Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: The return of foraging?

  1. #1
    nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aotearoa/NZ
    Posts
    52

    Default The return of foraging?

    Hi all,

    I stumbled upon this website (see bottom of this post), and consequently this article.

    I had thought about plants sensitivities before actually, when I became aware of the tragedy that is modern agriculture, but not to this extent. It is interesting all the same.

    I don't claim being perfect as a vegan, so the points raised are something to consider. What do you think? Is this type of thinking extreme and/or absurd? Is it ridiculous?
    I'm not sure of the scientific basis of many of the authors claims as I haven't read 'The Secret Life of Plants' but the fact that the author would not repeat the experiments makes me dubious.
    I'm interested to hear from anyone who has read this book or has thought in more depth about this subject and/or come to some conclusions.

    You should check out the rest of the site as well, it's fantastic, includes a very very informative section on honey bees and honey. Very interesting indeed.

    Stay well,

    nn




    Broccoli vs. Animals?

    Vegetarians and vegans must develop a better answer to that age-old meat-eater question--but you kill plants don't you? Raising the plant question is, in my experience, a first line of defense for most omnivores. Now, most seasoned vegetarians have their standard 10-point response about why it is better to eat plants than animals. They offer points such as the following: plants don't feel pain because they lack a nervous system, the experiments in The Secret Life of Plants have not been reproducible and even the author refused to perform the experiments again, omnivores actually kill more plants because cows eat plants, etc. This line of argumentation has its place, but it doesn't answer the question of whether or not it is OK to eat plants in the first place. Vegetarians have to look a bit more closely at why every single omnivore makes this argument and why we get so angry/defensive/exasperated with this argument. It is because there is something to it.

    Consider the following justifications for eating plants made by vegans on the Vegan-L email discussion list. Most of these arguments (numbered below and followed by my response) could just as easily have been made by someone trying to justify eating meat.

    1) Even vegans have to eat something.

    This is verbatim a meat eater's argument--"But what do vegans eat? I don't have time to cook all of my own meals, I could never get enough to eat without eating meat...." Clearly vegans could eat fruits and parts that can be eaten without killing the plant--just like herbivorous animals who most often eat only leaves or parts of the plant that will grow back.

    2) Plants lack a central nervous system and it is unlikely for them to feel pain in the way animals or humans do.

    Just as Descartes managed to ignore the obvious when he said that animals were unfeeling machines, there is considerable evidence that plants are much more aware than we commonly believe. Using a definition of pain that is based on possession of a nervous system deliberately and arbitrarily excludes plants. Yet plants are clearly aware of when they are being attacked because they mobilize chemical defenses. Just as meat eaters try to deny the fact that animals feel pain, vegans try to deny the fact that plants feel something akin to pain--something that could be used to justify not killing them. If we ever encounter aliens, the chances that they have a nervous system like ours is vanishingly small, but we would nonetheless assume that they feel what we would categorize as pain.

    3) Plants have no need to feel pain since they cannot move away from the source of the pain like animals can.

    See the previous response--plants clearly do react; if pain is simply a warning tool, some sort of distress signal would still serve a purpose in plants.

    4) And even if plants did feel pain, eating meat causes much more suffering than living a vegan lifestyle because animals eat countless plants before humans eat the animals.

    This doesn't apply to hunting wild animals who generally don't kill plants (unlike cows who are fed dead soybeans). And what about all of the plants and animals that are disrupted or killed by farming (i.e., the ones that were there before the farmer, the ones that the farmer kills on purpose)? Although veganism probably does decrease plant suffering when compared to eating meat, this doesn't justify killing plants. The question is not whether we should be omnivores or vegans, but whether or not vegans should adopt a more plant-friendly diet.

    5) Fruits are designed specifically to be eaten--that is how plants spread their seeds.

    Then just eat fruits. Eating potatoes and carrots doesn't spread seeds around and it kills the plant--how can this be justified? What about plants that try to avoid being eaten--ones that are poisonous, taste nasty, or make you infertile (e.g. sheep who eat clover high in phytoestrogens)?

    6) Foods like tomatoes, apples, cherries, eggplants, grapes, etc. do not require the killing of the plant. It's more like taking eggs from a chicken.

    Given that vegans don't eat eggs because they think it's wrong, this argument makes no sense.

    7) If fruits aren't eaten, they quickly wither and die--they are intended to be eaten. The same is not true of animals.

    Yes, fruits are intended to be eaten. Some herbivores are also "intended to be eaten." There are carnivorous animals that can only eat other animals. If these carnivores did not eat the old and diseased prey animals, those prey animals would, in fact, "wither and die." Additionally, the whole herd would suffer if the population got too large or dying members were constantly eating food that healthy members could eat.

    8) We should be vegans because we can; we should reduce whatever suffering we can.

    Should we not then be fruitarians or gatherers because we can? Or are we simply too lazy, just like most people are too lazy to be vegan. We usually don't find that an acceptable excuse! (Of course laziness is certainly not the primary problem--people are constantly bombarded with the idea that they can, should, and must eat dead animals.)

    9) We're herbivores. We must eat plants to survive--it is our instinct.

    This simply begs the question--meat-eaters justify eating animals by pointing out that humans are omnivores (which we are--see e.g., Humans are Omnivores). Furthermore, humans manage to overcome all sorts of "instincts"--for example, we generally do not copulate in public. Arguments that appeal to "nature" should be met with deep skepticism. Recall that slavery and the subjugation of women and countless indigenous cultures were and are considered a necessary part of the "natural order."

    10) Broccoli screams might be pleasure, not pain.

    Ditto for animals.

    11) It's a rare person--and, I would say, a very strange person--who would flinch upon seeing a carrot pulled from the ground.

    First, many people do abhor large-scale agriculture. Second, the fact that our culture is desensitized to violence, especially to something that's been going on for a long, long time is not an argument for anything. Also, people don't want to face up to what they are really doing--just like how most people don't think about where their meat came from.

    The above responses show that vegans cannot come up with any truly compelling reasons as to why eating plants is justified in the context of animal rights. Which leads us to the ultimate question...

    12) And so what if you cannot totally eliminate any supposed pain that plants may feel. Is that a justification for eating meat? For killing humans, by extension?

    We can agree that humans must cause some suffering to exist. Whereas a meat-eater uses this fact to ignore animal suffering, vegans use this fact to ignore plant suffering. But just as inflicting plant suffering does not justify inflicting animal suffering, the fact that we do not inflict animal suffering does not license us to inflict wanton plant suffering. Rather than just dismissing plant suffering as inevitable, vegans should try to reduce that as well.

    The Rhetoric of Plants

    Vegans clearly need to be more savvy in their justifications for eating plants to avoid simply justifying eating animals. Instead of trying to counter the idea that plants suffer, we should just accept this premise because the best way to reduce both plant and animal suffering is to stop eating meat since animals are fed dead plants. Additionally, meat-eaters typically don't like to acknowledge animals suffering, yet when they raise the plant question they are admitting this since their underlying assumption is that since plants and animals both suffer, there is no unique reason to avoid eating animals.
    Meat eaters raise the plant question not because it is an indictment of veganism, but rather to deflect attention from their own shame caused by eating animals--they are trying to show that vegans are not perfect either. But rather than getting defensive, sarcastic, or belittling the person, we must admit our own shame from harming plants. Sociologists point out that "Conflicts escalate, according to Thomas Scheff, when there is no mechanism for individuals to express shame and shame is transmuted to anger and pride, which, in turn, can lead to more shame. To block this 'feeling trap' as Scheff calls it, is necessary to reduce alienation between groups and find ways to offer apology and restitution" (Groves 189). True dialog can only occur if both sides accept their shame. Until then we will be left with the pride, anger, and deliberate attempts to redirect shame as revealed in this 30 June 1998 post to the Vegan-L:

    The proper response to the "You're killing/hurting plants" argument is to laugh in their face and not even entertain such a ridiculous notion. By taking them seriously, you're legitimizing their argument--and that's what they want you to do. This whole angle was obviously dreamed up by meat industry propagandists. Their aim is to engage vegetarians in a silly debate that will end up making the vegetarians look ridiculous by revealing us to be utter and outrageous wimps--so wimpy we actually care about a plant's feelings. Think about it--do you think these argumentative meateaters give two shits about a plant's feelings? Of course not; they're just trying to make us look silly. So, if you want to win the debate, laugh in their smug meateating face and make THEM look silly.

    Digging Deeper

    Outside the context of a discussion with a meat-eater, there are real implications to the plant question. It points to an inadequacy in the theory of animal rights. Even if we succeed in no longer having a world based on the exploitation of animals, it will still be a world based on the exploitation of plants on a massive scale. We want to eliminate the property status of animals--should we also consider wanting to eliminate the property status of plants? That is, would we rather have mass exploitation of the whole of nature, or limited usage of both wild plants and wild animals?
    Plant exploitation parallels animal exploitation. There are factory farms with monocropping, cloning, genetic engineering, pesticides, herbicides (!). Agriculture is a constant battle against the plants, insects and other animals that initially lived on the land. Beyond plants as food, plants are kept in houses as "pets," used for entertainment (Christmas trees, Jack-o-lanterns), people wrap themselves in dead plants, and doctors are always experimenting on one plant or another looking for the next "miracle" drug.

    One can say that individual plants are not aware, but they are alive and try to remain that way, which differentiates them from, say, rocks. Plants have all kinds of chemical defense systems that go in to action when the plant is damaged. Plants have ways to avoid being eaten--thorns, phytoestrogens (found in over 300 plants), poison, taste, growing high off of the ground. As Barbara McClintock, a Nobel laureate geneticist who worked with corn for over 30 years, said, "Animals can walk around, but plants have to stay still to do the same things, with ingenious mechanisms.... Plants are extraordinary. For instance...if you pinch a leaf of a plant you set off electric pulses. You can't touch a plant without setting off an electric pulse.... There is no question that plants have [all] kinds of sensitivities. They do a lot of responding to their environment. They can do almost anything you can think of. But just because they sit there, anybody walking down the road considers them just a plastic area to look at, [as if] they're not really alive" (Keller 199-200). If anyone should be at least open to the possibility that plants have some level of awareness, it is vegans since we continually chide others for not acknowledging animal awareness.

    But whether or not plants are aware is not really the issue. There are clearly two levels to concern about animals--the immediate suffering of individual animals and the fact that animals are exploited at all. While one can certainly object to the treatment of animals simply because of the suffering they endure, most vegans object to the inherent exploitation of animals. That is, they are not animal welfarists who believe it is acceptable to exploit animals as long as their suffering is minimal, but rather animal rightists who believe, on face, that it is wrong to own animals and systematically exploit them. It might be possible to raise animals for food who are unconscious the entire time--that is, they are just as unaware as plants might be. But vegans reject such idealized scenarios because no matter how "kindly" animals are treated, they are still slaves.

    In fact, vegans may not simply be animal rightists, but environmentalists who believe that all of Nature deserves consideration. This is why it is not necessary to resolve the thorny issue of whether or not plants are "aware" in order to give them consideration. The dominionist mindset that Nature is here for humans to exploit applies to animals, plants, and even rocks. Just as environmentalists so often fail to see how eating animals is the embodiment of the dominionist mindset, vegans seem to want to ignore the fact that agriculture is simply another aspect of that worldview.

    The ideal way to give plants consideration is to eliminate agriculture in favor of foraging. We tend to think that it is impossible to return to a forager lifestyle because agriculture has been around for 10,000 years. (Even Jim Mason, who highlights all of the negatives brought about by the beginning of agriculture, simply states that we are stuck with it and that we should only rid ourselves of animal agriculture.) But if the whole of human existence is compressed into a calendar year, we have only been farming for the last 8.5 hours. Furthermore, most of the forager cultures in the Americas were destroyed beginning only 500 years ago. And most importantly, there still exist numerous forager cultures. Foraging is not some romantic notion out of the past--it is a reality even as you and I sit at our computers.

    A forager diet need not--and should not--include hunting. There is no nutritional requirement to hunt. Organized hunting "began only about 20,000 years ago--some 25,000 years after the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens" (Mason 72). Prior to that, our ancestors met their nutritional needs by foraging, which sometimes included insects, lizards, and maybe scavenged meat. Hunting developed mainly as a response to female power (women gathered most of the food and bore children, in which the male role was not known). "The hunt, in other words, was not so much about nutrition as it was about acquiring power--the animal's power" (Mason 86). "Hunting also gave men some role, and hence some status, as food providers" (Mason 87). Furthermore, humans are not required to live in extreme environments. Humans chose to live in the Arctic because they were exploiting animals. This certainly does not entitle humans to live there anymore than Nike is entitled to continue to use slave labor because they built their entire business on it.

    Is it possible to return to a forager lifestyle? At current population levels, clearly not. Absent foraging, is it possible to develop a sustainable agriculture not based on the domination of nature? Perhaps. The bottom line is that plants deserve consideration; we must figure out what that means.

    Bibliography

    Groves, Julian McAllister. Hearts and Minds: The Controversy over Laboratory Animals. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1997.

    Keller, Evelyn Fox. A Feeling for the Organism. New York: W H Freeman, 1983.

    Mason, Jim. An Unnatural Order: Why We Are Destroying the Planted and Each Other. New York: Continuum, 1993.

    Tompkins, Peter and Christopher Bird. The Secret Life of Plants. Philadelphia: Harper & Row, 1973.

    Index | Cartoons | Jokes | Honey | Recipes
    vegetus@vegetus.org URL: http://www.vegetus.org/plants/plants.htm
    "The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
    Posts
    772

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Just one remark on your list...

    > 6) Foods like tomatoes, apples, cherries, eggplants, grapes, etc. do not require the killing of the plant. It's more like taking eggs from a chicken.

    > Given that vegans don't eat eggs because they think it's wrong, this argument makes no sense.

    It DOES make sense, as most vegans think it is wrong to eat eggs because of the animal suffering that goes with it ... killing of hatched male birds and the plight of the female birds. There are no real arguments that I know against eating fruit (except maybe that if you cr*p on a modern toilet, you will bereave the plant of its offspring)

    Best regards,
    Andy

  3. #3
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    ...it doesn't answer the question of whether or not it is OK to eat plants in the first place. Vegetarians have to look a bit more closely at why every single omnivore makes this argument...
    The 'argument' is rarely used among omnis in my experience.


    ....and why we get so angry/defensive/exasperated with this argument.
    I don't think we do.

    It is because there is something to it.
    So - what is there to it? I had a look at the article, but it seems to create more confusion than it removes. For starters, the writer says "The ideal way to give plants consideration is to eliminate agriculture in favor of foraging" and follows up with "Is it possible to return to a forager lifestyle? At current population levels, clearly not."



    10) Broccoli screams might be pleasure, not pain.

    Ditto for animals.
    What exactly does the writer suggest here?

    This (dear readers, please don't watch it if you're already a vegan) is *not* pleasure, and can't be compared with 'killing' a carrot:

    Last edited by Korn; Oct 11th, 2010 at 01:28 AM.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  4. #4
    nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aotearoa/NZ
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Oh, I should have mentioned this is not my list. It's author can be contacted by the email address found at the bottom of the article.

    I'm not aware of any arguments against eating fruits either, Andy, except perhaps as you mentioned that the plant is at a loss of it's seed, thus reducing it's chance of reproduction and consequently survival?

    Interesting though that the author of this article is in fact himself vegan.

    I'm intrigued to know what food the author eats.. Does he forage all his food? I certainly could not live sustainably off foraged food although there was a story on a current affairs program recently about a group of people who foraged from their local area and I've noticed the the marked increase in community gardens in the city where I live and the Council has introduced the idea of planting fruit trees in public areas.

    Perhaps these sort of changes will become the norm for the organic movement in the future? Perhaps, as agricultural giants wane in influence, we will return to small farms and community cared crops? Is that possible? Is it sustainable? Modern agriculture certainly is not. I don't know the answers so I'd love to hear from others who have thought about these issues.
    "The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

  5. #5
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Oh, I should have mentioned this is not my list. It's author can be contacted by the email address found at the bottom of the article.
    Sure - I only wonder why I would do that. I don't think I get what his or her point is.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  6. #6
    Lara_Hastings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Ok, I'm just gonna throw in a shamanic view of this whole thing, not that I think anyone here believes in this stuff, but it might give some food for thought
    From a shamanic point of view, everything is consciousness, that includes plants. One can even communicate with plants, the most interesting thing is from what I have read and heard over the years is that plants are our helpers, people and plants live side by side in harmony, even if that includes us eating them.

    Unfortunately humongous plantations and automatized agriculture do seem to make plants a bit unhappy or more like "dead inside". They do not feel physical pain, but they do feel something which is hard to prove scientifically - many have tried though. What the author of that article seems to have missed is the fact that plants that are grown organically and with love are happy and also more nutritious. The author of "The secret Life of Plants" (I have read the book) actually came to the conclusion that plants are more than happy to help, the more happy they are the more they help us in giving the nutrients we need. Plants that are important for human nutrition grows near humans, weeds and such. Nettle is a great example of nutrient dense human food (which unfortunately isn't noticed much). This is one of the reasons why consuming herbs that grow local and eating organically produced plants is the way to go. They are here for us to help.

    Also, one interesting thing is that plants "like" people who treat them well, overall compassionate people. Like one example:

    A shaman, I think his name was Joan Setala, went out to pick some herbs, he had the intention of picking some leaves from a willow, but when he did walk past some dandelions they spoke to him and said that he should pick them instead. They were giving themselves to him freely and said it was important that the would pick whole plants. Later that day someone came to him with a sick man, this man had very serious kidney problems. The shaman brewed strong infusion of dandelion, and had his patient to drink it for five days. Of course the patient was cured. The shaman thanked dandelion.

    As I see it, the biggest difference between plants and other living things is that plants are our helpers, our food, our shelter and medicine. Not just to humans but to many other beings.

    This is an answer I would not give to an omni if he would hit me with the argument of plants have feelings too I don't think it would really help in that situation. So where am I going with this... yes, plants do need our respect too. But in our current situation giving them their full respect and proper treatment is not possible, most due to overpopulation. But you might want to give thanks. One way is to collects seeds from apples you eat, and give it to the earth as thanks. Or if you use herbs, give the remains to earth instead of throwing it in the garbage. Just to show some respect.
    To quote Susun Weed: "Don't expect any herb to give you anything if you throw it in the garbage!"

  7. #7
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Utterly dumb.

    I didn't read it all, there was a lot to read and I could feel myself getting stupider the more I read.

    Fact is, plants do not feel pain it has never been proven that they do or even could. Also, for them to feel pain they'd need sentience, I find the idea that a plant has sentience and no senses absurd, it would just sit there all day thinking to itself "nothing happening... still nothing happening... arghh!!! is that pain?! wait is that bad? wait, what's pain and what does bad mean?"

    I'm not foraging, he can forage, I'm going to Tesco's. (well, getting Tesco's to deliver anyway :P)

    We can't all forage anyway, there's just not enough to go around.

  8. #8
    CATWOMAN sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Emerald Isle
    Posts
    2,506

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Plants feeling pain is NOT proven.
    Animals feeling pain IS proven.
    Why do omnivores put forward this idea to vegans? If they are so worried that plants might feel pain why don't they stop killing and using animals? They KNOW animals feels pain.

    I'll see you in Tesco's Risker!
    I like Sandra, she keeps making me giggle. Daft little lady - Frosty

  9. #9
    Metal Head emzy1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Luton, UK
    Posts
    2,149

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    I did plant biology at A-level. I am therefore a plant vivisector. Please feel free to protest outside my house....LOL! I'll be providing vegan noms for your protest.
    The taste of anything in my mouth for 5 seconds does not equate to the beauty and complexity of life.

  10. #10
    nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aotearoa/NZ
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Hey all. Thanks for all your different responses. I enjoyed reading them.

    Quote Korn View Post
    So - what is there to it? I had a look at the article, but it seems to create more confusion than it removes. For starters, the writer says "The ideal way to give plants consideration is to eliminate agriculture in favor of foraging" and follows up with "Is it possible to return to a forager lifestyle? At current population levels, clearly not."
    Quote Risker View Post
    We can't all forage anyway, there's just not enough to go around.
    Yes, see I do agree with you both. It is just not possible to forage for food as there is not enough to go around.

    But as an alternative solution, I really do believe that we all must support organic farmers, who respect the soil and nature.

    Which is interesting considering the next few points...

    Quote Lara_Hastings View Post
    Unfortunately humongous plantations and automatized agriculture do seem to make plants a bit unhappy or more like "dead inside". They do not feel physical pain, but they do feel something which is hard to prove scientifically - many have tried though. What the author of that article seems to have missed is the fact that plants that are grown organically and with love are happy and also more nutritious. The author of "The secret Life of Plants" (I have read the book) actually came to the conclusion that plants are more than happy to help, the more happy they are the more they help us in giving the nutrients we need. Plants that are important for human nutrition grows near humans, weeds and such. Nettle is a great example of nutrient dense human food (which unfortunately isn't noticed much). This is one of the reasons why consuming herbs that grow local and eating organically produced plants is the way to go. They are here for us to help.
    Yes, I too have noticed that genetically modified vegetables and fruits seem somewhat different. A bit like dairy cows vs slaughterhouse cows. The latter seems to be more buff, but not in a healthy way, in a distorted one. Organic produce seems smaller but more real.

    Very interesting viewpoints, Lara.

    Quote Lara_Hastings View Post
    As I see it, the biggest difference between plants and other living things is that plants are our helpers, our food, our shelter and medicine. Not just to humans but to many other beings.

    So where am I going with this... yes, plants do need our respect too. But in our current situation giving them their full respect and proper treatment is not possible, most due to overpopulation. But you might want to give thanks. One way is to collects seeds from apples you eat, and give it to the earth as thanks. Or if you use herbs, give the remains to earth instead of throwing it in the garbage. Just to show some respect.
    To quote Susun Weed: "Don't expect any herb to give you anything if you throw it in the garbage!"
    I like the idea that plants are our "helpers" and need our respect. I will definitely start to give thanks to the plants when I am able (I don't have a backyard with a lawn). Would you consider composting a way of giving thanks or would that be a slap in the face.. er petal?

    Also, I thought your story was adorable, Lara. Dandelions talking. Thanks for your unique perspective.

    I will still suggest (if you already haven't) to have a peek at the honey section on the authors website. I think it is great the work this guy is doing to break some assumptions and misunderstandings people have about bees and honey (Also, I kind of get a kick out of the fact that he is hassling the National Honey Board). I certainly learned a lot from the information (which is all referenced very well) posted there.
    "The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

  11. #11
    Fervent vegan DiaShel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote nn View Post
    6) Foods like tomatoes, apples, cherries, eggplants, grapes, etc. do not require the killing of the plant. It's more like taking eggs from a chicken.

    Given that vegans don't eat eggs because they think it's wrong, this argument makes no sense.
    The second part of that statement, which I underlined, was obviously something the author put in so that he could make an arguement against it. Otherwise he would wouldn't have one for the point and his whole arguement would be flawed. Actually though, I didn't think he had one valid point in that whole list.

    90% of what I eat is from local organic farms and I feel good to support that. Going out to the wilderness to eat lizards and wild plants though? When people had to forage to survive they would spend all day finding enough food just to live. Come on, some of us have jobs.
    "To reduce suffering means to reduce the amount of ignorance, the basic affliction with us." -Thich Nhat Hanh

  12. #12
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    ^ ha-ha Dia, I agree though, we maybe have to accept (to a degree) that life has changed.
    Obviously the best way to eat is from local organic plant produce though, which undoubtedly tastes better anyway.

  13. #13
    Lara_Hastings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote nn View Post
    I like the idea that plants are our "helpers" and need our respect. I will definitely start to give thanks to the plants when I am able (I don't have a backyard with a lawn). Would you consider composting a way of giving thanks or would that be a slap in the face.. er petal?

    Also, I thought your story was adorable, Lara. Dandelions talking. Thanks for your unique perspective.

    I will still suggest (if you already haven't) to have a peek at the honey section on the authors website. I think it is great the work this guy is doing to break some assumptions and misunderstandings people have about bees and honey (Also, I kind of get a kick out of the fact that he is hassling the National Honey Board). I certainly learned a lot from the information (which is all referenced very well) posted there.
    Thanks for reading what I wrote with an open mind
    Yes, I guess composting is fine, the intent is what is most important. We so easily forget that we just can't continue to take and take and never give anything back. So composting is a good way to give thanks to the soil which gives us food, this sort of thinking really gives a sort of closer relationship with nature and to not take everything she gives for granted.
    Thanks. I will look into what he has wrote about bees, seems interesting.

  14. #14
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote nn View Post
    But as an alternative solution, I really do believe that we all must support organic farmers, who respect the soil and nature.
    Quote cobweb View Post
    Obviously the best way to eat is from local organic plant produce though, which undoubtedly tastes better anyway.
    No, I don't agree, this is a subject for another thread but basically large production plants such as thanet earth get economies of scale meaning that they can produce far more on less land, meaning less imported food, less land use, less pollution...etc.

  15. #15
    nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aotearoa/NZ
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Hm. Well I'm not an expert in hydroponics, but it has never seemed very natural to me. Working with the soil and the seasons instead of against it to produce masses of mono food is my bias.

    I do like that groups like thanet can grow plants in some places where traditional horticulture can not.

    However, I do not like that pesticides are used to grow their plants.

    Also, aren't there limits as to what plants can be grown in this way?
    "The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

  16. #16
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote nn View Post
    Hm. Well I'm not an expert in hydroponics, but it has never seemed very natural to me. Working with the soil and the seasons instead of against it to produce masses of mono food is my bias.
    So? Natural ≠ good.

    Quote nn View Post
    I do like that groups like thanet can grow plants in some places where traditional horticulture can not.

    However, I do not like that pesticides are used to grow their plants.

    Also, aren't there limits as to what plants can be grown in this way?
    Pesticides are used in the production of organic food too, and I'm not certain but I can't see why there would be anything you couldn't grow using hyrdroponics, maybe there are but what does that matter?

    Sorry, I don't really want to argue about the pro's and cons of organic vs non, especially since it's off topic from your original post. There's a thread about it here - http://www.veganforum.com/forums/sho...anic-(or-not-) I just wanted to make my alternate viewpoint known so any non-vegans reading this thread wouldn't think that we were all luddites.

  17. #17
    Lara_Hastings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Also, using highly effective methods of horticulture causes trouble with the soil. This has happened already in many places, it depletes the soil, which brings other problems. Modern methods are very short sighted, they give high yields compared to organic produce, but they cause more pollution and depletes the soil. Of course this doesn't happen with all modern methods, but there are problems. Organic methods are often more sustainable even if it doesn't give as much yields.

  18. #18
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote Lara_Hastings View Post
    Also, using highly effective methods of horticulture causes trouble with the soil.
    If you're referring to my post then hydroponics doesn't use soil.

  19. #19
    Lara_Hastings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    But doesn't it take like humongous amounts of water instead?

  20. #20
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote Lara_Hastings View Post
    But doesn't it take like humongous amounts of water instead?
    No, the opposite, since the water is fed directly to the roots it uses a tiny amount in comparison to traditional farming methods.

  21. #21
    Lara_Hastings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Well hydroponics is the way to go then

  22. #22
    nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aotearoa/NZ
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote Risker View Post
    So? Natural ≠ good.
    Yes, being in sync with nature, working with her is of course good.

    Quote Risker View Post
    Pesticides are used in the production of organic food too, and I'm not certain but I can't see why there would be anything you couldn't grow using hyrdroponics, maybe there are but what does that matter?
    Natural pesticides (hand picking, birds, hens, etc), usually are used in organic farming.

    Look, I'm no expert, I don't claim organic farming to be the perfect solution to modern day agriculture, but your defensive approach and name calling doesn't open me up to any new ideas you offer. I'm certainly not backward thanks.

    Perhaps I'll read up on the subject when I get a moment.
    "The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

  23. #23
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote nn View Post
    Look, I'm no expert, I don't claim organic farming to be the perfect solution to modern day agriculture, but your defensive approach and name calling doesn't open me up to any new ideas you offer. I'm certainly not backward thanks.
    You're right, I apologise for my defensive stance. On this particular subject I feel pushed in to a corner by the overwhelming and closed minded support of organics I've experienced from many vegans. The thread I linked to earlier is a good read btw.

  24. #24
    Bad Buddhist Clueless Git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote nn View Post
    I'm not aware of any arguments against eating fruits either, Andy, except perhaps as you mentioned that the plant is at a loss of it's seed, thus reducing it's chance of reproduction and consequently survival?
    On that theme ...

    I had some plank (who had picked up that I am equaly against the slaughter of unborn humans as for animals) try along the lines of: To eat a fruit is to perform a plant abortion.

    Didn't take too long for the factualy based line of argument to prevail that; Having their seeds eaten and excreted in little piles of 'plant-nosh' was exactly the strategy and process that fruit bearing plants had been exploiting to thrive and survive since god only knows when, mind.
    All done in the best possible taste ...

  25. #25
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote Risker View Post
    No, I don't agree, this is a subject for another thread but basically large production plants such as thanet earth get economies of scale meaning that they can produce far more on less land, meaning less imported food, less land use, less pollution...etc.
    Well I probably wasn't clear but I was thinking more along the lines of people growing their own food in gardens and allotments, and sharing and/or selling locally. I get what you mean though.

  26. #26
    nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aotearoa/NZ
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Quote Risker View Post
    You're right, I apologise for my defensive stance. On this particular subject I feel pushed in to a corner by the overwhelming and closed minded support of organics I've experienced from many vegans. The thread I linked to earlier is a good read btw.
    That's okay, Risker, no harm done. Luddite, tree hugger, greeny eco loonie, I suppose I should be used to it by now!

    Perhaps you could pm me the particular points of the debate as the thread you linked to is quite lengthy. I am interested to know your views on this otherwise I will get to it eventually.
    "The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

  27. #27
    nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aotearoa/NZ
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: The return of foraging?

    Guys, guys! The movie 'The Happening' was shown on the tv last night, of all things! What a coincidence!

    Has anyone else seen this film? I thought it was fantastic, but apparently it had received many bad reviews.

    For those that have seen it, how did you react to it? What are your thoughts on the film in relation to this thread?
    "The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Nov 2nd, 2009, 12:46 PM
  2. Global warming 'past the point of no return
    By StmpyElephant in forum Human evolution and environmental issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Sep 18th, 2005, 12:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •