Not signed in (Sign In)

Category Filter

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013 edited
     
    Also, I just looked into it because Craig isn't totally off base here - the algae themselves aren't consuming the oxygen, it's the decomposition process of the massive amounts of algae by bacteria after they die that eats up all the oxygen and causes the hypoxia, from what I'm finding. So they bloom, get overcrowded (blocking out sunlight), and then because they have a short life span they start dying off (and the decomposing process consumes oxygen). If the populations were smaller, the organisms that feed on algae would be able to keep the population in check so that there weren't so many dying and decomposing.

    Here is a nice graphic of the process:


    ^and I agree about the fish. Whole Foods is a compromise, and it's often a shitty one. They're trying to make money and so they still want to give people options, even if it's completely irresponsible to have the option to eat an struggling fish population in the first place.
    • CommentAuthorryan t
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    What's kind of bullshit is that people are obsessed with the idea that game fish are better than farm fish. A. There's plenty of toxins in the ocean, and B. There's plenty of fish farms that don't pump their fish full of chemicals.
  1.  
    ^i think its because of the GMO fight thats starting to pick up a lot of media coverage. I feel like people automatically assume that farmed fish means GMO fish.'Cause i always say i love you when i mean turn out the lights.
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013 edited
     
    They're both bullshit. A lot of farmed salmon are dyed pink since they're not eating a natural diet. Not to mention them getting out of the farms and acting as an invasive species and anytime you concentrate animals so they're all living and pooping in close quarters...it ends badly for the surrounding environment.

    We usually don't have the restraint to fish at sustainable levels, not to mention all the mercury in the aquatic ecosystem, so commercially caught game fish aren't great either.

    Look, Ryan, I don't know you and I'm not trying to be a jerk but every time you mention an INDUSTRIAL farming practice and how it's okay, I'm going to disagree with you. I'm not an idiot, I know things aren't changing anytime soon, but I still don't have to like they way we do things.
    •  
      CommentAuthorOG killersim
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013 edited
     
    ^if shits going to change, the whole industry needs to change. The government needs to stop subsidizing corn and soy, and Monsonto needs to go to hell. They fucking engineered salmon to eat and digest corn. THATS FUCKED UP. Humans arnt even supposed to eat corn they way we do, how the fuck is a fish thats been bred to eat going to have any nutritional benefit to a human?
    And yeah, monocultures suck on land and in the water. Biodiversity is the spice of life, its pretty obviously unsustainable to keep thinking "well i took this animals only nutritional food source away, lets replace it with synthesized chemicals!" "Hmm, i have all this corn and soy left over, lets teach animals who can't eat it, to eat it!" Why doesn't the industry start doing it from the other end? Im sure with enough processing and advertising K-Mart can get middle america to stay paying for, and eating rocks.'Cause i always say i love you when i mean turn out the lights.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoeyfresh
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    On a related note, this is going to drive you all crazy: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/07/30/13068/industry-muscle-targets-federal-report-carcinogensWe'll get you a cat, don't worry -t-honks
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    killersim:Im sure with enough processing and advertising K-Mart can get middle america to stay paying for, and eating rocks.

    Ohmygod I love it! My boyfriend was watching a video last night about a Japanese researcher who is processing human sewage into meat...the researcher thinks that if we can get over the stigma, it'll be really beneficial and more affordable than "traditional" meat.
  2.  
    haha. If people can't even stomach insect burgers how will they ever eat pooburgers?DFL and DTF :D:D:D:D
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    These guys are on the "Science Committee" of the House:

    "Broun is a physician and U.S. Senate candidate who has called man-made climate change a “hoax” and characterized evolution and the Big Bang theory of the universe’s early development as “lies straight from the pit of hell.” Bucshon, also a physician, is a self-described “long-term friend of coal.” Since 2010, each has received donations from political action committees for coal, oil and chemical companies."

    Ugh.
  3.  
    ratattack:
    killersim:Im sure with enough processing and advertising K-Mart can get middle america to stay paying for, and eating rocks.

    Ohmygod I love it! My boyfriend was watching a video last night about a Japanese researcher who is processing human sewage into meat...the researcher thinks that if we can get over the stigma, it'll be really beneficial and more affordable than "traditional" meat.

    i was reading about that on Reddit the other day.
    surprisefries:haha. If people can't even stomach insect burgers how will they ever eat pooburgers?

    Just don't tell them. Thats the thing I don't get, if people knew what most of their processed food was made of, an insect or poop burger wouldn't be such a stretch. Especially if you brand it with a fluffy name like "Earth Friendly Cud Burger"'Cause i always say i love you when i mean turn out the lights.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoeyfresh
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    The article does a damn fine job of explaining NTP studies and the political wars around government vs. industry-funded research.
    I really, really want to say more, but this is an open forum and I'm easily identifiable on here.
    I know book clubs have been discussed repeatedly and no one's ever followed through, but an IRL book/research article club on this subject would be fun.We'll get you a cat, don't worry -t-honks
  4.  
    SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE'Cause i always say i love you when i mean turn out the lights.
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    Industrially slaughtered chickens sit in water contaminated by poop as a required part of their processing and that poop isn't treated first! You'd probably consume less actual poop by eating a poop-derived burger.
    • CommentAuthorspokenword
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013 edited
     
    How they label a fish 'green' if its population is okay, 'red' if its populations are in danger. So the consumer can decide for themselves if they want to eat a fish with a hurting population. My question on that was always, what does it matter at that point? The fish is already dead if its in store. Why not remove the option and entirely and not fish for it?
    The intention is to offload the decision and moral responsibility to the consumer. Every red fish bought is a sign to Whole Food to buy more of that fish next time. Every green fish bought, while red fish stays in the counter is a sign that demand for that fish has slackened and therefore Whole Foods can reduce their support of that fish as a practice based on economics rather than unprofitable social conscience.

    A corporate chain can choose to defend the practice of paying its employees a livable wage and offering benefits based on the idea that, in the long run, it keeps recruitment costs down by ensuring low turnover and better employee productivity. They can also defend the practice of offering more expensive organic produce side-by-side with conventional produce by indicating that the organic items are premium products that can generate more revenue, and leave it up to the consumer to make their ultimate decision about what they're going to buy.

    It's always easier to sell corporate responsibility initiatives when it's win-win (ie. we can reduce our carbon footprint by reminding employees to turn off lights in empty workplaces, AND it'll reduce our electric bill. Everyone's a winner). It's much harder to do ones that ostensibly hit the bottom line; so that's why you get more focus on things like transparency and customer education. Theory basically is: if you tell the customer how their choices are impacting the environment then you get free corporate responsibility -- if customers want more solar sources in their electricity bill, give them the option and see how many pick it up. if customers want fewer extinct fishes, let them know and see if they'll really change and/or care. Regardless of what they do, you're just following the demands of the market.

    Generally speaking though, (and this is now a tangent) , it's turning out that a lot of this action is pretty limited; both because of consumer apathy and because the backend supply systems that fuel our modern lifestyles are built on a set of economic incentives that will mean that we will just keep burning fossil fuels. We're in a vicious cycle where the rising cost of energy is driving a new wave of scientific innovation that allows us to get to previous reserves of energy in cheaper but more harmful ways. So, like, our lives are running fine when gas is only $1.50 gallon, but there's only 10 billion barrels oil that you can extract profitably at $1.50 gallon. So, as that supply dwindles and gets more scarce the price jumps to $3.00 gallon. Now, suddenly people realize that there's another 10 billion barrels that we weren't counting before because it would've cost $2.50 gallon to extract it, but at $3.00, that's not so bad. So, there you go, more oil on the market and everything else gets more expensive to cover the cost of fuel. (eta: and the beautiful moment for the petrochem industry comes when that $3.00/gallon price funds enough research so that the $2.50 gallon gasoline gets easier to extract because of SCIENCE, so now it only costs $1.50 again, but consumers are used to a $3.00 price, so the industry can just reap the efficiencies as profit)

    Until there's a cap or top-down-action like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade; we can all be eating sustainbly grown homemade tofu with our homespun clothes in our house powered by bicycle powered dynamos, and we still won't stop global warming; because there's still millions of people out there who insist on 2-day shipping for everything via Amazon Prime or whole industries based around the notion of sourcing all of their spare parts or products from the other side of the world.

    Reading for you guys.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/green-lifestyle-choices-dont-change-the-systems-that-make-fossil-fuels-attractive/275575/
  5.  
    I understand the corporate end of things, making money is a given and you can only do that by offering a product to a customer, even if its not environmentally responsible. What you said though about consumer apathy is what gets me. There are plenty of people out there that can make the decision to say they don't need to eat a fish thats on the verge of dying. There are also plenty of people who don't know enough about the information or people who don't care. I guess i just have a hard time understanding why anyone would willingly make a decision to endanger a species just because some schmuck wants swordfish for dinner. I get it, it's just hard for me to understand the decision making, and I'm obviously never going to be able to change the apathy in the marketplace.

    I get what your'e saying about fossil fuels too and i agree that nothing will change until there are taxes or laws forbidding certain kinds of emissions or duties. As someone who works in an industry that depends entirely on shipping large quantities of goods over vast oceans I know how all that works and that everyone involved finds even possible loop hole to pay as little as possible. I think the food industry though, which to me somehow has a greater change of being localized (i don't have proof of that, its just a weird notion i have) being able to cut out fossil fuels from the production of processed foods just seems like a smart place to start. The world might run on gas, but if we take 30% of the fossil fuel being used out of the system (the fuels used to run slaughter houses and equipment on factory farms) wouldn't that change the system even slightly? And to the benefit of people?

    If we can't stop the world from buying gas, at least find a way to curb it locally.

    I know I'm kind of talking out of my ass here, I really like this discussion though and I'm finding it hard to put into words what I'm actually trying to say.'Cause i always say i love you when i mean turn out the lights.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrock dathe
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    DOGS IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TANGIBLE, LOCAL IMPLICATIONS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST FUCKED UP SHIT CHECK THE LAST POST IN THE COMMUNITY SPOKE'S THREAD AND WRITE A LETTER
    • CommentAuthorryan t
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    ratattack:They're both bullshit. A lot of farmed salmon are dyed pink since they're not eating a natural diet. Not to mention them getting out of the farms and acting as an invasive species and anytime you concentrate animals so they're all living and pooping in close quarters...it ends badly for the surrounding environment.

    We usually don't have the restraint to fish at sustainable levels, not to mention all the mercury in the aquatic ecosystem, so commercially caught game fish aren't great either.

    Look, Ryan, I don't know you and I'm not trying to be a jerk but every time you mention an INDUSTRIAL farming practice and how it's okay, I'm going to disagree with you. I'm not an idiot, I know things aren't changing anytime soon, but I still don't have to like they way we do things.


    I was more saying that I don't like how people form generalizations about what is bad and what is good. I am fully aware of what some fish farms do, but that doesn't mean that every single one does it.
  6.  
    clockwork ted: this is my favorite thread. sweet BJ alexi!
    • CommentAuthorryan t
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    ratattack:
    killersim:Im sure with enough processing and advertising K-Mart can get middle america to stay paying for, and eating rocks.

    Ohmygod I love it! My boyfriend was watching a video last night about a Japanese researcher who is processing human sewage into meat...the researcher thinks that if we can get over the stigma, it'll be really beneficial and more affordable than "traditional" meat.


    I hope I'm wrong about this, but I heard that when cattle is slaughtered, the parts are grouped into 3 categories: Meat (muscle), bone, and organ. So since the contents of it's digestive system don't fit into category 2 or 3, they're allowed to call it meat, and mix it in with the rest :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    The idea of corralling a lot of fish together and having them eating an abnormal diet while mass-producing waste is inherently wrong to me. I don't like livestock agriculture that's done that way and I don't like aquaculture done that way. At least with pasture-fed beef and some chicken-rearing you can let them eat a natural diet and forage over a sizable area. You can't really do that profitably with aquaculture, you can't have massive nets or tanks with only a small amount of the fish species in them, so you can't get away from the abnormal diet, close quarters, and poop production's impact on the surrounding environment. I can't see any "good" in the idea of fish farms whether or not they are being fed antibiotics and chemicals to make them more pink, it's still unhealthy and inhumane.
    •  
      CommentAuthornerdo
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013
     
    Global vegetarianism would solve so many of these problems. ;)Worstcase I'll just zip tie on a seat... but i'd rather not. —Zev (who else)
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013 edited
     
    That's not even necessary, and I'm speaking as a long-time vegetarian. We just need to reduce our meat consumption substantially b/c we overeat meat and stick to sustainably raised meat. I don't see myself eating meat again ever but I don't mind buying my boyfriend a steak once in a while as a treat at the farmer's market. Ruminants actually do a lot for soil health and humans have adapted to an impressive array of diets, there's no reason to limit ourselves to one.

    Also, to imply that being a vegetarian equates to a healthy and/or sustainable diet is wrong. I knew so many vegans who ate fried slop from Grasshopper's and My Thai constantly and tofu shipped god-knows-how-many-miles instead of eating local cheeses and supporting local apiaries by consuming honey. I also know vegans/vegetarians who eat healthy and sustainably, I'm just trying to make the point that cutting meat or all animal products out of your diet doesn't automatically make you healthier or more conscientious of how your food choices impact the environment.
  7.  
    ratattack:
    Also, to imply that being a vegetarian equates to a healthy and/or sustainable diet is wrong. I knew so many vegans who ate fried slop from Grasshopper's and My Thai constantly and tofu shipped god-knows-how-many-miles instead of eating local cheeses and supporting local apiaries by consuming honey. I also know vegans/vegetarians who eat healthy and sustainably, I'm just trying to make the point that cutting meat or all animal products out of your diet doesn't automatically make you healthier or more conscientious of how your food choices impact the environment.

    This.'Cause i always say i love you when i mean turn out the lights.
    • CommentAuthorspokenword
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2013 edited
     
    yeah, I was going to say that the biggest change that can happen in food production, isn't so much about encouraging farmers to adopt more carbon-neutral production methods, but about getting more people to move to a less meat-heavy diet. Just throwing up a few more links and such ...

    Mark Bittman is a food writer and New York Times columnist. A few years ago he got on this platform about how a less meat focused diet can help ourselves and the planet. It's probably best summarized in this TED Talk. Basically, you don't have to be vegetarian but you do have to be mindful of how much meat you eat and how that meat is raised; not just for the planet's health but also your own.

    On Point radio session today talking about farming in a world of climate change -- the tl;dl is: farmers already know that the climate is changing. They can do what they can to be more environmentally conscious, but are hampered by a few things. One is that farming is such a boom/bust kind of business, where one or two bad growing seasons can totally wreck you, so while sustainability is attractive, it's sometimes elusive. Plus, the system of subsidies paid to agribusiness acts as a disincentive against sustainability, since agribusiness just uses it as a crutch to ride out the bust periods wrought by climate change. Also, as nice and worthy as CSAs and farmer's markets can be, they're still essentially a niche product catering to a population that has separated itself from the delivery chain of corporate farming. All the same, it's a global problem, so while everyone understands that they need to do their part (be the change you wish to be, etc. etc.) the main focus in the industry is to just suck up climate change as a reality and deal with how to grow more food in a hotter world. Basically, the war is lost, it's now about fighting rearguard actions.

    Also, a higher percentage of food consumed in the US is imported. People want orange juice in November, so that gets shipped up from Chile. Lamb from New Zealand. Rice from Thailand. Quinoa from Peru. You can get all of the slaughterhouses in the US to convert to solar power, but that won't matter if we still need to consume 1 million metric tons of coffee beans every year, and all of that has to be shipped in from places near the equator. USDA data file on coffee, tea and spices imported into the US between 1999 and 2012.

    I think, in the end, we need to stop thinking about how we can change a few things here or there incrementally in order to maintain our standard of living. Cut down on some meat here, switch out some lightbulbs to compact flourescents there, recycle, and ride bikes more often, and we can still have our high-bandwidth Internet and air conditioning in the summer and affordable jet travel to Europe for a two week vacation. I think we can do all of the above and still wake up in ten or twenty years time in shitbag world that was too complacent to avoid a dry, desertified future. So prepare for that. Learn how to preserve food and live economically. Do more activities involving more things that don't need electricity. Imagine what life might be like without a fridge, or with a fridge that might lose power for one day out of every week. Be ready for that scarcity, and maybe by doing that, enough of us will wind up living a more sustainable, balanced life that might delay that shitbag future a little longer.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2013
     
    is beer "sustainable"?
    i hope so. takes a lotta water to make beer. a lotta water.
    •  
      CommentAuthormrotown
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    'Sustainable' or 'green' meat is such a laughable fiction. Its total feel goodism. When people find out I'm vegan they always try to assure me that they buy humane/sustainable meat. I wonder if they're just saying it because they feel like they have to be on the defensive or whether they're really bullshitting themselves.e-f-f-e-c-t a smooth operater operating correctly
    •  
      CommentAuthorNuggetross
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    ^it's always better to move people/corporations from high environmental effects to medium environmental effects than low environmental effects to very low environmental effects.

    #%s
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    I don't want to eat meat, morally I don't think me eating is worth the sacrifice of the animal dying when I have the luxury of access to and ability to afford foods that offer me a complete and meat-free diet. I recognize that this is a luxury and I recognize that until recently, humans lived for centuries sustainably raising livestock for milk, eggs, and meat. What part of that is laughable fiction?
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    ^stay the course, ratty.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    check out michael pollan's joints, ratty.
    •  
      CommentAuthormrotown
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    The laughable fiction is the idea of humane meat
    A being died for no other reason than your pleasure
    I just can't see how people can square that

    Also the whole "i only buy grass fed or whatever meat" thing is just so false and tiresome
    Basically what they're saying is that given the choice they will pick the meat with a feel good story over the standard meat, but they will still eat the standard meat when they don't have the option of the feel good meat.e-f-f-e-c-t a smooth operater operating correctly
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013 edited
     
    ^^Read them all! I have a shelf dedicated to books on food production and similar stuff. Got pre-occupied with brains and paleoanthropology before I got around to reading any Wendell Berry stuff, I've only read quotes of his. I should get on that.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    wendell berry. unh hunh.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    euell gibbons as well.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    mrotown:The laughable fiction is the idea of humane meat
    A being died for no other reason than your pleasure
    I just can't see how people can square that

    Also the whole "i only buy grass fed or whatever meat" thing is just so false and tiresome
    Basically what they're saying is that given the choice they will pick the meat with a feel good story over the standard meat, but they will still eat the standard meat when they don't have the option of the feel good meat.


    right on.
    you see it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorratattack
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    Humane and sustainable are two very different things. You can't say that something isn't sustainable because you don't believe it to be humane, it's an incompatible comparison. Humane is to a certain extent subjective, and while I have no interest in eating meat for moral reasons there's a limit to how much I believe I have the right to impose my opinions and beliefs on others. For me, my limit is that I won't tell my boyfriend and his family they can't have turkey for Thanksgiving but I will insist on a pasture-raised turkey from a local farm.

    Secondly, both eating meat with most meals and eating a healthy vegetarian/vegan diet are, in most cases, luxury diets. Unless you're an Inuit in the former scenario and living in a much warmer climate than we do with the latter. It's worth acknowledging this. I am lucky that I am able to choose to eat according to my morals.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2013
     
    ^ratty gets it. second half particularly.
  8.  
    mrotown:Basically what they're saying is that given the choice they will pick the meat with a feel good story over the standard meat, but they will still eat the standard meat when they don't have the option of the feel good meat.

    There are lots of people who will skip on meat if "feel good" meet isn't available. I try to be one, I fail sometimes but I'm getting better at it.

    and +1 LaurenDFL and DTF :D:D:D:D