Let necessity not precede availability… especially in the case of scarcity and toilet roll. I’ve heard of recyclable, but never reusable… who made that a thing?
An indulgence… the name belies the act, but would definitely work well with matters of sustainability, in that it’s akin to Prison community service, but of church.
I voted for 2, because although I am about sustainability, I ain’t about that sustainability life of eating cooked offerings derived from restaurants scraps and supermarket bins.
I ain’t about to vote because the choices miss an in between condition, that may enhance motives to sustain the poll.
I would, in all fairness, vote yes, definitely yes, in the event of a near bankruptcy of supplies would result in my literal inability to feed my family .
That not being the case personally , even if the homeless population here does scavenge the garbage cans for anything resembling edible fodder.
But that can certainly change in case of a catastrophe, such as sudden forfeiture of food supplies, do to bad harvests or other things which may happen in agriculture.
I would hazard that even in the exponential case of 30 or even 50 billion human population, feeding the earth, would still not be impossible.
Any guesses on that?
In the event of gross undersupply, people would need to minimize their eating habits, and terminate the practice of wasteful food consumption, among with the wasteful throwing out if food not consumed.
So are you saying that wealth isn’t evenly distributed amongst the contributing masses, so those that do/act/effect, aren’t earning their share of what they exact?
I agree, so how can this discrepancy be resolved/solved?
Academia, the MSM and political establishment, and the wealthy think tanks, round table groups and lobbyists behind them, don’t give two shits about the environment.
If they did, they’d voluntarily relinquish their affluent lifestyle, instead of punishing Jane and Joe average for trying to get from home to work and school.
Carbon taxes are a power grab by the overclass, nothing more.
So called sustainable food is an attempt to get the proletariat accustomed to an increasingly lower quality of life, while they live the high life.
The overclass rarely pay their taxes, they find ways of skirting around them.
Most of the money will go directly into their pockets, no matter where they’re telling you it’ll go.
Just like most charities are corrupt as fuck, government is too.
They’re bullshit artists.
I worked out mathematically, in accordance with the Pareto Principle, that in a world of 7.7 billion people, with estimated global wealth (in all its forms, including derivatives) amounting to roughly $1 quadrillion, there should be 1 or less millionaires in the entire world - never mind billionaires. Calculations can be found on my thread here.
Again, this is in total individual wealth in all forms, and with the poorest person in the world possessing just under $455 (including $41 in coins, banknotes, accounts, savings and deposits, $17 of which is in readily available money).
Sounds crazy compared to the truth, right? But I’ve explained how you can work it out yourself: don’t just take my word for it.
As I say in the thread: “This principle is used from business to sports to health and safety, to optimise all walks of life for the best possible outcome.”
Yet apparently “this widely utilised principle for optimisation must be best applied to everything but wealth…”
Well, the restaurants are scavenging the supermarket bins for us, in order to serve us up tasty zero waste treats, but what of allergies and such? I like the way the sustainability drive doesn’t take such considerations into account when they are shoving their message, along with their allergy-unfriendly food, down our throats.
I wouldn’t be able to partake in any zero waste feasts, so those of us who couldn’t would have to survive by being drip-fed, if famine prevailed. So that sustainability life, could never be for me.
Seeing that I only have a breakfast of eggs, and then eat only one main meal a day… and sometimes the odd orange here and there, cutting back on eating would be a breeze for me, but I wouldn’t like to survive on less than I already am.
I doubt that a 30 billion+ population could be sustained, and if we tried, I perish the thought of what that food would contain.
…and probably behind the climate change over-reaction too, so more money for their coffers, instead of going towards taxes.
The overclass obviously love the feel of other peoples’ money, in their pockets and their bank accounts… do you think they laugh about it over drinks?
Life is Monopoly… accruing, gaining, profiting… an addictive game, no? so much thrills and excitement to be had, that they’re not going to give that up, for anyone.
But you are changing the goal posts.
You might as well ask “would you be willing to eat at a non sustainable restaurant with the last children of the Yanomani tribe on the menu?”
Since “sustainable” is poorly defined the question is really empty. I am sure that Macdonald’s can continue to sustain their burger production from the existing rain forests they have already destroyed.
Some have eschewed the idea of sourcing food from the scraps of restaurants and supermarkets, to repurpose for creating sustainably-derived dishes. An issue of hygiene, maybe… not sure.
My question was based on the reaction of others to the concept, of which they were mixed in reception to it.
Their carbon footprint must be dire, and their overuse of preservatives… criminal.
I was more a Wimpy and Burger King type… both their bean burgers were to die-for… I don’t do fast food anymore, not since 1997… only really frequented the above two places and Pizza Hut, anyway.
But you have not here described sustainable food.
That is the point.
You can have no objections to sustainable food whilst at the same time hate “sourcing food from the scraps of restaurants and supermarkets, to repurpose for creating sustainably-derived dishes.”
This is just another example of how poorly thought out the threads are on this Forum.
I’m pretty sure that MacDonald’s’ is keen to sustain their production of burgers. And since our running definition of sustainable seems to be something like "sourcing food from the scraps of restaurants and supermarkets, to repurpose for creating sustainably-derived dishes. "
It would indicate that once again the whole thread is pretty empty headed.
PS As far as I know Mac burgers are claimed to be 100% beef - no preservatives.
And let’s hope that the claim much of the beef comes from Brazil since the quality of the meat is better than US beef fed on corn and hormones.
Do you remember that time, that for years MacDonald’s sustained the claim that their fries were 100% potato and it turned out that they never were… why lie about that? I’m sure that their 100% ‘beef’ burger is heavily preserved… just like the rest of their products are. I stopped eating fast food when I started getting sick/intolerant to it, and then they started adding those same suped-up preservatives to every-day foods and I stopped eating those too… and now I ate like my ancient ancestors and love it.
Have you seen the videos of peoples’ MacDonald’s meal being perfectly preserved and mould-less, months and years later? Is that a natural preservative, do you think?
__
Not just MacDonald’s, but Subway are also equally guilty of using synthetic additives in their products. Have you ever watched Food Unwrapped? a food show that tells you what’s really in our food.
