I imagine other platforms like kbin would become popular in place of Lemmy. We’d likely see a similar dip and normalization from Reddit’s user base.
The world would probably look about the same as it is now. I like using Lemmy, but the absence of forum isn’t the end of the world I suppose
Relevant: https://github.com/mormaer/Mlem/issues/292
Seems the team got wind of it recently
I think that is a reasonable approach. I also reason personally that just not buying the eggs is better than the pasture raised eggs. That being said, my OP was about the theoretical on what is right and wrong, not the practical advice I’d tell others in their purchasing decisions.
Good discussion on how we ought to engage with people. 10/10 would do again
I am quite aware of each of the labels and their often times meaningless qualities. Have spent about 5 years in the activism space, although there’s always something new.
But I will say, each step is indeed better. You are right to point out that others will just buy the caged-chicken eggs as they’re cheaper. This tells me we need better legislation so standards are not up to struggling individuals, but enforced laws. But people will not vote for law makers nor will law makers introduce and vote on bills that are unpopular with people. We need more people to feel that cage-free is the default. This is obviously just a stepping stone, but it is a vital one.
Each step, while incremental, is vital to changing the world. There are a significant portion of people currently alive that will never change there ways unless given an easier solution. They ought to change, but we need to work with what we can for the time being. With that, we can advocate for policy changes, research in good alternatives, and bring about campaigns without the corporate sphere, even if it seems like we’re doing very little.
Even if the goal is the abolition of human and non-human interaction, we need logical steps to get there. Otherwise, we don’t move the world forward.
If you want some cool potato facts, you might be best off boiling and then cooling your potatoes before eating. There is some preliminary evidence that cooling the potato instead of eating it directly from heat may lower its glycemic index and thus limit blood sugar spikes. The mechanism is still uncertain, but there is thought that the crystallization of the gelatinized starches from cooking may lead to a slower break down of sugar in the small intestine.
I am calling this an overall win for potato salad lovers everywhere.
Yeah, green/ethical washing seems to be annoyingly more prevalent these days. One thing that you might be interested in, given your pluralist approach to ethics, is this strategy guide to the welfarist approach. It acknowledges that we need to change people’s mind, but also presents the idea that cultures change slowly so we should probably target easy to achieve goals (cage free -> pasture raised -> no slaughter ->). I will always tell people to just stop doing what they’re doing, but if I have to focus on a wide scale issue, i’ll focus on something achievable to get the ball rolling. After all, it’s very easy to go from flexitarian to vegetarian/vegan than it is to go from a carnist to a vegan.
Long comments are good comments in my opinion lol.
If you’re looking for a chicken substitute that holds up, look no further than Sweet Earth’s “Chik’n” strips. I tried Morningstar’s and I didn’t find it to be the right texture. Sweet earth somehow figured out the perfect non-breaded chicken strip. I’d use that jazz in anything if I wasn’t trying to conserve my budget.
Also, idk if you’ve tried it yet, but (Gardein)[https://www.gardein.com/soups-chilis/soups/plant-based-chickn-noodl-soup] makes a great “chick’n” noodle soup for lazy days.
I wish the seafood substitutes were there. The breaded stuff like fish and chips are great and there are a few brands of tuna substitutes I like, but I haven’t seen a shrimp or salmon substitute. For sushi or smoked salmon bits, sure, there are lots of things that have a similar taste, but I haven’t found anything like something you’d get in a restaurant. If you like to cook, (sauce stache)[https://youtu.be/T8MaZXj9N-U] always comes through with surprisingly good tasting recipes.
I also have no ability to detect sarcasm so apologies if this was in jest.
Eating raw foods doesn’t guarantee not getting cancer. We’re constantly exposed to carcinogens so the best thing we can do is reasonably avoid them when we can. Raw food diets are pretty tough to keep up with and have their own risks. Just eat a diet comprised of mostly or all plants, avoid a lot of added sugar, saturated fat, sodium, alcohol, and nicotine containing products. Just by doing that, you give yourself a pretty good chance of a healthy life.
Would recommend trying some of the new plant-based meat products while you’re at it. Stuff from Impossible and Beyond Foods are pretty much taste-alikes for burgers. Morningstar has the same with appetizer items like chicken nuggets. Gardein is cheaper and usually marketed as healthy (lower saturated fat and sodium), but isn’t as good for said healthy reasons. I still buy that because of the low cost though. Places like Aldi have their own products that are the cheapest of them all and pretty decent tasting ngl.
We do not really know how cooking helped us evolve, but there are many theories. It could have been that cooking our food allowed us to have smaller digestive tracts (compared to our ancestors) meaning we had a better ability to grow our brains. Or possibly it was because cooking allowed for a break down of plant and animal matter which allowed us to have more energy/access to nutrients giving us an evolutionary edge. Or if you want to examine a possible psychological reason, maybe fire specifically allowed us to think, examine, and memorize for longer periods of time including night.
As for why it was good then and bad now, we have to understand the split in what kills us. Prior to the invention of common sterilization methods, clean drinking water, and antibiotics/antifungals/antivirals, you were far more likely to die of some disease than some chronic disorder like you are today. Now, most people are living well past their 60s in some impoverished countries and many in rich countries far higher in their late 70s, 80s, or even 90s. This gives a lot more time for other factors like cancer to be an issue. Considering cancer is developed because of mutations in our DNA, the longer we live, the more chance said mutations will occur before we can stop the deleterious effects Additionally, our tools are far more extreme than they used to be. Boiling is a fairly new (in the broad scheme of things) invention with things like frying or smoking being even newer. That doesn’t always mean its going to be a bad thing, but in this case, newer cooking methods just involve a higher heat which does indeed present issues.
As far as how high you can cook food without seeing damage, there is no answer for a specific no-no temperature. Just that higher temperatures result in more damage as I discussed here. Boiling seems to be the least bad compared to roasting, grilling, or smoking considering boiling stays around 100C compared to > 200C in other methods. Plant matter seems to be far better than animal matter likely due to the high content of other molecules with less DNA although the authors of the study note that future studies should be undertaken to learn more about these effects with a wider food pool.
TL;DR: we don’t really know all of the specifics for why we evolved. Cooking was likely part of it. Today, there is no correct temperature to cook at, but lower temperatures seem to be better for this particular issue.
Given that heat-induced deamination producing dU in isolated DNA continues to proceed over extended times (Figure 2b), (18) hours of roasting or smoking could potentially result in higher levels of damage, although this was not tested here. For dU in briefly roasted beef, the amounts found here correspond to milligram quantities in a serving of cooked meat, as much as 1000 times greater than concentrations of HCA or PAH molecules in cooked meats
Summary here
That is some damn great food diversity if I’ve ever seen it
Sounds like a solid choice! Maybe not for the cancer risk alone, since that is tough to prove definitively, but for the ethical and environmental concerns for sure. I used to eat meat 2+ times a day, but one day like 5 years ago I just stopped. Seems too easy with all the options available to us
Sorry, long post ahead:
I agree with points 2, 5, and parts of the others. But I disagree on specifics of a few of said points.
It is not necessary to consume animal products to meet or exceed nutritional and energy requirements. They are not necessary to clothe or shelter us.
It is true that humans can go without an animals byproducts and survive with ease. However, I will note that in an ideal scenario of no-slaughter and high-welfare laws, wool is a superior alternative to plastic clothing given how wasteful plastic products are. However, this is only relevant for cold parts of the world where normal cotton clothing is inadequate. I myself opt for plastic and second hand wool, but would rather have an option of a sheep in my care which would never encounter any harm if we are to continue to experience cold environments. Additionally, eggs specifically serve as a great means to care for non-human animals that do indeed need animal-based foods. Maybe in the future, lab grown meat will replace the need for this, but currently it seems to be the best option to reduce suffering overall. Finally, just because something is not necessary, does not mean we shouldn’t do it. If indeed my hypothetical care for a hen is only positive (nutritionally thriving, warm home, freedom to roam the yard to scavenge and perch, etc), then eating the non-fertilized eggs they produce is a neutral act. As with the example in the original post, if you were to use a dogs hair they let out from shedding as a coat, I would view that as a completely neutral option. Maybe slightly positive since it would be thrown out otherwise.
Using products they produce (vegetarianism) usually ends up with them still entering in the same suffering and premature death system because of economic incentives.
Usually, yes. but I do not advocate for this. I advocate for a future of companionship between humans and chickens that features either a commensalistic or mutualistic relationship. One where no one is harmed. Something along the lines of how people treat their dogs/cats now. I believe this is quite achievable with animal welfare laws.
We can’t take an “individualist” approach assuming that our specific way of doing things (such as a quaint family farm) would scale across billions of people.
Sure, a quaint farm wouldn’t scale across a billion people. But you do not need it to. I am specifically pointing to this being a good relationship, not that all people should have it. Similarly, I advocate for people to grow their own food. However, I understand that mass farming is necessary for plant foods to be grown for a majority of people. If we are to assume that my hypothetical situation features no harm to the chickens while giving them a great life (like I might give for my dog), then I see it as a net good.
Animals are sentient and prefer a state of relative wellbeing and satisfaction of natural instincts just like we do. Making excuses to violate animals does not align with principals of nonviolence and compassion for beings.
This is my biggest drop off in views. Non-human animals definitely do prefer a state of well being and do seem to have senses of individualism and other traits we value. However, it is important not to assign anthropomorphic ideas to them. For example, I know my dog loves to go outside and run around. If I were to give him full freedom and access to express his natural instincts, I would just let him outside to roam free. However, I know that I can give him a superior that features living in a warm area with access to food at standard times, frequent treats, and lots of time exercising outside with me or others present. I would view chickens in the same way I view said dog. An animal I ought to take care of while letting them express their instincts to a reasonable extent as to not harm them. So i’d give them a heated barn to protect them from the elements and predatory animals as well as provide nutritional assistance as foraging is not always ideal. During the day, they’d be free to roam the yard and fulfill their wishes.
I think it’s very important to acknowledge how awful living in the wild really is. Obviously, the current treatment of animals is worse, but I wouldn’t say we shouldn’t live with them as a part of our lives. Just a far better relationship featuring care and never harm.
I had a similar discussion here, if you’re not in a long conversation sorta mood. Nevoic and I talked about the relative merits of rights vs welfare approaches. I think my conclusion after speaking with them is that I still find utilitarian systems of practice to be more reasonable, but I understand and can empathize with the deontologists
I think what they meant by “being a vegetarian is healthier” is from the point of conclusion from this study referencing lower cancer (and all cause-mortality in referenced analysis) rates for plant based vs animal containing diets. I agree it’s a tough claim to make since a vegetarian diet could literally just be oreos for 3 meals a day, but if I had to guess what they meant, it’s probably what I mentioned.
Also, the linked summary doesn’t provide too much info. They talked about more than just the listed plant/animal foods and tried to speculate on why they got their results. I summarize those points here
More info from actual study here
Bullet point summary of the full paper
“The consumption of foods prepared at high temperatures has been associated with numerous health risks.”
In previous studies, high heat has specifically been examined with its ability to transform harmless molecules into small-molecule metabolites that can interact with DNA such as “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines (HCAs)… aldehydes, acrylamide, and N-nitroso compounds”
When such species interact with DNA, “mutations when replication specificity is altered by modified nucleobases and in genotoxicity and chromosomal rearrangements when strand breaks occur during repair”
The amount of DNA seems to be reflective of how many of these small metabolites are formed. For example, in animal products, often associated with health concerns, we see high amounts of DNA content (cows = 5.3-19.5g/kg, pigs = 6.9 - 21.2g/kg). But in plants, we see a far lower amounts with grains, starches, fruits, and legumes the lowest (wheat = 0.6g/kg, lentils = 0.7-0.8g/kg, potatoes = 1g/kg, avocado = 0.6g/kg), and vegetables being higher (spinach = 2.6g/kg, cauliflower = 2.8g/kg, broccoli = 5.1g/kg)
This study notes that the link between small-molecule agents and health concerns are not yet proven. They primarily focused on examining connection between individual parts of said DNA hypothesis.
They note that if their findings continue to be held up as true, frying/grilling/smoking are probably the worst, roasting being similarly bad, and boiling being the least harmful. With raw and non-heat processed foods being the best.
The authors note they are not yet clear on why many plant foods seem to have protective effects in other studies for cancer, but they do write “starch may contribute to some protection against reactive oxygen species” which is common in many unprocessed plant foods like legumes and tubers.
TL;DR: Food products still contain DNA from their sources. When consumed, the DNA must be broken down and utilized by our digestive system. When exposed to high heat, DNA from foods may break down into harmful molecules. When we consume said DNA in our food, it can be harmful to our existing DNA causing deleterious mutations. Some foods have less DNA content and speculated protective compounds such as starch which may prevent some of damage to us including many plant foods, but specifically tubers, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and grains. The study reinforces previous studies showing diets high in said protective foods and low in animal products may result in positive health impacts including lower rates of cancer.
I don’t agree that utilitarianism is pro-oppression by nature, especially when reasonable consideration is applied. As an example, you present the transition from exploitative practices (eggs/wool/etc) without harm to the same practices with harm. This being allowed with the justification that my pleasure is worth more than their pain (an argument you attribute to the utilitarian camp). However, that would be defined as egoism rather than the utilitarianism. Utilitarians would posit all beings capable of suffering or pleasure ought to be given adequate consideration for their relative abilities.
I think many rule based utilitarians, myself included, would find a reasonable course of action in our future, even with capitalism being the main force of economic action. For example, the pleasure one receives for consuming an egg is small, while the suffering in current industry practices is great. This would result in a severely bad hedonistic calculus from utilitarians, even if the egoists would love it.
I would argue that the deontological argument of “animals have innate rights” is considered in the utilitarian approach as well, even if it is presented differently. The argument from my point of view is that most animals, besides ourselves, clearly have the basic ability to thrive and suffer. That ability needs to be considered in our calculations. This, I would say, is the core tenant of utilitarianism. All who can suffer, ought not to have to suffer. All who can thrive, ought to be able to thrive. All who can provide these qualities to others, ought to do so to the best of their abilities.
Similarly, and more of a tangent on my personal views: I sit firmly in the negative utilitarian camp. I acknowledge that more good is better than neutrality, but clearly the removal of suffering needs to be the primary impetus for action. So I am extremely rarely in agreement with the idea that “the pleasure I get from this is more good than the pain you get is bad.” As in that, pleasure, especially smaller pleasures, are weighted more than suffering.
Tofu (bean product tbf) -> fried or baked for most dishes, crumbled and refrigerated with mayo, dijon, and black salt for salads
Red kidney beans -> simmered along with the rest of the ingredients in chili
Garbanzo Beans/Chickpeas -> blended for hummus, same as kidney beans, but for curries and other South Asian dishes
If I’m feeling beyond lazy:
If I have 10 minutes:
One minute warm up meal prep:
Protip: if you have an Aldi near you, they have very cheap mock meats and cheeses ($1-4) a pack. Just check for vegan logo as some have egg/milk.
Me too, Bill, me too