Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Over eating is an ecological issue- motivation?
Replies
-
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »
Is it impressive? Honestly, I'm baffled by the fact that households generate so much food waste. 43% in the US according to this report, which is probably similar to most developed countries. I've never understood how, why. Can anyone offer any insight into this? What kinds of foods do you throw out, and why?
Me, I buy only what I intend to eat, I eat everything I buy. Very occasionally I might throw out a piece of fruit that I didn't notice at the store had started going moldy and brought home. I suppose that maybe with children things might be more complicated - my 10-month old nephew throws much of his food on the floor, and not even his aunt who finds food waste abhorrent will pick it up and eat it herself. But then again he's small, so it's not as if he eats (or wastes) much to begin with. Shouldn't adults be able to plan what they are going to eat and act accordingly?
I used to work in a grocery store and that was actually where i saw the most waste. They wanted the shelves to always look full, which meant always buying more product than would actually sell. A LOT was tossed there regularly. and that was a health food store.
To be sure, restaurants and retailers are responsible for a large portion of food waste. Still, in the report I linked above it says than in the US grocery stores only account for 13% of the total (again, households are at 43%). They also do more to reduce this amount - they are profit-driven businesses, after all, and more waste means less profit. It can also be an image issue (I know that at least where I live, one chain is leaning heavy into their status as the "most sustainable food retailer in the world" as determined by Corporate Knights).1 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
Yes, I only brought it up because your initial post made me think about my own lifestyle choices. Then again, excessive exercise is only one of the various ways my lifestyle requires more resources and produces more waste than strictly necessary. Again, because I am a well-off resident of a wealthy country.1 -
Here in Belgium (and probably other countries too), we can download an app to see where there will be leftovers from supermarkets in a certain area around your house. You can then make a reservation and get a bag that would normally been thrown away at the end of the day.
I pay around 5€ for a bag that contains a value of 15€ plus. Of course, you never know what you will get (fresh produce, yoghurts, cheese, bread or even fresh meals that will be past the selling day that very same day). In my experience, almost everything can be used or freezed.
The main purpose is to reduce waste at the supermarkets.
The app is called toogoodtogo .6 -
@antiopelle that sounds like a really cool app! I’m going to see if it’s set up in my city!0
-
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
I don't know if there is a meaningful ethical difference between someone who consumes 2,200 a day (for example) to maintain excess body weight and someone who consumes 2,200 a day in order to fuel an active lifestyle for recreational purposes. Both are over-consumption. I think we tend to assign more "virtue" to the latter choice because of our feelings around excess weight and the association with "laziness" or "greed."
But from the point of view of someone who doesn't have access to the same resources, both decisions might look pretty much the same to me.
I'm not sure, I'm just pondering here.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
I don't know if there is a meaningful ethical difference between someone who consumes 2,200 a day (for example) to maintain excess body weight and someone who consumes 2,200 a day in order to fuel an active lifestyle for recreational purposes. Both are over-consumption. I think we tend to assign more "virtue" to the latter choice because of our feelings around excess weight and the association with "laziness" or "greed."
But from the point of view of someone who doesn't have access to the same resources, both decisions might look pretty much the same to me.
I'm not sure, I'm just pondering here.
Someone who doesn't have the same resources isn't being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat. That's an entirely different discussion...
But I do think there is a difference between over consuming food in a way that is harmful to your health, and consuming food to fuel your activity. If we start saying someone shouldn't exercise because then they'll eat more and then they'll be contributing to ecological destruction is the same line of thinking that says that humans should just kill themselves because our existence is bad for the earth. We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy.
When you mention "virtue" and "laziness" and "greed" I sense that we are touching on issues of fatphobia, which I will also be clear: I am opposed to fatphobia. I'm not advocating we go out and ridicule people who are overweight for being greedy and destroying the earth. I was literally just thinking that this was another way of thinking about over eating, and another reason to gain control over it. I can't recall now if i ever mentioned in my original post, but I do see myself as a "food addict." Eating as an addiction is not the same as eating for sustenance.0 -
CorvusCorax77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
I don't know if there is a meaningful ethical difference between someone who consumes 2,200 a day (for example) to maintain excess body weight and someone who consumes 2,200 a day in order to fuel an active lifestyle for recreational purposes. Both are over-consumption. I think we tend to assign more "virtue" to the latter choice because of our feelings around excess weight and the association with "laziness" or "greed."
But from the point of view of someone who doesn't have access to the same resources, both decisions might look pretty much the same to me.
I'm not sure, I'm just pondering here.
Someone who doesn't have the same resources isn't being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat. That's an entirely different discussion...
But I do think there is a difference between over consuming food in a way that is harmful to your health, and consuming food to fuel your activity. If we start saying someone shouldn't exercise because then they'll eat more and then they'll be contributing to ecological destruction is the same line of thinking that says that humans should just kill themselves because our existence is bad for the earth. We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy.
When you mention "virtue" and "laziness" and "greed" I sense that we are touching on issues of fatphobia, which I will also be clear: I am opposed to fatphobia. I'm not advocating we go out and ridicule people who are overweight for being greedy and destroying the earth. I was literally just thinking that this was another way of thinking about over eating, and another reason to gain control over it. I can't recall now if i ever mentioned in my original post, but I do see myself as a "food addict." Eating as an addiction is not the same as eating for sustenance.
What is the problem with eating more than I need to maintain excess body weight if we're not talking about limited resources?
If I'm using resources I don't need, it initially seems illogical to me to have a group of situations where that is okay and a group of situations where it isn't okay.
I don't need to eat 2,200 calories a day, I do it because I choose to go out and run and I use those calories to fuel it. Again, what's the meaningful difference between the pleasure I get from that running and the pleasure someone else may get from eating those calories and using them to maintain excess body weight?
I'm not talking about the difference in the impact to their life. In the context of an ecological discussion, what is the meaningful difference between those two types of recreational chosen pleasure?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
I don't know if there is a meaningful ethical difference between someone who consumes 2,200 a day (for example) to maintain excess body weight and someone who consumes 2,200 a day in order to fuel an active lifestyle for recreational purposes. Both are over-consumption. I think we tend to assign more "virtue" to the latter choice because of our feelings around excess weight and the association with "laziness" or "greed."
But from the point of view of someone who doesn't have access to the same resources, both decisions might look pretty much the same to me.
I'm not sure, I'm just pondering here.
Someone who doesn't have the same resources isn't being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat. That's an entirely different discussion...
But I do think there is a difference between over consuming food in a way that is harmful to your health, and consuming food to fuel your activity. If we start saying someone shouldn't exercise because then they'll eat more and then they'll be contributing to ecological destruction is the same line of thinking that says that humans should just kill themselves because our existence is bad for the earth. We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy.
When you mention "virtue" and "laziness" and "greed" I sense that we are touching on issues of fatphobia, which I will also be clear: I am opposed to fatphobia. I'm not advocating we go out and ridicule people who are overweight for being greedy and destroying the earth. I was literally just thinking that this was another way of thinking about over eating, and another reason to gain control over it. I can't recall now if i ever mentioned in my original post, but I do see myself as a "food addict." Eating as an addiction is not the same as eating for sustenance.
What is the problem with eating more than I need to maintain excess body weight if we're not talking about limited resources?
If I'm using resources I don't need, it initially seems illogical to me to have a group of situations where that is okay and a group of situations where it isn't okay.
I don't need to eat 2,200 calories a day, I do it because I choose to go out and run and I use those calories to fuel it. Again, what's the meaningful difference between the pleasure I get from that running and the pleasure someone else may get from eating those calories and using them to maintain excess body weight?
I'm not talking about the difference in the impact to their life. In the context of an ecological discussion, what is the meaningful difference between those two types of recreational chosen pleasure?
Mild aside here: This is reminding me of that discussion we had on that other thread, about how much it matters what one's motivation for doing a thing is, vs. what objective consequences that action has in the world - whether doing the right thing for the wrong reasons has a different (lower) moral value, essentially.
On this thread, I'm with you (if I'm interpreting you right): What matters, in the context of an ecological discussion, is our resource usage and its impact. Unless we somehow use those "excess" resources to mitigate a larger problem** - then it seems like the net result of using more resources is the same, no matter the reason. (** Like if I were eating more calories to fuel debris-clearing and rebuilding to help other people after the recent hurricane, for example, as opposed to eating extra calories to either satisfy appetites (while adding fat to my body) or fuel exercise (done purely for my own benefit).
FWIW, I took you as questioning/critiquing "fatphobia" rather than advancing it when you mentioned the association with "laziness" or "greed".
While admitting that the difference to the world at large is small, if I consume 3000 vs. 2000 calories daily (for whatever reason), and can probably be countered by other personal actions (eating food I grow myself, say), the society-wide accumulation of those individual 1000 "excess" calories is exactly "Someone who doesn't have the same resources" . . . "being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat."
We developed-world rich people (in global terms "rich", so most of us) consume more than our global share of current food resources. We do it while people elsewhere in the world - some of whom actually participate in producing/packaging/processing those very food resources we consume - don't have adequate food resources themselves (nutritionally, maybe even calorically).
At one level, I agree with PP that "We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy." Still, faced with a world where large numbers of people don't have an opportunity to exercise that "right" . . . . hmmm.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
I don't know if there is a meaningful ethical difference between someone who consumes 2,200 a day (for example) to maintain excess body weight and someone who consumes 2,200 a day in order to fuel an active lifestyle for recreational purposes. Both are over-consumption. I think we tend to assign more "virtue" to the latter choice because of our feelings around excess weight and the association with "laziness" or "greed."
But from the point of view of someone who doesn't have access to the same resources, both decisions might look pretty much the same to me.
I'm not sure, I'm just pondering here.
Someone who doesn't have the same resources isn't being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat. That's an entirely different discussion...
But I do think there is a difference between over consuming food in a way that is harmful to your health, and consuming food to fuel your activity. If we start saying someone shouldn't exercise because then they'll eat more and then they'll be contributing to ecological destruction is the same line of thinking that says that humans should just kill themselves because our existence is bad for the earth. We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy.
When you mention "virtue" and "laziness" and "greed" I sense that we are touching on issues of fatphobia, which I will also be clear: I am opposed to fatphobia. I'm not advocating we go out and ridicule people who are overweight for being greedy and destroying the earth. I was literally just thinking that this was another way of thinking about over eating, and another reason to gain control over it. I can't recall now if i ever mentioned in my original post, but I do see myself as a "food addict." Eating as an addiction is not the same as eating for sustenance.
What is the problem with eating more than I need to maintain excess body weight if we're not talking about limited resources?
If I'm using resources I don't need, it initially seems illogical to me to have a group of situations where that is okay and a group of situations where it isn't okay.
I don't need to eat 2,200 calories a day, I do it because I choose to go out and run and I use those calories to fuel it. Again, what's the meaningful difference between the pleasure I get from that running and the pleasure someone else may get from eating those calories and using them to maintain excess body weight?
I'm not talking about the difference in the impact to their life. In the context of an ecological discussion, what is the meaningful difference between those two types of recreational chosen pleasure?
If talking about the use of scarce resources, the person that uses the extra calories to fuel exercise at an appropriate bodyweight is gong to statistically use fewer medical/health related resources vs some eating to maintain excess bodyweight.
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
I don't know if there is a meaningful ethical difference between someone who consumes 2,200 a day (for example) to maintain excess body weight and someone who consumes 2,200 a day in order to fuel an active lifestyle for recreational purposes. Both are over-consumption. I think we tend to assign more "virtue" to the latter choice because of our feelings around excess weight and the association with "laziness" or "greed."
But from the point of view of someone who doesn't have access to the same resources, both decisions might look pretty much the same to me.
I'm not sure, I'm just pondering here.
Someone who doesn't have the same resources isn't being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat. That's an entirely different discussion...
But I do think there is a difference between over consuming food in a way that is harmful to your health, and consuming food to fuel your activity. If we start saying someone shouldn't exercise because then they'll eat more and then they'll be contributing to ecological destruction is the same line of thinking that says that humans should just kill themselves because our existence is bad for the earth. We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy.
When you mention "virtue" and "laziness" and "greed" I sense that we are touching on issues of fatphobia, which I will also be clear: I am opposed to fatphobia. I'm not advocating we go out and ridicule people who are overweight for being greedy and destroying the earth. I was literally just thinking that this was another way of thinking about over eating, and another reason to gain control over it. I can't recall now if i ever mentioned in my original post, but I do see myself as a "food addict." Eating as an addiction is not the same as eating for sustenance.
What is the problem with eating more than I need to maintain excess body weight if we're not talking about limited resources?
If I'm using resources I don't need, it initially seems illogical to me to have a group of situations where that is okay and a group of situations where it isn't okay.
I don't need to eat 2,200 calories a day, I do it because I choose to go out and run and I use those calories to fuel it. Again, what's the meaningful difference between the pleasure I get from that running and the pleasure someone else may get from eating those calories and using them to maintain excess body weight?
I'm not talking about the difference in the impact to their life. In the context of an ecological discussion, what is the meaningful difference between those two types of recreational chosen pleasure?
Mild aside here: This is reminding me of that discussion we had on that other thread, about how much it matters what one's motivation for doing a thing is, vs. what objective consequences that action has in the world - whether doing the right thing for the wrong reasons has a different (lower) moral value, essentially.
On this thread, I'm with you (if I'm interpreting you right): What matters, in the context of an ecological discussion, is our resource usage and its impact. Unless we somehow use those "excess" resources to mitigate a larger problem** - then it seems like the net result of using more resources is the same, no matter the reason. (** Like if I were eating more calories to fuel debris-clearing and rebuilding to help other people after the recent hurricane, for example, as opposed to eating extra calories to either satisfy appetites (while adding fat to my body) or fuel exercise (done purely for my own benefit).
FWIW, I took you as questioning/critiquing "fatphobia" rather than advancing it when you mentioned the association with "laziness" or "greed".
While admitting that the difference to the world at large is small, if I consume 3000 vs. 2000 calories daily (for whatever reason), and can probably be countered by other personal actions (eating food I grow myself, say), the society-wide accumulation of those individual 1000 "excess" calories is exactly "Someone who doesn't have the same resources" . . . "being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat."
We developed-world rich people (in global terms "rich", so most of us) consume more than our global share of current food resources. We do it while people elsewhere in the world - some of whom actually participate in producing/packaging/processing those very food resources we consume - don't have adequate food resources themselves (nutritionally, maybe even calorically).
At one level, I agree with PP that "We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy." Still, faced with a world where large numbers of people don't have an opportunity to exercise that "right" . . . . hmmm.
Yes, I think you are interpreting me right and I agree with you. When we're not talking about consuming excess calories used to help other individuals or the earth in a concrete way, I don't see the net results of over-consuming to be relevant morally. It is not better for me to over-consume for a marathon than it would be for me to overconsume just because I like it. You can argue that one may be a better choice for MY happiness or long-term wellbeing, but that's a whole other discussion.
It's either right to consume extra calories for pleasure or it's wrong. The exact FORM of the pleasure (that is, whether my pleasure is running or just eating) is irrelevant. How I personally justify this is my understanding that me not eating those extra calories isn't going to get food to a person who needs it. The problems of hunger and unequal resources are more complex than "I am eating this food, therefore someone else can't eat it." The problem isn't the literal lack of food, it's a whole tangle of political and economic issues that I attempt to address with other actions I take. Maybe that's justification, but that's my reasoning.
I completely agree that we have a right to exist. I don't think a commitment to ecology requires us to remove ourselves from the earth. You're also right that I wasn't endorsing equating excess weight with laziness or greed, I was pointing out that it's hard for me to envision an argument that excess calories are morally justified if you're active, but wrong in other circumstances, that doesn't involve some version of this thinking.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
I don't know if there is a meaningful ethical difference between someone who consumes 2,200 a day (for example) to maintain excess body weight and someone who consumes 2,200 a day in order to fuel an active lifestyle for recreational purposes. Both are over-consumption. I think we tend to assign more "virtue" to the latter choice because of our feelings around excess weight and the association with "laziness" or "greed."
But from the point of view of someone who doesn't have access to the same resources, both decisions might look pretty much the same to me.
I'm not sure, I'm just pondering here.
Someone who doesn't have the same resources isn't being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat. That's an entirely different discussion...
But I do think there is a difference between over consuming food in a way that is harmful to your health, and consuming food to fuel your activity. If we start saying someone shouldn't exercise because then they'll eat more and then they'll be contributing to ecological destruction is the same line of thinking that says that humans should just kill themselves because our existence is bad for the earth. We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy.
When you mention "virtue" and "laziness" and "greed" I sense that we are touching on issues of fatphobia, which I will also be clear: I am opposed to fatphobia. I'm not advocating we go out and ridicule people who are overweight for being greedy and destroying the earth. I was literally just thinking that this was another way of thinking about over eating, and another reason to gain control over it. I can't recall now if i ever mentioned in my original post, but I do see myself as a "food addict." Eating as an addiction is not the same as eating for sustenance.
What is the problem with eating more than I need to maintain excess body weight if we're not talking about limited resources?
If I'm using resources I don't need, it initially seems illogical to me to have a group of situations where that is okay and a group of situations where it isn't okay.
I don't need to eat 2,200 calories a day, I do it because I choose to go out and run and I use those calories to fuel it. Again, what's the meaningful difference between the pleasure I get from that running and the pleasure someone else may get from eating those calories and using them to maintain excess body weight?
I'm not talking about the difference in the impact to their life. In the context of an ecological discussion, what is the meaningful difference between those two types of recreational chosen pleasure?
If talking about the use of scarce resources, the person that uses the extra calories to fuel exercise at an appropriate bodyweight is gong to statistically use fewer medical/health related resources vs some eating to maintain excess bodyweight.
If one accepts that eating more than one needs is bad because it is using scarce resources and also that voluntarily being in a group at a higher risk for needing medical care is bad because it is more like to use another set of scarce resources, then the most ecological action to take would be to exercise at the level of public health recommendations and limiting calorie intake to what is considered necessary for good health.
I don't do that - I exercise way more than that for the pure purposes of pleasure. I don't see a meaningful difference between myself and someone who is eating the equivalent number of calories and carrying extra weight in terms of the moral impact of our over-consumption of food.
And this isn't even touching on the group of people who undertake activity specifically because it will allow them to eat more than they otherwise would while maintaining a healthy body weight.
I am very open to the argument that the person who takes the action outlined above (balancing activity recommended for health with a desire to limit gross calorie consumption) is making a better ecological choice than I am, what I'm rejecting is the distinction between myself and an overweight non-active person.4 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I'm maintaining my weight, so in that sense I'm not consuming calories in excess. But arguably I'm burning many more calories than necessary by exercising much more than needed for optimal health. I don't need to run six days a week. I don't need to train for a marathon.
I presume that marathons, or really any very physically active hobby, are largely a wealthy person activity. I can afford to consume ~2,600 relatively healthy calories a day.
Yeah to be clear, I'm not advocating people stop fueling their exercises for the earth. I'm just thinking in terms of someone who is in a position like me- I work out, I eat, but I'm overweight. I obviously over-eat. And it is in contradiction with my ethics to over consume limited resources like this.
I don't know if there is a meaningful ethical difference between someone who consumes 2,200 a day (for example) to maintain excess body weight and someone who consumes 2,200 a day in order to fuel an active lifestyle for recreational purposes. Both are over-consumption. I think we tend to assign more "virtue" to the latter choice because of our feelings around excess weight and the association with "laziness" or "greed."
But from the point of view of someone who doesn't have access to the same resources, both decisions might look pretty much the same to me.
I'm not sure, I'm just pondering here.
Someone who doesn't have the same resources isn't being prevented from accessing resources because other people over-eat. That's an entirely different discussion...
But I do think there is a difference between over consuming food in a way that is harmful to your health, and consuming food to fuel your activity. If we start saying someone shouldn't exercise because then they'll eat more and then they'll be contributing to ecological destruction is the same line of thinking that says that humans should just kill themselves because our existence is bad for the earth. We, just like any other creature on the earth, have a right to exist. We have a right to be healthy. And we have a right to eat enough to be healthy.
When you mention "virtue" and "laziness" and "greed" I sense that we are touching on issues of fatphobia, which I will also be clear: I am opposed to fatphobia. I'm not advocating we go out and ridicule people who are overweight for being greedy and destroying the earth. I was literally just thinking that this was another way of thinking about over eating, and another reason to gain control over it. I can't recall now if i ever mentioned in my original post, but I do see myself as a "food addict." Eating as an addiction is not the same as eating for sustenance.
What is the problem with eating more than I need to maintain excess body weight if we're not talking about limited resources?
If I'm using resources I don't need, it initially seems illogical to me to have a group of situations where that is okay and a group of situations where it isn't okay.
I don't need to eat 2,200 calories a day, I do it because I choose to go out and run and I use those calories to fuel it. Again, what's the meaningful difference between the pleasure I get from that running and the pleasure someone else may get from eating those calories and using them to maintain excess body weight?
I'm not talking about the difference in the impact to their life. In the context of an ecological discussion, what is the meaningful difference between those two types of recreational chosen pleasure?
If talking about the use of scarce resources, the person that uses the extra calories to fuel exercise at an appropriate bodyweight is gong to statistically use fewer medical/health related resources vs some eating to maintain excess bodyweight.
Yup, complicated. Anything we choose involves a web of precursors (like supply chains) and after-effects (like health consequences). The comment I'm quoting and other recent posts on the thread make the complexity of precursors and consequences, *and* the complexity of moral reasoning about them, quite clear.
Which is basically why I started out with the assertion that "all of us relatively well off people living in developed countries are unavoidable little moving bundles of global harm", that "decent people start by taking the mitigation steps that are *easiest* for each of us personally, as best we understand what's right", and that "I think it's kind of tasteful not to be ostentatious or proud about any of it, or cast aspersions on people who do otherwise in any one way".
Got me two disagrees last time, think I can get two more? 🤣
For clarity: I think we should all do what we reasonably can, the best way we can. But we still remain part of a wasteful, ecologically destructive system, from which we benefit.4 -
*snip*
Yup, complicated. Anything we choose involves a web of precursors (like supply chains) and after-effects (like health consequences). The comment I'm quoting and other recent posts on the thread make the complexity of precursors and consequences, *and* the complexity of moral reasoning about them, quite clear.
Which is basically why I started out with the assertion that "all of us relatively well off people living in developed countries are unavoidable little moving bundles of global harm", that "decent people start by taking the mitigation steps that are *easiest* for each of us personally, as best we understand what's right", and that "I think it's kind of tasteful not to be ostentatious or proud about any of it, or cast aspersions on people who do otherwise in any one way".
Got me two disagrees last time, think I can get two more? 🤣
For clarity: I think we should all do what we reasonably can, the best way we can. But we still remain part of a wasteful, ecologically destructive system, from which we benefit.
I think your comments have been well thought out and articulated clearly!
Of course the best thing for the planet is to stop exploiting any of its resources, but that’s not really an option is it? For me it’s each individual doing they best they can in what ways they are able as @AnnPT77 has mentioned. I think in addition to this it’s also important to hold the systems we are in accountable for their actions, including not supporting them if they don’t meet your expectations of sustainability (ex: fast fashion). It won’t ever be perfect but that’s not the point. I am privileged and should use that privilege to advance causes for good, not relish ignorantly in it. (Step our of the cave and see the shadows for what they are if you’re into Western Philosophy).
TL;DR we will always be producing waste, as humans humans we have intrinsic value, but also if we are able we should do what we can to reduce waste and better the systems we are in. Including analyzing our own privilege and assess what excess is in our lives.3 -
RunsWithBees wrote: »If this idea motivates you then more power to you!
I’ve thought about having lessened my ecological impact due to the fact that I am a barefoot runner. I run barefoot because to me it feels natural and fun but I realize I’m also saving the planet a teeny tiny bit from having to manufacture, transport and later dispose of multiple pairs of running shoes every single year for many years and that’s definitely an added bonus in my opinion
There's a startup company that I track because I've done some recruiting in the algae space. They take started by taking toxic algae out of lakes and making the foam insoles. Now they are up to making entire shoes from toxic algae. Taking things out of lakes that harm the fish and using it for something constructive. I don't work with these guys but I'm connected to Bloom's owners. I love what they are doing.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-sustainable-sneakers-were-made-algae-180963483/#:~:text=The new product is the brainchild of Vivobarefoot,,material,” for performance footwear, according to Vivobarefoot’s website.
This is a strong topic for me. I'm all about sustainability. I've been working as a Consultant/Advisor with startups in these areas for decades. I recently bid to work with a CA company that was creating enzymes that would "eat" plastic. I got underbid, even though I gave them a ridiculously cheap proposal (for me) because I wanted to work with them so badly. Would have loved to have done that. I am working with one company that is trying to change the landscape of large building wasted energy in the US (and around the world). I'm recruiting for them for next to nothing right now to help them grow. It's a really exciting tech that can reduce energy waste in large buildings (with an exterior facade retrofit product) by up to 40% for 20% of the traditional costs. It's starting to explode and many of the largest building owners in the US are seriously interested in it -- big players, like the largest building owner in NYC. In 15 to 20 years, I believe you'll see large buildings in cities not only not use energy, but generate it, like mini power plants. I would love to see that before I pass.
On a side note, one tragedy of Covid-19 is people, like me, can't bring their produce bags into the grocery store. I have mesh produce bags as well as reusable bags to carry home the groceries. One use produce bags disgust me but I refuse to just throw all my produce in the nasty cart too. Can't wait till I can use them again. I just hate single use plastic.
I was raised in a family of 8 where nothing went to waste, so I'm pretty good about that. Since I've moved to AZ, though, I haven't been composting as much. It's tougher to get the "brown" part of the compost. I have plenty of "green" material, but not enough brown except cardboard boxes, which I recycle. Also, there's not a ton to use the compost for in the desert but I'd like to donate it if I could or use it in pots for growing things for the local pantry if I can't use it all myself.2 -
@MikePfirrman wow! That’s a super cool initiative, I hope you get many more chances to bid! Someone’s gotta take you up on it!
Agree about the produce bags, fortunately my city allows you bring your own you just need to bag the items yourself. Sometimes when there’s a line I feel the pressure and bag so fast I work up a sweat. Hah!2 -
Antiopelle wrote: »Here in Belgium (and probably other countries too), we can download an app to see where there will be leftovers from supermarkets in a certain area around your house. You can then make a reservation and get a bag that would normally been thrown away at the end of the day.
I pay around 5€ for a bag that contains a value of 15€ plus. Of course, you never know what you will get (fresh produce, yoghurts, cheese, bread or even fresh meals that will be past the selling day that very same day). In my experience, almost everything can be used or freezed.
The main purpose is to reduce waste at the supermarkets.
The app is called toogoodtogo .
They have one like that here in the US too called flashfood1 -
@MikePfirrman wow! That’s a super cool initiative, I hope you get many more chances to bid! Someone’s gotta take you up on it!
Agree about the produce bags, fortunately my city allows you bring your own you just need to bag the items yourself. Sometimes when there’s a line I feel the pressure and bag so fast I work up a sweat. Hah!
I still use my bags to take the groceries home. Though you have to bag it yourself, I ask if the bagger can unload my groceries and it works out great. We just exchange sides.
I have mesh produce bags, though, that aren't allowed (for the produce department). They'll let you use your own bags to take groceries home but they won't let you use produce mesh bags because they'd have to touch the belt and the clerk would have to touch them, which right now isn't possible.
0 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@MikePfirrman wow! That’s a super cool initiative, I hope you get many more chances to bid! Someone’s gotta take you up on it!
Agree about the produce bags, fortunately my city allows you bring your own you just need to bag the items yourself. Sometimes when there’s a line I feel the pressure and bag so fast I work up a sweat. Hah!
I still use my bags to take the groceries home. Though you have to bag it yourself, I ask if the bagger can unload my groceries and it works out great. We just exchange sides.
I have mesh produce bags, though, that aren't allowed (for the produce department). They'll let you use your own bags to take groceries home but they won't let you use produce mesh bags because they'd have to touch the belt and the clerk would have to touch them, which right now isn't possible.
Ah yes, I see what you mean now. Yeah, we can’t do that here either. I miss taking my mesh bags for produce, and glass containers for bulk! I don’t need rice/oats etc in a plastic bag when I can just scoop it from the bulk section into a container I brought from home!3 -
northviewvintage wrote: »Well, I feel like a person has to be somewhat ignorant of how most of the world lives to truly enjoy living a life of luxury and over consumption. It's almost a religion for me to avoid this type of life. ( I am a citizen of a federally recognized tribe of American Indians, too, although I don't know how much of my DNA is actually indiginous.) I don't really associate this with bodyweight because I think someone can be quite overweight eating a simple, cheap diet of poor choices. However, yes, the idea of living in balance with my environment definately motivates me to live and eat a certain way. I'll check out that research!CorvusCorax77 wrote: »I was wondering if anyone else thinks about the ecological impacts of over eating, and if anyone else is motivated by that? The idea first came to me when I heard we were fishing the ocean to death. While I am a vegetarian and I was vegan for 11 years, I don't believe that veganism or vegetarianism is a one size fits all solution (because I'm indigenous too and my ancestors didn't destroy their land base by hunting).
Anyways, so it turns out some folks have done some maths around the idea that over eating causes ecological destruction. It's not a perfect science, but they looked at how much of the population had how much of a BMI and the typical diet in that region, and calculated an approximately 240 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by over eating alone.
Here's a link: https://www.treehugger.com/overeating-terrible-planet-4856664
Of course, I know some of us need to eat more (you weight lifting beefcakes!), so again not a "one size fits all" approach, but I thought this was a really interesting thing to look into.
I'm an earth loving hippie, so this motivates me to get my eating addiction under control.
I am native too. Maybe it's a native thing 1 -
Is it impressive? Honestly, I'm baffled by the fact that households generate so much food waste. 43% in the US according to this report, which is probably similar to most developed countries. I've never understood how, why. Can anyone offer any insight into this? What kinds of foods do you throw out, and why?
Me, I buy only what I intend to eat, I eat everything I buy. Very occasionally I might throw out a piece of fruit that I didn't notice at the store had started going moldy and brought home. I suppose that maybe with children things might be more complicated - my 10-month old nephew throws much of his food on the floor, and not even his aunt who finds food waste abhorrent will pick it up and eat it herself. But then again he's small, so it's not as if he eats (or wastes) much to begin with. Shouldn't adults be able to plan what they are going to eat and act accordingly?
Well, my mom generates a lot of waste by not knowing what's in her frig and overbuying when she shops. For example, I will often find multiple bags of carrots or celery in there, some quite unusable, despite carrot's very long storage life.
She doesn't like to waste food, so for decades I've often been the one to throw it out, which for us means into the compost bin.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
I'm not the person you were responding to, and I would admit that I probably toss things two or even three times a month (almost always fresh produce that started growing mold or went slimy before I could finish it), but here are the things I find most important in reducing food waste:
(1) Eat, repurpose, or freeze leftovers (I probably toss leftovers once a year, if that -- to me, it's convenience food -- ready to eat).
(2) Don't overbuy perishable foods. This is the hardest one for me, because I'm almost always cooking for one, and I like cooking from scratch, and whole foods are often only available in multi-serve amounts. Back when groceries stores had salad bars, I would sometimes buy small amounts for a specific recipe from the salad bar, but mostly I just try to limit what I buy and make a point of eating it before it goes bad.
(3) Triage perishable foods. E.g., if I buy different types of fruit, berries and stone fruit are going to get eaten before apples and citrus. For veggies, leafy greens, asparagus, and other quick to spoil veggies get eaten first, with things like okra, eggplant, broccoli, etc., getting eaten next. Root vegetables (potatoes, carrots, turnips), green cabbage, and winter squash last a really long time, and thus go to the end of the triage list. Same with dairy: I find cultured products (yogurt, buttermilk, kefir) have a long shelf-life, as do a lot of hard cheeses, so I focus more on finishing regular milk and soft cheeses. I store shredded cheeses in the freezer; it doesn't seem to compromise texture or flavor at all.
Figuring out which of the foods you eat can be frozen without loss of quality is a big help. In general, things with low liquid content are generally good candidates, with the bonus that they thaw quickly when removed from the freezer (e.g., bread).
I do a lot of these things.
To expand on re-purposing in # 1, if I have scraps that aren't enough for a full meal, I might make them into a frittata, have them for a snack, or toss them in a soup.
What helped me with # 2 was having a housemate and only half a frig. So instead of having several types of cruciferous veggies, there would only be room for one. Not having much room helped me not overbuy.
I also have "freezer tape" and label and date things, which helps me use them before they go bad.
I find that many dairy products are often good well past the date. I'd never toss something the day after the date - I make a decision by look and smell.
I use this guide all the time:
https://www.stilltasty.com/0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions