hands wherever possible and hope that it makes an impact of the intensity or scale of agriculture.

[Anonymous No.11883256]

>>11883190
yeah. I'm starting to get that impression...

[Anonymous No.11883276]

>>11883248
If you cared about the planet (you don't,) you would kill yourself that would be the ethical and sustainable thing to do, instead you keep breathing causing global warming, feeding your day face causing the deaths of millions of plants and animals. Be a good person and kys

[Anonymous No.11883281]

Hey OP.

You turned me vegan a few months ago. I feel so much better now. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.11883288]

>>11883256
I think this guy walked in on a factory farm fucking his mom as a kid or something

[Anonymous No.11883296]

>>11883281
>I feel so much better now.
coddling a delusion is rarely a good idea.

[Anonymous No.11883299]

>>11883248
>you never mentioned poly-culture before so that's not hair splitting at al
Kind of is, what exactly do you think the logical alternative to monoculture is within the framing of this argument?

>pesticides herbicides
These will always exist on a large scale until we get more efficient greenhouse farming

Are you just arguing a return to primitivism and antinatalism? Because that’s really the only viable conclusion by your logic. Polycultures are not ecological deadzones by any means, you are likely crop rotating and enriching the soil and grass by having multiple crops, attracting multiple species

>For example, lower intensity grass fed beef in the North American prairies would be a great option for ecological integrity because cattle grazing habits and feces are not dissimilar to those of buffalo. so grassfed cattle would be the closest land-use we could get to preserving natural steppe grassland, next to making it a protected grassland area with re-introduced buffalo.
Yeah but theyre still not, that takes up a shit ton of land which displaces native species, and most cows are invasive that uproot the soil after a while, laterally changing herbivores isn’t a panacea. They emit a lot of methane and nitrous oxide, have a shit ton of waste, and require a lot of fencing like you just mentioned and protection from predators. Grass fed isnt pesticide free either, weeds exist, pests which disturb the grasses of the pasture. They create far more of an ecological dead zone than any polyculture

[Anonymous No.11883310]

>>11883128
a domesticated animals purpose is to become food only because we artificially foisted that objective on them by way of domestication.

the objective of any living thing in a broader, evolutionary proven sense is to exist and procreate. promoting animal welfare is a matter of meeting or at least not negatively impacting these broad-stroke objectives

[Anonymous No.11883337]

>>11883299
Factory farming?
You don't say?
Yes I do!
And you will say it too!
Factory farming it's all the rage
When you're a wagie
In your cage
Factory farming it's ok
And Alex was right
Frogs are gay

[Anonymous No.11883346]

>>11883310
Why are you racist against Vegetables?

[Anonymous No.11883371]

>>11882760
>https://plagueofstrength.com/vegetarianism-and-veganism-bes/
>https://plagueofstrength.com/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as/
>http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/veggie.html
>https://thetab.com/uk/2017/02/16/vegetarians-unhealthy-mentally-disturbed-says-new-research-33067
>https://plagueofstrength.com/the-war-on-coffee-and-common-sense-or/

[Anonymous No.11883377]

>>11883299
>These will always exist on a large scale until we get more efficient greenhouse farming
>Are you just arguing a return to primitivism and antinatalism?
like I said, I am arguing for more people to take food production into their own hands. If more people did this then we might see less land developed into agg land and the de-intensification of modern agriculture would become more viable.

>Yeah but theyre still not
like I said the only better alternative would be to convert the land into protected grassland areas with re-introduced buffalo. grassfed cattle is the the best alternative that would meet food production needs as well as keeping grasslands close to their original state. its a compromise option, and just another example of a better system that we won't see as long as we are stuck with a high intensity agricultural system.

[Anonymous No.11883389]

>>11883377
So what’s the issue then? If you’re still in favor or large scale agriculture then why reject the best option for it?

>like I said the only better alternative would be to convert the land into protected grassland areas with re-introduced buffalo
Sounds like a plan

>grassfed cattle is the the best alternative that would meet food production needs as well as keeping grasslands close to their original state
But ultimately its net impact is horrible especially when the alternative is to go veganic

[Anonymous No.11883478]

>>11883389
>So what’s the issue then? If you’re still in favor or large scale agriculture then why reject the best option for it?
one of us is on the wrong page here. How are you under the impression that I am in favor of large scale agriculture?

>But ultimately its net impact is horrible especially when the alternative is to go veganic
Some land needs to be designated to agriculture though. The alternative of going vegan at least as far as land use in the prairies goes is not superior because vegetable farming plant communities are completely different to grassland steppe and will do nothing for the species that rely on those biomes. cattle rangeland is very similar to original grassland steppe though, it permits dynamic native plant communities to exist and can still be valuable ecological space.
In a similar fashion cereal crops can still have ecological value when they are in migratory bird flyways because they can provide resting space and forage for migrating birds.but this is getting into a whole other discussion about regionally strategic agricultural practices for ecology and that's a whole other layer of viability and logistics issues. Some day maybe we can get there though...

[Anonymous No.11883516]

>>11883371
>>https://plagueofstrength.com
That website seems to be for the fucking craziest people on earth, have you actually read any of their other stuff?

[Anonymous No.11883569]

>>11883478
Modern agriculture implies large scale, at least thats how I interpreted it.

>The alternative of going vegan at least as far as land use in the prairies goes is not superior
It absolutely is in every regard, what exactly does your definition of ethics include at this point? Having native species graze is completely from cattle farming and slaughter, the latter which only has a net negative on life, native species, and biodiversity. Not to mention environmental impact.

[Anonymous No.11883575]

>>11883516
The person who spams it has admitted to previously being institutionalized. He has no interest in fact or fiction. Simply affirming delusions.

[Anonymous No.11883587]

>>11883569
Veganism is the dying throes of toxic whiteness. Here's a clue whit*oid POC do not care about any of that boring ass pussy ass environment bullshit and we have taken over the Democratic party, we are coming for your cash, furry animals and will tax your SUVs and plane tickets to Hawaii out the ass to get it

[Anonymous No.11883628]

>>11883516
>>11883575
>Being so mad at facts you have to Ad Hominem and make more bullshit up
stay salty

[Anonymous No.11883637]

>>11883628
I dunno, I'm not vegan or even vegetarian but sites like that seem like people reacting so harshly to a dumb thing that they become dumb themselves. This isn't centrism stuff its just an observation

[Anonymous No.11883646]

>>11882760
>http://www.beefmagazine.com/blog/4-facts-debunk-meat-horrible-article
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
>http://grist.org/sustainable-farming/farmer-responds-to-the-new-york-times-re-sustainable-meat/
>http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-nicolette-hahn-niman-20141123-story.html
>https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659
>>https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968
>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation

[Anonymous No.11883682]

>>11883569
>It absolutely is in every regard
I've already explained why its not, at least in terms of its ecological impact. To simplify my point: cattle rangeland is pretty much the same as native grassland. Vegetable production is completely different. If you disagree I'd love to hear details as to why you think that. How does the alternative of large scale vegetable production promote biodiversity and native species?
as for your comment on cattle farming having a net negative impact on life, again I would reiterate my original point that the domestication of animals has been very beneficial in the propagation and security of the species that it applies to. I believe it is a perfectly legitimate symbiotic relationship that humans propagate, protect and feed some animals in exchange for food. Both parties benefit tremendously from this. If we are talking about the treatment of these animals (particularly in factory farm or other high-intensity settings) and the agricultural methods behind their this relationship then that is a different conversation and I am sure that we would both agree that there needs to be improvements made in that regard. Which again, I think can be met by people alleviating some food demand by producing it themselves.

the whole point I am arguing is that the single best thing you can do for the welfare for animals is to not waste land, and grow your own food.

[Anonymous No.11883704]

>>11883587
>Here's a clue whit*oid POC do not care about any of that boring ass pussy ass environment bullshit
in a nutshell why humanity would go extinct is whites were to disappear. you think you don't need a functioning ecology to survive? God damn you wouldn't last half a century without us.

[Anonymous No.11883728]

>>11883682
>ive already explained why its not
No you didnt. You just mentioned the steppes as if that one specific claim derailed veganic farming. When Ive already explained the actual ecological harm of cattle

>How does the alternative of large scale vegetable production promote biodiversity and native species?
It doesn’t do it inherently. It’s far less damaging alone by simply taking up less land and requiring fewer resources, polluting less, and significantly emitting less. You also mentioned ethics and this isn’t debatable in regards to veganic farming

>again I would reiterate my original point that the domestication of animals has been very beneficial in the propagation and security of the species that it applies to. I believe it is a perfectly legitimate symbiotic relationship that humans propagate, protect and feed some animals in exchange for food.
Youre almost all of them. It’s slavery. You don’t need their food and wild versions have always existed in the wild. Humanity has literally done nothing but negatively effect them and artificially create a “dependency”. Animals can graze and not be slaughtered

[Anonymous No.11883811]

she'd red that markup tag #

[Anonymous No.11883847]

>>11883728

>No you didnt. You just mentioned the steppes as if that one specific claim derailed veganic farming.
That's the specific example we are talking about. I am aware that there are other instances where other agricultural formulas have more ecological value, that's why I mentioned the value of cereal crops to flyways and keep reiterating that my argument is in the example of cattle farming for the north American prairies. I had a whole separate mention of regionally strategic agriculture for ecology so that you would understand that I was talking about one example.
Also I don't seem to see your argument for why cattle is worse for the example of North American prairies. just in that it takes up more space. Can you please explain further?

>It’s far less damaging alone by simply taking up less land and requiring fewer resources
If more land is used to produce food, but the intensity or methods are such that it is equivalent to, or similar to ecologically sound conditions then I believe it is superior to a small amount of land where in which food is produced under unnatural and ecologically valueless conditions. It is better to have 2 sections of rangeland, with native plant communities, till-free soil, and woodland scrub, producing cattle, than a quarter section of corn feild. again, that is JUST IN THE EXAMPLE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIE. I am well aware that those are not categorical conditions. Even superior still is growing your own food, taking ecologically worthless urban spaces, like your lawn, and turning them into food production.

[Anonymous No.11883890]

>>11883728
>It’s slavery. You don’t need their food and wild versions have always existed in the wild. Humanity has literally done nothing but negatively effect them and artificially create a “dependency”.
Is every symbiotic relationship bad then? Are they all slavery? And if you leave an animal to graze in peace will they eventually self actualize? No, they will just keep eating and breeding. strictly in the most evolutionary sense that is the base goal for any living thing, with Humans being the one outlier (Mazlovs hierarchy of needs). If we secure for them their resources and encourage their reproduction, then we are aiding in that. the counter argument against this that I can appreciate is on the subject of their treatment, which again would improve under less intense agricultural conditions.

[Anonymous No.11884392]

didn't read lol