higgsbi

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Me too, Bill, me too

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Relevant: https://github.com/mormaer/Mlem/issues/292

Seems the team got wind of it recently

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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

 

For You

One of the more interesting topic I discuss with people is why exactly they formed their vegan belief system. Some point out that they saw a documentary of Youtube video showing the horrors of animal agriculture, but that just points to our gut reaction, not necessarily the logical backing making us change our lifestyles. With that being said, where do you personally derive your beliefs from? Do you hardline certain deontological sticking points like exploitation? Do you just care about the relative net impact on creatures and their ability to thrive? Or is it something else entirely?


Personal Viewpoint

Personally, I draw my entire ethical world view on broad utilitarian viewpoints. So if a chicken were to suffer because of something I did, I must have done something wrong. Equally, if a chicken were to thrive because of something I did, I did something good. However, I do not think about the exploitation nor commodification of that chicken, because those are anthropomorphic ideas that they likely do not care about. Sure, commodification and exploitation are usually wrong because they excuse people's actions, but, it seems to me that there are some niche cases where these qualities, which we often find as bad, are in fact morally neutral.

I think I realized that after seeing a video of someone who saved several hens from factory farms who were still producing eggs, and continued to use the eggs for their personal usage (feeding carnivorous animals and supplementing their own diet so far as the chicken did not have any physical stressors). I tried to look at the situation objectively to find some issue with the chicken being malnourished, abused, or made to do something they didn't like. But alas, the hens involved had no medical issues, were able to thrive in a safe and comfortable environment, and were nutritionally supplemented to ensure their well being (i.e., no nutritional deficiencies). Plus, carnivorous animals got a meal so less animals as a whole were harmed.

The humans involved in the prior example did not need to consume the chickens eggs, but doing so posed no ethical issue, so for me, it was ethically neutral - a non issue.

Other Example

If you still want to read, here's another example of my views. I personally avoid wool as I know where it comes from and the suffering that must be inflicted in our system. However, I acknowledge that there are ways in which wool can be a viable fabric while still allowing for thriving lives for sheep.

First, I think about a normal house dog. They usually hate getting a hair cut when they're younger because they are scared of the razor. After you get a razor with a cooling blade mechanism and get them exposed to it, they learn to not be afraid of it and instead enjoy the experience since the hair cut doesn't actually provide any physical pain. For that, I feel no moral qualms with giving them a hair cut because they seems to enjoy or be unbothered by it. If I put in the effort to utilize the hair I cut off in a meaningful way, it'd be fine to do. Especially because I just throw it away otherwise.

Equally, a sheep "wool" is simply their hair. Some breeds have the genetics to grow more or less, but growing it and having it removed do not have to bring about harm - we just do it because we value cheap goods year round far more than their livelyhoods so we adopt cruel standards. If I were to some day have some sort of homestead, where I raised sheep from their adolescence all the way to their death of natural causes, and continued to give to shave their wool, I see not problem with doing so. Given that they are well fed, not hurt in the process, and were given access to natural pastures that they can use to thrive. In fact, I'd argue that is a good thing to do as I've taken care of them their entire life (protection from normal predators, warm home, access to food, etc) without harming them in the process.

TL;DR exploitation and commodification are usually bad, but I find the reason for them being bad to be the harm (direct and indirect), not just the fact that they are exploited.

view more: next ›