Author Topic: culinary investigation  (Read 9389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline takin

  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
culinary investigation
« on: September 15, 2009, 06:40:53 PM »
I want to comment about the slideshow culinary investigation.
There is no contradiction between the argument that if people knew how actually fascinating the vegan kitchen is, they would stop eating animal products and the fact that they look for new interesting food all the time. On the contrary, if they knew how rich and diverse vegan food is they wouldn’t look for new foods as they just found it.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2009, 06:49:57 AM »
More than it is culinary investigation it is a conquering investigation. Humans take pleasure from the power and the predominance even more than the taste.
Many people eat meat because and not despite it is a dead animal. Meat is a dominant and power symbol. Humans can undoubtedly get the required nutrients from other places.
The Social aspects of meat eating are much stronger and much more significant than its nutritional values which us vegans are the best proof of its invalidity.

Killing, cooking and eating animals is the ultimate indication of an absolute dominance over the rest of the species. And the bigger the animal, the greater the symbol of power is.
Its taxonomic status is significant too. A steak which is usually made of a large mammal, is a much stronger power symbol than a chicken or a fish which are so “insignificant” that some “vegetarians” eat them and still call themselves vegetarians.

Not just the size of the animal but the amount of torture the animal endured during the production phase is in straight correlation with the social status of the course and its power symbol. Relevant examples are Lobsters (which are boiled alive), Veal (tiny, single wooden crate) and foie gras (systematic force feeding for 4 consecutive months) all considered as delicacies courses.
I am not saying that the horrible density in battery cages or the tormenting genetic manipulation on dairy cows and meat chicks are not torture measures just as much but they could be excused by the farmers as measures of increasing efficiency. Eggs are products of torture but the product is not the torture in the sense that you will get the same egg if you imprison the chicken hen in the worst conditions possible or if you keep her in your huge grassy yard with dozens of chicken friends. In case of veal or foie gras the torture is integral part of the product “manufacture”. The same goes for lobsters and eels, in which the course is a boiled alive animal. It’s not a serving suggestion it is the product itself.

The point of culinary investigation among other is an attempt to prove that showing to meat eaters that there are plenty of vegan options which are tastier, cheaper and much healthier is pointless. People don’t eat meat because it’s healthy and nutritious that’s only what they say. People eat meat because of its social status, its power and dominance symbolization, and also because they like it and they are used to it (who but you know how hard it is to change someone’s old habits). Another issue which is always significant is that as opposed to only a few decades ago meat is cheap enough that most of the people in the western world can afford it, what makes their corps lust very available. Foods provide pleasure and supremacy sense, almost regardless of nutrition.

SATS

  • Guest
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2009, 06:35:43 PM »
These ideas are widely and thoroughly expressed in NICK FIDDES’ book “meat, a natural symbol”. The author argues that meat is mainly a symbol and element of human mastery over nature so it is very recommended for that matter. 

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2009, 09:40:48 AM »
A society that animals’ corps which were killed violently are a natural symbol as fiddes argues in his book is a society that celebrates its mastery over nature.
In our world violence is a symbol of power. It might sound obvious and banal but it is not. Not morality which can theoretically be a symbol of power, not sensitivity, not empathy or caring or kindness and etc. All are theoretically legitimate and good options but they all lost to violence. The human society glorifies power and violence.
This is something you have to face. You want to change a society that is inherently violent and aggressive. For most people violence begins with breakfast and is manifested all along their day in every seemingly negligible daily routine action.

Offline Earth to Venus

  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2009, 07:10:08 PM »
The assumption that food preferences are rational is itself irrational. 
There is no doubt that food preferences are culture conditioned. All along history it can be seen clearly how both the form and content of a meal indicate much more than its actual food value. Taste is very much culturally conditioned, not to mention the social aspects that were already mentioned here.
If food, or eating for that matter were so rational and out of social context how come in cases of emergencies (plain crashes in the desert or in icy areas for example) humans would rather starve to death than turning to cannibalism, eating each other or at least the bodies from the plain crush?
Social conditioning can easily override even basic hunger, as when poverty-stricken families give of their last reserves to entertain a guest.
Food habits are inherent to the social context. Once humans have met basic survival needs, eating becomes a matter of desire, status, social belongingness, self-esteem, manhood and of course dominion. I agree with the OOS. It is pointless to show how many healthy, nutritious and tasty vegan food items are out there, we need to fight the human dominion.

Euthanasia brigade

  • Guest
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2009, 03:32:55 PM »
If food preferences were so rational and it is not a culinary investigation why humans didn’t stop when they found “the best” option? And if they haven’t found it yet how come they defend meat as the best energy source and as an impossible to manage without?

Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2009, 02:45:07 AM »
Takin, your expectation for rational decision making from humans is very strange. Have you been to a supermarket lately? 90% of the products are completely junk, and 90% of what is left are fruits and vegetables which are principally great but since the super versions are genetically modified and loaded with chemicals, the whole supermarket turns to the world’s tidy and neat waste dump.

Offline Earth to Venus

  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2009, 05:46:38 AM »
I heard that when food production costs rose and meat became priceier, people didn’t buy less meat and relied more on plants, they bought cheep processed meat, which is basically junk combined with some more artificial ingredients, as long as it says meat on the label. The fixation on eating animals is so strong people would rather have minced cartilage, marrow and god knows what else than buy beans.

Adding to that are the roasting and carving rituals themselves that seem to cross cultures, all the accessories that come along with them and more generally the fuss about knives, their manufacture which is considered a form of art and their becoming a decoration prop in the kitchen, with sets half a dozen huge shiny, sharp knives hung on the walls or rest in a specially made holder on the counter. And these are just the things that popped in my head in the last half an hour… 

SATS

  • Guest
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2009, 01:44:53 PM »
A very strong evident to the irrationality towards food is that NASA developed synthetic meat for astronauts. In space, under extremely difficult conditions where everything is restricted to minimum "necessary", where oxygen and water supply are limited and lethal radiation is all around, how insane is that NASA is making sure astronauts would still be able to have flash for dinner?!

Offline No more suffer

  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2009, 02:57:07 PM »
You don’t have to go that far (literally…). Drinking milk of another species after infancy when nutritiously you supposed to eat solid foods only (and drink water…only) is one of the least rational nutritious decisions I can think of, adding the fact that in many cases "dairy cows" are given soy which humans can make a much better milk directly from it and drinking cows’ milk is also one of the least rational economical decisions humans routinely make. Torturing millions of cows every year for something they can get out of the food they give the cows and that they didn’t need it in the first place.

Declaration of the end

  • Guest
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2009, 06:43:02 PM »
Another issue that takes the insane dairy mechanism a step further is that this madness happens while the majority of the people in the world are lactose intolerant. If the rate sounds a little exaggerated to you, remember that most of the dairy consumers are of European origin, characterized by a low rate of lactose intolerance (only 10%).
In the U.S for example the total average rate is significantly greater but that is because among African and Latin Americans the percentage is high and among causations it is low, but in Asia and Africa nine out of 10 people are lactose intolerant which again makes the dairy consumption even more senseless. In Asia, not only that the intolerance doesn’t stop them, there is a massive rise in the popularity of dairy products. Despite a list of discomforts in all cases, with some leading to severe health complications ,and despite the high prices, more and more Asians are buying more and more dairy products.
Milk represents a window to the west for the newly formed Asian middle class and it makes all the bowels troubles worth it.
And of course if people don’t have the enzyme that breaks down lactose (because they are not supposed to eat it in the first place!), they turn to the labs and produce the enzyme in vitro (enlarging the victims quantity) and intake it prior to the dairy consumption which is bad for the stomach but good for the social status.

If eating food they can’t digest is not a proof that people don’t choose food for nutritious reasons but for social, cultural and symbolic reasons then what is?

Offline No more suffer

  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2009, 03:45:20 AM »
Speaking of synthetic meat, I wonder if you’ve seen this article called How to end 98% of Animal Abuse in the Next 25 Years and what do you think about the idea of engineered meat? It’s still speciesist but can save a lot of suffering

Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2009, 01:49:40 PM »
I used to think it hold a big promise in abuse and suffer reduction, I even thought that it might help reduce speciesism by breaking the link between animals and food, however today I’m much more skeptical. 
There is a link between animals and food because man insists on keeping it, enjoys preserving and commemorating his domination over the rest of the species.

Offline Earth to Venus

  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2009, 02:29:41 AM »
Milk again is a very strong evident for the irrelevancy of this idea. As you all know there are various vegetable milks available but people prefer "the real thing".
Irrational and nutritiously inapposite as it is, the people have spoken and they are speaking loud and clear. They prefer baby abduction, dehorning, branding, castration, systematic rape and daily udder squeezing. Engineered meat will fail just as plant based milk (rice, almonds, soy, coconut, sunflower, sesame and oat) and as soy burger.
People eat symbols not food.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: culinary investigation
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2009, 05:53:21 AM »
Engineered meat won’t end 98% of animal abuse because meat is not responsible for 98% of animal abuse.
First of all and as always, this anthropocentric calculation totally disregard all the abuse animals inflict on each other as if it is not animal suffering. But this historical omission is so inherent among so many activists that I prefer to focus here on the other reasons and just ask you to watch and read this.  

Second, the author omitted dairy cows and laying hens in this statement, inconceivable enormous suffering which engineered meat will not and is not trying to end.
The 2% that the engineered meat will not end, represent the fur industry, animal experimentation, race dogs and etc. the dairy and egg industries are totally disregarded even though they have such a huge part in the world suffering.
At first I thought that since these industries are about 2% of the intensive animal exploitation in a quantitative manner, they are the ones the author meant and I wanted to explain that even without entering to suffering quantifying of who suffers more than who, when considering that each chicken hen lives about 2 years in the battery cage compared to 40 days of each chick in the meat industry and that each cow in the milk industry lives about 6-7 years compared to fish which 70% of their consumption is not from intensive fish farms but from the ocean, these industries’ representation in animal abuse is much higher than 2%. And again the intension was to other industries anyway but I thought it is a relevant opportunity to clarify this point following of the author’s omission of these two horrible industries in the calculation.

Third, why wait 25 years? Of course the OOS project will take long time as well maybe much longer but it is not a social process that needs to ripen, it isn’t depended on marketing or on the willing of the public to accept the idea but on our capability to operate it.

And finally, it won’t work for all the reasons mentioned in this discussion regarding meat’s real place in people’s lives.
Earth to Venus phrased perfectly "People eat symbols not food"
Food in general is far more than an energy source for survival and those that eat meat pick it for reasons that have nothing to do with nutrition. It’s a domination symbol. No veggie burger can fill this violent urge, and synthetic flash has worse marketing potential then soy products.  
Engineered meat will give more options to light meat eaters but I don’t see the meaningfulness in this claim because there are already so many products with a variety of vegetable compound basis that try to imitate the flavour of meat. If you think the reason why all these products didn’t managed to end 98% of animal abuse is because they don’t taste good or don’t taste the same as meat then read the study "The Interactive Effect of Cultural Symbols and Human Values on Taste Evaluation" which proves that most people can’t tell the difference from corps sausages to soy ones. How they ranked a certain sausage had to do with their character prepositions more than with the hotdogs they were given, as they were deliberately mistakenly labeled.
It proves that humans’ perceptions and expectations shape their experience more than the actual taste and nutritional value of the food they eat. How people feel about fake meat says more about their personal values than about what it actually tastes like.
This experiment is a major only one solution advocacy piece. If people’s yearning for meat is so strong they can’t control it, then we certainly can’t.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 03:20:46 AM by O.O.S »

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2015