!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Food insecurity is not a resource issue, it is a class\profit\interest issue.
Since the industrial revolution food production has always had the potential to feed to world easily with plenty left over.
Why do stores call cops on starving people who go through the bins that are full of perfectly edible food? because profits (free food makes payed food less appealing)
We can easily grow more plants than humanity can collectively eat, and still have plants left over for global industries. There is just no need to be that frugal with food.
USA grows a lot of corn. Only 1.5% of it is edible strains.
and a lack of companies with ethics. shipping companies often make massive profits. there is nothing stopping them from shipping donations for free...
Hunger is not caused by people not finishing what is on their plate or by allowing over-ripe fruits and vegetables to be discarded.
Hunger is caused by our profit based food distribution system.
People with little or no money get little or no food. It sucks, but that is how it works.
Unless you can somehow take the profit away from the final destination so that anyone who wants food can have food, that will not change. I can't even imagine a way to do it in an equitable fashion without a cultural shift away from money and towards having a healthy community that cares about the individual humans and is willing to share equally to do it.
Restaurant waste, which is what your post body starts with, can't be recycled like that. It's an unsafe practice due to the contamination gained at the table combined with time out of the temperature safe zone. Even if you killed an the pathogens there, the risk of the toxins left by those pathogens is problematic. That and it would ruin the food trying to kill them to a reasonable degree.
Now, back in the kitchen, you could do what some restaurants do and donate the prepared but unserved food to local distribution centers (often focused on homeless charities or government outlets). But it wouldn't make sense to turn it into some kind of "nutrition loaf". Seriously, look up that term and be prepared to hate the prison system more than you do currently.
And that is why even if the process could be perfectly safe, it would still suck. Nobody should have to eat the horrible crap that it would turn into. If would be cheaper, safer, and more humane to just make sure everyone has good food to eat in the first place.
The only application for the kind of bricks you'd get from the process is feeding people that don't have access to good, healthy food in the first place.
I get your point but, ewww
Maybe feed the scraps to chickens then eat their eggs? Seems cleaner and easier.
I would much rather that than eating someone else's roats lamb from a month ago, even if it were "processed" (I guess you mean dehydrated ?)
That's cruel and requires violence. There are situations that justify cruelty and violence, but given that there is no food scarcity, it is not justified now.
Feeding chickens and eating eggs is cruel and violent?
I'd love to hear your misguided reasoning.
Individuals must be treated as ends, never as means.
I have cats. Aside from rodent control, they don't serve any purpose other than being part of the family. If my cats somehow had the ability to lay eggs, and since they are all fixed these are unfertilized eggs with no possibility of bearing offspring. Would it be wrong if me to make an omelette from them?
I might have made it more weird by using my cats.
But if you had a few chickens and provided them food and shelter and took good care of them, like you would any pet, why not use their eggs? They're going to lay them either way. Is it more moral to throw them away?
Those chickens didn't just happen. Their very existence is abuse. Creating an individual with the preformed intent that you prevent it from becoming able to care for itself, that it will be dependent on you for everything for it's entire life, that is one of the most abusive things you can do to another individual.
Fine, rescue your cats or whatever, but that's not what you're talking about right now. You're talking about a captive individual (ie a slave) who exists to convert calories for you, like a machine. And if you build your lifestyle around stealing eggs from slaves, then it's not just one chicken, is it? You gotta replace them whenever they can no longer meet your needs for eggs. And in this scenario, what use is a broken machine that doesn't produce eggs.
You're not simply taking eggs that they would be laying anyway; they wouldn't EXIST. Not as an individual, but also not as a genentic line that is cursed to lay far more eggs than its own interests have any reason for it to lay. It lays so many eggs that its body becomes depleted. It is not natural for chickens to lay eggs so often! That is something that we did to them. And it's yet more abuse!
Abuse is inescapable when you use an individual's body for your own purposes.
And again, we are talking about fucking eggs. There is no food shortage. So there is no justification for even a little bit of cruelty and violence. Plus, eggs are not good for you in the first place!!
Wow. That's nuts. I respect that it's your opinion, and I wish you the best of luck, but what do you eat?
I hope it's not plant based. Because growing an individual from a seed only to eventually slaughter and devour it is cruel. Have you even considered how the plant feels when pluck it's genitals off and eat them, or in some instances, gather a bunch and put them out on display?! How grotesque!
Just because plants can't tell you how much they are suffering, do you take that as consent to dominate and devour them at your will?
I know you don't really mean it, but I'm going to use your bad faith arguments to point out some things you should know but have probably never thought about.
Let's accept that you are a fully committed plant's rights activist. You considered killing yourself out of respect for your plant brother's experiences, but ultimately you decide that no creature should be obliged to kill itself simply because of its own inherent nature. You cannot help that you need to eat. So what do you do?
You decide that while you have to eat to survive, that doesn't mean that you can just eat wantonly, whatever and however the urge strikes you, because there are these serious consequences to your plant friends. You look for the way of life that minimizes the number of plants that you have to kill. Easy, you think, you'll just eat animals!
Until you realize, those animals eat plants. Those animals ate WAY more plants than you would have if you hadn't eaten any animals. Oh. Shit. The more animals you eat, the more of your plant sisters you are killing. You realize that your ethical convictions demand that you instead eat only plants, and only as many as you need to survive. Because that is the only solution to this ethical quandary.
But of course, in real life, you are not actually concerned with plant's rights. It was just a ruse you were pulling. You did not go down this train of thought to its logical conclusion. These are not issues that you have spent years and years thinking about. Rather, like most people, you have been trained to not think about them. You're not engaging with intellectual honesty, you have begun to attempt to frustrate meaningful discussion. I'm giving you a lot of grace here because I don't think you realize you did it, and I'd like to give you a chance to see it.
Okay, I can see you have become defensive. It's understandable. When I finally accepted the vast cruelty and violence I was a part of, it fucking broke me. That is what you are trying to avoid. That is what I tried to avoid for a very long time. Eventually I accepted that I could not be a kind, decent, good person, and continue to use cruelty and violence to exploit unwilling individuals. The person I was deserved to be broken.
I'm going to let you take back your bad faith arguments. This isn't merely an intellectual exercise for either of us. We're talking about things that matter and choices we make many times every day and it's hard to talk about dispassionately and objectively.
No, not defensive. You do you, and your thoughts on what I do, don't affect me at all.
I just think it's odd that you draw the line between plants and animals, when the animals themselves don't even draw that same line. Some animals are designed to eat other animals, and some are designed to be eaten. It's the natural order.
Sorry to keep referencing cats, but they NEED meat. Some people have tried to force their cats to go vegan, only to kill their feline friend.
By all means, if you need to create an illogical moral superiority to justify your existence, go right ahead, but know that there is no prize for whoever voluntarily suffers the most. In the end, the animals will thank you just as much as the plants would if you stopped eating those.
Just for clarity, I don't accept that it is okay to keep individuals as pets. But that isn't relevant to the current discussion so I didn't get into that.
I said eggs not butchering them for meat !!!
Explain yourself.
I'm sorry, you cannot exploit the body of an individual against their will without cruelty and violence. This is a terrible thing to come to terms with, but I hope you try to. There is no way around it short of abject denial.
Here is some factual information about how egg laying hens (and their brothers, who are macerated alive in a blender within hours of hatching) necessarily suffer atrocity under the economic realities that rule them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko&t=1400s
not op, but I assume they are vegan. many vegans have the misconception any product from a animal is violence against them. as they cannot consent...
but the truth is, no vegans live on farms... they don't understand chickens lay unfirtalized eggs regardless.
they also see the breeding programs of chickens as violent as it's for producing meat/eggs. so by raising chickens you are perpetuating it... but that's stupid. that's like seeing a hurt dog by the side of the road and saying "if we help that one we have to help all of them". baby chicks are often given away not sold...
Bacterial contamination, fungal contamination, toxicological contamination from fungi and bacteria, other sorts of contamination (rodents, worms and shit).
Short answer is No. Long answer: Hell no.
Cause that's commie shit! What next? Gonna make us eat bugs?!
/S (I hope it was obvious lol)
This might pass US food standards, but I can imagine the rest of the world would have a few objections.
There’s too many factors over which there is virtually no control, such as other things ending up in the food bin. It would be classified as not fit for human consumption.
as soon as food starts the process of production, before it even hits a preparation or cooking surface it has bacteria on it. nothing is completely clean.
freezing, washing and cooking ingredients reduces these or makes them go dormant. but it does not get rid of them entirely.
when it's plated and served, that bacteria is already stating to revive and reproduce. by the end of a meal, between all the new nutrients from the human body added to the plate from the utensils, the leftover food is a breeding ground. this is why leftovers are generally considered risky if not handled properly.
you simply cannot reliably disinfect them and the only things you can do is store it in a chilled environment to slow bacterial growth and reheat to aid in killing some but not all of that new growth off.
if you start mixing these together, the salavia, which is unavoidable as spittle occurs whether you notice it or not, and trace amounts are on your utensils from mouth contact. plus any airborne contaminants from the person are in the food.
it basically becomes a Petri dish. as it's a perfect microcosm for bacteria and mold...
we used to grow mold, yeast and fungus by spitting on potatoes and rice. to later harvest it. we understand it well.
I mean you could do all that, make it taste good, even solve the issue with allergies, but i reckon most people would say "ew im not eating that wtf". Also from the amount of distrust in the government and corporations, you'd probs also get people thinking its bad for them regardless of facts and evidence
Pathogens could easily spread this way since your collection bin would require to meet hygiene standards (i.e. cooling and rodent-free) and you would need to make sure the people treat the scraps they throw in right. And are not such with gastroenteritis or similar diseases.
If you had a magic wand which removes all pathogens, your approach becomes viable I guess.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!
Aside from the fact that hunger is not caused by lack of food but by a capitalist distribution of means of subsistence, that also sounds profoundly unsafe. So you want to grind raw meat, raw eggs, with berries, leeks, idk what else, and hope for the best? Some of the food might have been on the verge of expiration. If some of the food was bad now all of it is bad because you mixed it all up. Different ingredients need different cooking methods, temperatures, times, etc. Some of your paste will be cooked to inedibility whilst some of it won't be at a food-safe temperature yet. Even if it didn't cost anything to implement this, no one had any dietary requirements, etc, this food would just be unsafe to eat.
Not to mention that their idea is focused on people's unfinished meals, so now you have a bunch of new pathogens to worry about.
Cause that sounds nasty.
A waste food purée doesn't really sound very appealing. So what is stopping me is that this sounds like quite a bit of effort for something that I don't even want.
But you're free to collect my food waste and do what ever you want with it.
there no benifits to this. extreme bacterial contaminations and mold/fungus concerns aside, there is simply too much unprocessed food available that goes unsold and is wasted as a result to ever need to recort to this.
it's not a ecology issue, there has never been a shortage of "food". when people say there is a "Shortage of food", what they mean is there is a shortage of food /given/ to them.
it's a economic shortage of food. they do not have enough wealth to acquire food and therefore they are not getting any. greed is the reason there is so much food wasted. not at the table, but at the market.
governments should be subsidising the poor and supporting their food needs by taking excess from markets at value, not margin.