A secular debate about eating meat.

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by maiforpeace » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:07 pm

Eeek! Just what we need, more processed food. :?
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:14 pm

Nothing inherently wrong with processed food. I have a food processor at home that I use a lot.

Processing of food has been a boon to the health and safety of food, generally speaking. And, it allows more people to eat better food around the world than would otherwise be possible. The benefits of food processing include toxin removal, preservation, easing marketing and distribution tasks, and increasing food consistency. In addition, it increases seasonal availability of many foods, enables transportation of delicate perishable foods across long distances and makes many kinds of foods safe to eat by de-activating spoilage and pathogenic micro-organisms. Modern supermarkets would not be feasible without modern food processing techniques. Processed foods are usually less susceptible to early spoilage than fresh foods and are better suited for long distance transportation from the source to the consumer. When they were first introduced, some processed foods helped to alleviate food shortages and improved the overall nutrition of populations as it made many new foods available to the masses.

Processing can also reduce the incidence of food borne disease. Fresh materials, such as fresh produce and raw meats, are more likely to harbour pathogenic micro-organisms (e.g. Salmonella) capable of causing serious illnesses. The extremely varied modern diet is only truly possible on a wide scale because of food processing. Transportation of more exotic foods, as well as the elimination of much hard labour gives the modern eater easy access to a wide variety of food unimaginable to their ancestors.

Processed food freed people from the large amount of time involved in preparing and cooking "natural" unprocessed foods. The increase in free time allows people much more choice in life style than previously allowed. In many families the adults are working away from home and therefore there is little time for the preparation of food based on fresh ingredients. The food industry offers products that fulfill many different needs: From peeled potatoes that only have to be boiled at home to fully prepared ready meals that can be heated up in the microwave oven within a few minutes.

Modern food processing also improves the quality of life for people with allergies, diabetics, and other people who cannot consume some common food elements. Food processing can also add extra nutrients such as vitamins.

There are, of course, drawbacks to food processing. However, it would be essentially impossible to feed the world today without it, and it would certainly be impossible for most of us to live our modern lifestyles without processed food.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Pappa » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:34 pm

I'm sure it would be possible to feed the world without the use of unprocessed foods, though the means of production would need to change significantly to allow for much greater food production from within the cities themselves (as was common in the past). It would be neither technically nor economically unfeasible to do. I've read that in order to keep up with the demands of our growing cities, we may be forced to move food production sites into the cities anyway.

User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by maiforpeace » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:46 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Nothing inherently wrong with processed food. I have a food processor at home that I use a lot.

>snip<

There are, of course, drawbacks to food processing. However, it would be essentially impossible to feed the world today without it, and it would certainly be impossible for most of us to live our modern lifestyles without processed food.
So, when you cook at home with your food processor, you add chemicals and ingredients to what you are processing that you can't identify, much less pronounce? :fp:

I can cherry pick and quote Wiki too CES, but I'll just go ahead and post the entire link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_processing
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Warren Dew » Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:22 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Image
I'm pretty sure the actual percentage of people who are carnivorous is even smaller than those who are vegan.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Warren Dew » Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:24 pm

Pappa wrote:I'm sure it would be possible to feed the world without the use of unprocessed foods
I hope that was a typo ... it certainly sounds nightmarish to me!

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:16 pm

maiforpeace wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Nothing inherently wrong with processed food. I have a food processor at home that I use a lot.

>snip<

There are, of course, drawbacks to food processing. However, it would be essentially impossible to feed the world today without it, and it would certainly be impossible for most of us to live our modern lifestyles without processed food.
So, when you cook at home with your food processor, you add chemicals and ingredients to what you are processing that you can't identify, much less pronounce? :fp:
No, but processing food doesn't have require additional chemicals and ingredients, and not all added ingredients are unhealthy. Not all natural foods are healthy either.
maiforpeace wrote:
I can cherry pick and quote Wiki too CES, but I'll just go ahead and post the entire link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_processing
I thought I linked to it, as I usually do. Must've forgotten. The points are valid, don't you think?

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:16 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Image
I'm pretty sure the actual percentage of people who are carnivorous is even smaller than those who are vegan.
Yeah, but it's funnier than if they used the word "omnivore."

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by hadespussercats » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:19 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Nothing inherently wrong with processed food. I have a food processor at home that I use a lot.

Processing of food has been a boon to the health and safety of food, generally speaking. And, it allows more people to eat better food around the world than would otherwise be possible. The benefits of food processing include toxin removal, preservation, easing marketing and distribution tasks, and increasing food consistency. In addition, it increases seasonal availability of many foods, enables transportation of delicate perishable foods across long distances and makes many kinds of foods safe to eat by de-activating spoilage and pathogenic micro-organisms. Modern supermarkets would not be feasible without modern food processing techniques. Processed foods are usually less susceptible to early spoilage than fresh foods and are better suited for long distance transportation from the source to the consumer. When they were first introduced, some processed foods helped to alleviate food shortages and improved the overall nutrition of populations as it made many new foods available to the masses.

Processing can also reduce the incidence of food borne disease. Fresh materials, such as fresh produce and raw meats, are more likely to harbour pathogenic micro-organisms (e.g. Salmonella) capable of causing serious illnesses. The extremely varied modern diet is only truly possible on a wide scale because of food processing. Transportation of more exotic foods, as well as the elimination of much hard labour gives the modern eater easy access to a wide variety of food unimaginable to their ancestors.

Processed food freed people from the large amount of time involved in preparing and cooking "natural" unprocessed foods. The increase in free time allows people much more choice in life style than previously allowed. In many families the adults are working away from home and therefore there is little time for the preparation of food based on fresh ingredients. The food industry offers products that fulfill many different needs: From peeled potatoes that only have to be boiled at home to fully prepared ready meals that can be heated up in the microwave oven within a few minutes.

Modern food processing also improves the quality of life for people with allergies, diabetics, and other people who cannot consume some common food elements. Food processing can also add extra nutrients such as vitamins.

There are, of course, drawbacks to food processing. However, it would be essentially impossible to feed the world today without it, and it would certainly be impossible for most of us to live our modern lifestyles without processed food.
But... Soylent Green is people!
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:19 pm

Pappa wrote:I'm sure it would be possible to feed the world without the use of unprocessed foods, though the means of production would need to change significantly to allow for much greater food production from within the cities themselves (as was common in the past). It would be neither technically nor economically unfeasible to do. I've read that in order to keep up with the demands of our growing cities, we may be forced to move food production sites into the cities anyway.
For some folks, the only way they could get things like orange juice would be through food processing (like orange juice concentrating/freezing). The fact that we have such a varied supply of food from all over the world is in large part a result of food processing. Our diets might have to become more limited again, I guess.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:20 pm

hadespussercats wrote:
But... Soylent Green is people!
Image

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Gallstones » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:29 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Image
  • :coffeespray:
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by hadespussercats » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:32 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:
But... Soylent Green is people!
Image
;)

Seriously, though-- I saw some film footage of man-made meat on TV, and, well, I wouldn't want to eat it.
It doesn't look as good as SPAM, if that gives you an image.
I guess if I was starving, and that was what was there...
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Gallstones » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:01 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Nothing inherently wrong with processed food. I have a food processor at home that I use a lot.

Processing of food has been a boon to the health and safety of food, generally speaking. And, it allows more people to eat better food around the world than would otherwise be possible. The benefits of food processing include toxin removal, preservation, easing marketing and distribution tasks, and increasing food consistency. In addition, it increases seasonal availability of many foods, enables transportation of delicate perishable foods across long distances and makes many kinds of foods safe to eat by de-activating spoilage and pathogenic micro-organisms. Modern supermarkets would not be feasible without modern food processing techniques. Processed foods are usually less susceptible to early spoilage than fresh foods and are better suited for long distance transportation from the source to the consumer. When they were first introduced, some processed foods helped to alleviate food shortages and improved the overall nutrition of populations as it made many new foods available to the masses.

Processing can also reduce the incidence of food borne disease. Fresh materials, such as fresh produce and raw meats, are more likely to harbour pathogenic micro-organisms (e.g. Salmonella) capable of causing serious illnesses. The extremely varied modern diet is only truly possible on a wide scale because of food processing. Transportation of more exotic foods, as well as the elimination of much hard labour gives the modern eater easy access to a wide variety of food unimaginable to their ancestors.

Processed food freed people from the large amount of time involved in preparing and cooking "natural" unprocessed foods. The increase in free time allows people much more choice in life style than previously allowed. In many families the adults are working away from home and therefore there is little time for the preparation of food based on fresh ingredients. The food industry offers products that fulfill many different needs: From peeled potatoes that only have to be boiled at home to fully prepared ready meals that can be heated up in the microwave oven within a few minutes.

Modern food processing also improves the quality of life for people with allergies, diabetics, and other people who cannot consume some common food elements. Food processing can also add extra nutrients such as vitamins.

There are, of course, drawbacks to food processing. However, it would be essentially impossible to feed the world today without it, and it would certainly be impossible for most of us to live our modern lifestyles without processed food.

Is all this totally your own words? :shock: Nevermind.
Last edited by Gallstones on Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: A secular debate about eating meat.

Post by Gallstones » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:04 pm

maiforpeace wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Nothing inherently wrong with processed food. I have a food processor at home that I use a lot.

>snip<

There are, of course, drawbacks to food processing. However, it would be essentially impossible to feed the world today without it, and it would certainly be impossible for most of us to live our modern lifestyles without processed food.
So, when you cook at home with your food processor, you add chemicals and ingredients to what you are processing that you can't identify, much less pronounce? :fp:

I can cherry pick and quote Wiki too CES, but I'll just go ahead and post the entire link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_processing
Cooking is the mingling and mixing and manipulation of chemicals. Whether one can pronounce any given chemical is not a factor in determining whether that chemical is good or bad. :mrgreen:

I find a lot of people mispronounce cumin and!--(it gets worse)---don't even know what it is. :shock:
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 141 guests