#frankly i think even many meat eaters | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

caustic-light · 2 years ago

Note

In Reddit anarchist communities, there is a big and old debate on whether or not meat-eaters AKA "carnists" can call themselves anarchists. Many anarchists argue that people who eat meat or have pets are upholding human supremacy/hierarchy over animals and thus cannot be considered anarchists.

What are your thoughts on this? Can you eat meat and be an anarchist or is vegetarianism and/or veganism essential?

Preface: this got rambly and I can’t be arsed to look over it, so don’t expect a well written essay post. This is just my exhausted rambles written in one go from start to finish as they came up in my head. I think ascribing the human concept of hierarchy to animals is some Jordan Peterson shit for a start, completely irrespective of my actual opinions on human/animal relations. Generally pushing human concepts onto animals is something very dangerous that we should not be doing.

As far as eating meat goes, I think it’s no surprise to anyone, nor something very controversial when I say that looking at current conditions of the meat and animal industry, this ain’t it, chief. I hope people who’s political views are based on compassion and seek to improve life will agree there.

This does not extend to all forms of eating meat, using animal products, or living with animals in some shape, though. First of all, some people need to eat meat. That is a simple fact and means that a society that doesn’t have meat, at least at current standards of technology is one of implicit eugenics. Some people don’t necessarily need meat, but are better off for it. And creating a form of arbitrary judgement on who may eat meat and who doesn’t is incompatible with anarchist thought.

To get rid of meat and animal product is as of yet simply not an option and in a utopic anarchist society would not be one either. Unless science progresses enough where actual animal products can be created artificially in a lap or machine, that are functionally indistinguishable from the real thing, this will never be an option.

On the other side of this humans are in the end animals, too. And animals kill and eat each other. Ecosystems rely on this. Is it cruel to allow wolves to eat deer? Obviously not. The opposite, however, leads to widespread suffering and the ravaging of ecosystems. Under the currently dominant mindset in the world, for many people it’s unspeakable to consider humans part of the ecosystems we inhabit the same way other predators are. The way we treat the environments we inhabit, and by we I mean people in places and systems under the shadow of imperialism and industrialization, is one of control and exploitation without regard for sustainability. And that separates us from the systems we take advantage of and places us in the position of some invasive predator that devastates the local wildlife and leaves it in a state that will take far longer to recover than we can afford to wait.

But that’s not the only way people have lived and do live. And to treat it like that is frankly just an extension of anglo/european imperialism and white supremacy. All over the world people have lived as parts of stable ecosystems, hunting animals and raising them, functioning for the sake of the environment not different from other predators. Even in problem areas where prey animals like deer are overrunning and wrecking ecosystems due to a lack of predators, very often human hunters fill the role of the wolves who have been killed and driven away.

Don’t take this as me saying that hunting is okay and farming animals is not, though. The fundamental idea of farming animals for meat and products is a simple trade of the animal being cared for and spared the cruelties of the wild in exchange for being killed one day. Chances are the death is much less violent and painful than what would happen in the wild. Humans and animals have been living forever in mutually beneficial relationships. This is one of them. And I understand finding the idea cruel, I have issues with it myself, but it’s not something I can argue very much against without relying on humanizing the animals and applying concepts to them that simply can’t be applied to them.

A lot of it comes from a very fundamental discomfort with death that generally cultures more in tune with their local environment and more sustainable don’t seem to have in the same way. And at the same time a lot of these cultures also seem to place a much greater value in life, making it important to value and respect any life taken. I think in westernized societies we are very desensitized to death, but at the same time we are never allowed to grow any form of peace with it. So we will kind of just look away when excessive cruelty and waste define our meat industry and at the same time we wince and complain when a hunter shoots a deer to eat it, use the hide for leather and conserves the skull as a keepsake, despite the latter being a lot less cruel and a lot more respectful to life and to the animal.

Now this is where I admittedly hit some hard limitations on this topic because I frankly never really looked into a lot of the options for different animal products. So apart from knowing that a lot of people fucking despise honey for literally no reason, I actually don’t know how much cruelty is for example in dairy compared to eggs, compared to different meats, ect. Neither currently, nor in ideal conditions, so I refrain from commenting on that. I have some opinions on the killing itself, as I explained, but the living conditions for different products are simply above my pay grade to have educated myself on very much so far. Sorry if that is a disappointing ending to this.

Oh also millitant anti vegan meat eaters are 1000 times more annoying than any vegan on this planet combined could ever be. I have a lot of issues with a lot of things many very loud vegans say and do, but oh my god it holds no candle to people who can not eat a piece of meat without explaining to you how good it is that they eat real meat and how unhealthy meat substitutes are. I know one person who keeps calling veganism an eating disorder and I kinda wanna smack her across the face.

Also, other side note, but I do think veganism, not necessarily under that name, but the idea of relying less on the meat industry and it’s cohorts is a good thing to become more and more normalized. I don’t believe in voting with your money, that’s bullshit, but we do eat meat and animal products at a very unsustainable level and normalizing ways to reduce that as well as the idea that a lot of people can live without meat helps prepare us for eventually changing that and changing the conditions of animal welfare. Because frankly, our current meat consumption can not be satisfied without excessive cruelty.

17 notes · View notes

mythvoiced · 4 years ago

Note

MORE QUESTIONS FOR HYUN BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET ENOUGH: Does he have a favorite dish or type of food? Does he prefer colorful drinks or goes for those with neutral hues? Does he have a favorite flavor? How does he feel about fancy/elegant anything? What type of jewelry does he enjoy the most? And finally, how would he react if Boram sneaked behind him and suddenly kissed his cheek? 👀 HAVE A NICE DAY, LOVE YOU LOTS ♥️♥️♥️

-. @theimpalpable | I’M READYING THE PACKAGE FOR MY EXPRESS DELIVERY OF MYSELF AS I’M WRITING THIS

---

-. Does he have a favorite dish or type of food? Even though he spends a lot of time trying new dishes, usually from all over the world, going as far as spending hours on extensive research just to make sure he finds authentic recipes from people of the culinary culture he’s dabbling into, his palate isn’t as varied. Not that he’s a picky eater, au contraire, he’s most likely to cook something different every day than stick to any sort of ‘type’ for prolonged periods of time, but there is a difference for him between food he cooks for the practice and then eats, and food he just cooks specifically for eating. And the food he cooks specifically for eating is usually Korean and taken from a ‘Grandma’s original recipe’ website. He likes ‘traditional’ food, if you will, recipes he might have already been eating before the internet existed, usually the opposite of ‘gourmet’ and preparable with stuff any Korean grocery store has available. He’s no stranger to fast food, and unlike some avid cooks, he doesn’t feel superior to them, even though he does prefer healthy meals (and unhealthy snacks, kind of balances it out, really). And... he likes meat. And sweet berries, to eat while he’s watching something. Raspberries. Blueberries. He loves magnolia berries and feels somehow connected to them... spiritually, almost. I don’t know what that means, this is Hyun’s blog, I just write in it.

-. Does he prefer colourful drinks or goes for those with neutral hues? He’s genuinely not too fond of coffee, or chocolate, two common dark-toned beverages so that already makes him more likely to opt for more colourful choices, that and the fact that he likes fruity things (because he likes fruits in general, to be honest). Often times he’ll order colourful drinks purely because of how colourful they are: he’ll land in a place with pictures in its menu and won’t even read the drink’s name, if it’s got a spunky colour of which he can’t guess the taste/ingredient with certainty, he’s ordering. It’s all about curiosity.

-. Does he have a favorite flavor? To be honest, not really. He’s really just too fond of too many combinations or dishes or drinks for him to really stick to one thing he likes above everything else. He loves spicy food and he loves sweet drinks and he loves sour candy and he loves salty snacks. He has a least favourite flavour, though, and that’s bitter. Just doesn’t do it for him. He also likes the listed flavours the most when they’re in the contexts used to mention them.

-. How does he feel about fancy/elegant anything? Frankly? Bit of a bore. He understands when circumstances kind of ask for something fancy/elegant, but he’s not particularly into it. He is deeply impressed by elegant interiors... in museums, or offices or... well, honestly, if you asked him directly, he’d most likely voice his confusion in regards to those who live in elegant ‘modern’ interior designs or wear fancy clothing on the regular as casual wear, as to why they would willingly surround themselves with things commonly associated with work or public events where you usually have to pretend, lie through your teeth, or speak to people you don’t even know (all the while also making sure you don’t incriminate yourself). He mostly associates fancy/elegant things with... contexts in which they’re frequently found, which are, not so coincidentally, contexts you most likely won’t find him in... as long as he can avoid them.

-. What type of jewelry does he enjoy the most? Earrings and rings. He likes dangly earrings, long ones, silver chains, one end in his lobe, the other on the tip of his ear. He likes how the light bounces off of them if he turns his head just right and he likes to wear multiple ones at the same time. Hoops are fantastic too, small and silver, slightly larger and black, never big enough to become those hoops, but never solely piercing-size either. Studs, with white crystals, fake gems on them, anything that looks to be made of glass, but that kind of adds to the charm of them, sparkling on each of his ears. And rings, usually with similar things to showcase. He likes them monochromatic and if there are coloured gems, then pastel, lilac, pink, or light blue.

-. And finally, how would he react if Boram sneaked behind him and suddenly kissed his cheek? 👀 Ah, yes... Now we shall talk about the circumstances leading up to Ji Hyun’s death- NOT KIDDING, I think he’d just shut down. The ‘sneaking up’ part, depending on how good at it Boram’s being, would either end with momentarily startling Hyun, or him standing there and listening to Boram approach, trying so hecking hard not to have his big, lovey-dovey smile split his face in half. And no matter how sneaky sneaky Boram is being, the kiss to his cheek will lead to the same result: you’ll have Hyun having a regular day with some tiny, innocent heart palpitations, to then witnessing Hyun’s face gradually turn the shade of one of those magnolia berries he likes so much, while his heart is trying to beat at the speed of light, and he loses all thinking capabilities and any and all functions possible related to that. He’ll most definitely try to play his reaction of if they aren’t anywhere in their relationship where it’s clear to Hyun that Boram is reciprocating his heart palpitations (although, lowkey, if he doesn’t start considering it after this, we have a new dense simp on board). Will probably lightly smack Boram’s chest (and by lightly, I mean he’ll just... brush his shirt, or something, he’s got Dokis-) and call him silly or anything like that, insinuate he ‘shouldn’t fool around’ (Hyun, you’re breaking my heart here buddy), absolutely laugh (but it will sound kind of wobbly as if he’s trying not to die on the spot or say the big L word right then and there). If this happens at any point in time in which, well, mayhaps, maybe, forse, perhaps, vielleicht, possibly, there’s something going on already, Hyun’d just... grow slightly pink instead, grab Boram’s face and drop a kISS SMACK DAB ONTO HIS LIP-

10 notes · View notes

laundryandtaxes · 5 years ago

Note

I appreciate that you engage with vegan arguments in good faith as a meat eater. I do think you're missing part of it, though. Re: meat as a "normal part of animal life", vegans would say that something being "natural" doesn't necessarily make it ethical. Many animals kill their young, rape, and cannibalize, which humans are against because we're capable of moral reasoning and aren't driven by pure instinct. We are animals, yes, but we experience life quite differently from other animals.

I think it's pretty presumptuous of the animal experience (especially when thinking about other mammals here) to assume that we experience the world in a terribly different way than most animals do- neither you nor I can know how animals experience the world, but I'd be surprised if a wolf killing a deer fawn never saw and noticed its visibly upset mother. I think every animal that hunts is aware that its prey would like to be alive rather than dead. But my point is not about the naturalness of the behavior, it's about the real lack of moral meaning in of the behavior of killing and consuming animals.

I think the ethical implication of a lot of arguments against the eating of animals is that, for instance, if a wolf could be made aware of the fact that it doesn't need meat to survive, the ethical thing for the wolf to do would be to stop killing and eating animals- it sounds silly, but I think the notion that we know better/differently just falls incredibly flat. Take the brown bear (commonly just called a Grizzly, an animal I really really love) for instance- for the majority of the year many of them straight up eat no meat without, to my knowledge, any consequence. In fact, the way that many brown bears eat salmon would be considered deeply unsportsmanlike by human anglers. Many rip the heads off to consume the fatty tissue of the head, brain, etc, and completely discard the carcasses.

Here is where I think my point is most clarified. I think that is acceptable behavior for brown bears, but not for us, because it is not the taking of animal life that concerns me at all. It is the taking of animal life for purposes other than self defense or for the enjoyment you get out of eating the animal. Even in that case perhaps I'm being hypocritical- the bear's enjoyment is clearly in eating the heads. For another instance, mountain lions are known to kill prey, hide them somewhere, and not even eat them. It would seem some animals do in fact kill more or less for fun, or to sharpen their skills for when they need to. Many whales are known to have these hour-long chases of prey animals where they maybe take a couple bites, just for the sake of teaching their young how to hunt. While I don't think these are acceptable behaviors for us, I don't find them to be morally wrong things for animals to do. Certainly I wouldn't consider taking your child hunting and taking only the loin off a deer to be acceptable. I think the common ethics of hunters around "waste" are there for us to feel good about our behavior, but I don't think theyre moral truths. I don't support killing animals you aren't going to eat or donate with the exception of pest and population control, such as in the case of wild hogs or coyotes. But to say that an animal that is killed and left to rot has been "wasted" is not really true to the animals that live in that ecosystem. Kill a deer and leave it, and surely a coyote will come along and eat to sustain himself for a while, and turkey vultures will have something to eat, along with bugs and fungi that thrive on decomposition. So the whole notion of waste is more about what we as hunters and humans feel justifies the taking of animal life, and nothing to do with morals, and frankly nothing to do with the wasting of life. So I'll use hog hunting as an example I've thought a lot about. Again, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with killing a hog and "letting it lie" for other animals to eat. But I really dislike and find the culture around hog hunting to he morally repugnant- a lot of guys get into it just because they want to kill a lot of stuff, and that bothers me. The pigs don't give a shit. And killing them is the correct thing to do- they wreak havoc on any ecosystem as invasive animals. So there is no moral wrong being committed here. It bothers me that some people just want to kill a bunch of stuff for no reason. This has to do with human motivation. The pigs don't give a shit. The animals that would feed on a pig carcass don't give a shit.

Where this comes full circle is that I think humans have very similarly nonsensical ideas about our place in the animal kingdom and our place as these really somehow special animals who just know better than other animals what is right and what is wrong, but the codes we do have are most often not really about ethics- the right and wrong here is entirely about our feelings, not actually whether it is right or wrong to take an action. Few people would find it acceptable to rip a pig apart limb from limb even if you were going to eat it, but that's how coyotes regularly hunt. My thinking is that, even if the coyote had some presence of mind that we are assuming he doesn't have (and I think it would be wildly incorrect for us to think that hunting animals don't know that prey animals want to continue to be alive) about the suffering of his prey, there would not really be any moral obligation for him to stop hunting. Morality is functionally how we make sense of and code interactions between people, how we regulate our own social systems, how it frankly makes us feel best and most just to live. None of this makes a difference to an animal that doesn't want to die. I just think the idea that humans are such different animals that we have this higher moral responsibility to other animals than any other animals is on its face kind of absurd. Because we live in societies where all of us rely on and, theoretically, value each other, there are certain things we do not do to other people because they violate some form of our basic human social contract- basic bodily autonomy in the case of sexual assault, the basic right to live free from undue physical harm in the case of child abuse, etc. I think the idea that morality is a thing that broadly exists among human and nonhuman animals alike is incorrect- it is our creation, and our set of rules. Maybe this will clear things up for you- it's not something I haven't considered and frankly it is not really easy to articulate fully what I'm trying to get at, especially at what is for me 7:21 am, but hopefully it gives you an idea of the kind of things knocking around in my head.

22 notes · View notes

stjernfaerie · 5 years ago

Text

50 Q’s you’ve never been asked

I was tagged by @stuff-of-pi, thanks bby

What is the color of your hairbrush? I don’t really brush my hair, but my wig brush is wooden and my comb is dark grey

A food you never eat? it’s easier to list the things I do eat. I’m a really picky eater

Are you typically too warm or too cold? too warm.

What were you doing 45 minutes ago? repotting my aloe vera and taking care of her lil babies

What is your favorite candy bar? snickers probably

Have you ever been to a professional sports event? nope

What is the last thing you said out loud? uhhh something about leaving my aloes in the kitchen bc they get more sunlight from there

What is your favorite ice cream? mint chocolate chip

What was the last thing you had to drink? coke

Do you like your wallet? i don’t have a wallet

What was the last thing you ate? french fries

Did you buy any new clothes last weekend? Nope

The last sporting event you watched? I don’t watch sports at all so uhh no clue

What is your favorite flavor of popcorn? Butter, idk I’ve never really tried anything else lol

Who was the last person you sent a text message to? My sister

Ever go camping? Not anymore. My family went canoeing and camping for like a week when I was 7, and it was horrible. I’ll never be able to recover from that.

Do you take vitamins? I’m a vegetarian, so yes, I take some vitamin supplements, mainly B12.

Do you go to church every Sunday? Nope, I’m atheist.

Do you have a tan? ahahahahahhahah no

Do you prefer Chinese food or pizza? pizza

Do you drink your soda with a straw? depends. if I’m lazy or all my straws are dirty, I don’t, but if I’m wearing lipstick I almost always use a straw.

What color socks do you usually wear? it varies. I prefer wearing fun socks with like pretty patterns or fruits on them or something but I don’t have that many :( so when they’re all dirty I just wear either black or white socks.

Do you ever drive above the speed limit? I don’t have a license lol

What terrifies you? the future.

Look to your left, what do you see? the absolute mess that is my makeup station/desk

What chore do you hate? idk I don’t really hate any chores? I have a very strong dislike for some, but I mean I’d rather load the dishwasher than walk into the kitchen and get anxiety bc of how messy it is.

What do you think of when you hear an Australian Accent? @are-you-being-sirius

What’s your favorite soda? Trocadero. I’m pretty sure that’s a swedish thing though.

Do you go in a fast food place or just hit the drive thru? I usually go in.

Favorite cut of beef? I don’t eat meat.

Who’s the last person you talked to? My mom.

Last song you listened to? No clue mate.

Last book you read? lol i don’t read.

Favorite day of the week? friday or saturday. lol how funny would it be if I said like monday ahahahahhah

Can you say the alphabet backwards? idk I’ve never tried and quite frankly I don’t think I will bc why would I

How do you like your coffee? with way too much sugar and oat milk

Favorite pair of shoes? vegan docs.

At what time do you normally go to bed? sometime between 9-11pm.

At what time do you normally get up? between 5-10am

What do you prefer sunrise or sunsets? sunsets.

How many blankets are on your bed? currently three.

Describe your kitchen plates? which ones?

Do you have a favorite alcoholic beverage? wine

Do you play cards? yeah, of course.

What color is your car? lol I don’t drive and even if I did have a license I wouldn’t have my own car. But my mom’s car is white and my dad’s is blue.

Can you change a tire? no

What is your favorite state/providence? idk man

Favorite job you’ve ever had? bold of u to assume that I’ve ever had a job that didn’t suck lol

How did you get your biggest scar? self harm

What did you do today that made someone else happy? I gave my dad one of my aloe’s babies, and my sisters are getting one each as well.

I honestly can’t think of any urls at the moment so I’m just gonna be annoying and tag anyone who wants to answer these fun Q’s. You can say that I tagged you, just follow ur dreams man

#ooc #tagged #tag game #about me #tw self harm

16 notes · View notes

docbe · 5 years ago

Text

So I’ve been making/preparing to make changes to my diet, and I wanna talk about food politics a lil bit...so basically I’m planning on going gluten free to manage autoimmune symptoms, and with all of the issues around climate change, I’m planning on cutting back as much as possible on beef/dairy. I think there’s a lot of problems with factory farming ethically as well, BUT this isn’t exactly what I want to talk about, but rather like...some of the internal war I have about veganism culture vs meat-eater culture and the way food is produced

The thing is, there IS a problem with factory farming, but I’ve also been rather uncomfortable with the way PETA-esque protesting/boycotting has been going about it, and I’ve spent a long, long time trying to figure out how to word exactly why. Part of it, I think, is that there is a certain divide in the perspective between urban, city-raised people and rural, country-raised people, and the lack of actual, productive communication about that divide. Urban people seem to view a lot of rural people and communities as backwater, cruel, conservative idiots, while rural people seem to view urban people as self-centered, ignorant, entitled do-nothings. That, of course, helps no one

The thing is, there is a lot of very good arguments to cutting back on animal products, both ethically and for the environment. There’s also a lot of good arguments towards ethical animal husbandry and plant-based alternatives. But one thing that urban people sometimes don’t understand is that not every farm is a factory farm, and many farmers would much rather do things in a way that is in-line with ethical practices. Farming is a large-scale industry with a lot of complicated ins-and-outs, and meeting demand while also turning a profit can be incredibly difficult. Of course, one can argue that that is no reason not to do things morally, and imo, they’re right. But the issue is that solving problems like that are not easy and sometimes take a lot of time, innovation, and resources, and the explosion of modern populaces and more decadent, ready-made lifestyles has not been easy to keep up with

And again, one can argue that that is not an excuse. But here’s the problem, the reality of boiling things down too ideologically: for industries where things have rapidly changed, especially industries that pushed back a lot against those changes, it’s not always just about profits. If you look at communities that were once manufacturing, coal, etc., many of them are suffering high levels of poverty, drug problems, lack of infrastructure--problems that a lot of liberally-minded people are also empathetic towards and fighting against. In those areas, the push-back is not just to maintain profits, but also because there often isn’t much else to turn towards, and entire communities are left without ways of recovering. A sudden upheaval for moral purposes may sound like a good idea, but at the same time, the world is not a closed system, and blindly cutting down one problem may leave a host of other difficult problems in its wake

In the case of farming, a lot of farms have been passed down generations and span large areas of land--and if those farms went out of business, those communities are often in the middle of nowhere and don’t offer a lot of alternatives. A lot of people in rural areas hate liberal (sub)urban-dwellers simply because they feel like those (sub)urban-dwellers are demanding things without knowing what they’re talking about, without understanding the cost and impact on them and their communities, and frankly, they might be right in that assessment, at least partially. If you talk about making a huge economic change but don’t consider the fallout, leaving the communities to rot and call that “morality,” that’s not very convincing. Money sucks, but resources/currency are vitally important to any society, and not considering that in your crusade towards a morally pure world may do more harm than good. A lot of rural people may not think about it in quite those terms, but the whole “stupid hippie” thing has a lot of roots in those sentiments

And I think one of the things that bugs me about extremist vegan-type mentalities is this notion that if you don’t go 150% in on it, it’s just as bad as not doing anything at all. It’s good to cut back on meat/animal-based products, esp. cattle-based, to whatever degree you can, even if it’s just a little--that’s still less demand for the product. But putting your money towards ethically-sourced products is also helpful, as that causes that market to grow--and the more profitable something is, the more viable it is to actually do on a larger scale. To treat eating vegetarian/vegan as something that HAS to be done in a full vegetarian/vegan diet may turn people away who might otherwise make smaller, daily changes and cut backs, and on the scale of millions/billions of people, that’s a huge loss. It’s better to go meatless Monday than not do anything at all. And of course, there’s also the ableist/classist/etc problems that make it difficult for some people to maintain those diets all the time, but would still like to try cutting back

Basically, it kind of sucks that there’s this moral purist thing that has painted “liberal” “diets” like veganism as fads, that gives people a negative connotation about things like plant-based alternatives or making smaller, less “impactful” alterations to their lifestyles. And it sucks that rather than discuss the reasons why there’s that communication breakdown, there’s just more mudslinging...It’s a complex problem, and it’s going to have a complex solution

#is there stuff I probably didn't consider? ye #but I was thinkin about it while doing dishes earlier so this is mostly just to get it off my mind #also sorry mobile users #long post #animal rights #food #politics #idk what else i should tag this? idk what ppl would blacklist w a topic like this :x

7 notes · View notes

xiv-endora · 6 years ago

Photo

Send in two (or more) names and I’ll fill all this out about the ship!

General:

How long will they last? - A very long time. I feel like these two would be good at talking about their issues, if they ever had any. Communication is key!

How quickly did/will they fall in love? - ...I’unno man cause, I’m thinking the first time they saw one another smile and found themselves staring too long into each others gaze; it was then they fell without ever really knowing.

How was their first kiss? - It’s either something really passionate and slow, the whole ‘stare into your eyes’ and then move in for the kill deal orrrr.. it just happens out of instinct. Endora goes to thank Cassian for something, without thinking, she gives him a kiss out of appreciation. It’s in that moment the two are locked in a ‘oh no’ moment.

Wedding:

Who proposed? - Either one of them maybe? Cassian more than Endora? She wouldn’t have an issue with doing it though and chances are, she would, if placed in that situation. Wouldn’t be romantic from her end though. More of a, ‘hey I got you this ring..can you wear it like, 24.7 for me? kthnxbai.’

Who is the best man/men? - @the-wanted-man Roman no doubt.

Who is the bride’s maid(s)? - ..Roman again (that’s rough).

Who did the most planning? - Neither one of them. Most likely they shot a few ideas back and forth, both ended up agreeing they want something private between themselves. No theme, no invitations, nothing. Just each other.

Who stressed the most? - Endora maybe, because she’d be a bit paranoid that part of her past will come out from the shadows and ruin everything, literally.

How fancy was the ceremony? - Back of a pickup truck | 2 | 3 | 4 | Normal Church Wedding | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Kate and William wish they were this big. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN KIND OF WEDDING.

Who was specifically not invited to the wedding? - Their fathers, family from both sides that haven’t been in their lives for x amount of years.

Sex:

Who is on top? - They switch it up, all depends on the mood and what they’re feeling.

Who is the one to instigate things? - Endora. Poor Cassian, bless his soul.

How healthy is their sex life? - Barely touch themselves let alone each other | 2 | 3 | 4 | Once a couple weeks, nothing overboard | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | They are humping each other on the couch right now The two know how to express their feelings for one another in small and large gestures, let alone sexually. So it’s pretty damn healthy.

How kinky are they? - Straight missionary with the lights off | 2 | 3 | 4 | Might try some butt stuff and toys | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Don’t go into the sex dungeon without a horse’s head

How long do they normally last? - Think this depends on where the two are cause, if they’re at home? ..It can be for as long as they’d like or who tires out first, essentially. Let’s just say a decent amount of time for the both to feel extremely satisfied.

Do they make sure each person gets an equal amount of orgasms? - Much as Endora would want Cassian to get off much as herself, she might be the one experiencing one or two orgasms more than him. He’s a giver and is pretty passionate about things.

How rough are they in bed? - Softer than a butterfly on the back of a bunny | 2 | 3 | 4 | The bed’s shaking and squeaking every time | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Their dirty talk is so vulgar it’d make Dwayne Johnson blush. Also, the wall’s so weak it could collapse the next time they do it.

How much cuddling/snuggling do they do? - No touching after sex | 2 | 3 | 4 | A little spooning at night, or on the couch, but not in public | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | They snuggle and kiss more often than a teen couple on their fifth date to a pillow factory.

Children:

How many children will they have naturally? - They wouldn’t really plan out how many they’d have in the long run, it just, ..happens! Two?

How many children will they adopt? - Pets can be considered as children, right? Cause if so then Endora would be thrilled to adopt a murder or two of some of her feathered friends. Little kids though, there’s no telling how many they would take in. Another one of those situations where it just happens and in the end, they couldn’t be happier.

Who gets stuck with the most diapers? - Cassian. #bestdad

Who is the stricter parent? - Neither are strict really. They’re on the same wave length and agree that their kids should be allowed to make their own mistakes, let alone experience life themselves without rules holding them back from knowing what being a child is really like.

Who stops the kid(s) from doing dangerous stunts after school? - Again, neither. They’re going to watch their kid be a dumbass and then ask if they’re okay or not.

Who remembers to pack the lunch(es)? - Maybe Cassian? Endora would remember if she wasn’t so tired the night before, would even do it the night before. But there’ll be those mornings where she’ll nudge Cassian awake, urging him to make the lunch before their kid leaves for school. She’s too in love with sleep to do it herself.

Who is the more loved parent? - ...!? THAT IS TOUGH. Uh, both would have their own situations the kids would go to. Cassian for the boys to talk about.. guy stuff, girls with their mother about.. lady things. I’d like to think that their family would be open enough to talk about either parent, no matter what.

Who is more likely to attend the PTA meetings?- Endora. She has no issue in speaking up on any topic and not afraid to make a scene if ever the time called for it. Cassian would go to, but might not be as mouthy as she would- only when it came to defend their children.

Who cried the most at graduation? - Neither one. Between all the hugs and praise, no tears would seen.

Who is more likely to bail the child(ren) out of trouble with the law? - Let the kids sit and rethink about what they did in order to get where they are. Then? Either mom or dad would show up with the ‘learn your lesson?’ look and when they get home, the other parent might give some punishment. They break up the whole ‘being the bad guy’ thing, so neither parent is hated more than the other.

Cooking:

Who does the most cooking? - Depends on their schedules. Whoever is off at work most that day wouldn’t to worry about it. Most likely it’d be Endora though but she won’t do the dishes. NOPE.

Who is the most picky in their food choice? - ...Endora.

Who does the grocery shopping? - Cassian!

How often do they bake desserts? - She loves to bake, so, if she has the time to do it then there will always be baked goods in the house. Could be every other night, twice a week. All depends really!

Are they more of a meat lover or a salad eater? - Meat.

Who is more likely to surprise the other(s) with an anniversary dinner? - Cassian. Endora would most likely..not give him anything dinner related, more of a cliche “dessert”.

Who is more likely to suggest going out? - She would, but it wouldn’t be frequent. More of a.. ‘hey let’s get out and enjoy ourselves’ kind of deal.

Who is more likely to burn the house down accidently while cooking? - ..Endora and most likely, a fire has broken out two or twelve times. But who is counting, yeah?

Chores:

Who cleans the room? - They both are organized people, so there’s no set person to do this.

Who is really against chores? - Neither one.

Who cleans up after the pets? - Pretty sure Cassian would help out but Endora doesn’t own any pets that needed to be cleaned up after. They’re mostly out in the wild, but again, this would be a team effort.

Who is more likely to sweep everything under the rug? - Bless Cassian’s soul if he ever tried it cause boy, Endora would give him a earful about that. But neither one of them would do this-- hopefully.

Who stresses the most when guests are coming over? - Endora only a little bit because there are some things she doesn’t want others to see, so, ..she’d be trying to pick up pretty quickly and be sure everything is safe.

Who found a dollar between the couch cushions while cleaning? - Cassian, but Endora says it was hers and plucks it out from his fingers.

Misc:

Who takes the longer showers/baths? - Endora? Cassian might take longer ones after a long day of work, cause he’s always covered by something or another, but she’s most usually taking her time especially if it’s a bath. If they’re in it together? ..No telling how long they’ll be.

Who takes the dog out for a walk? - Not Endora, he would.

How often do they decorate the room/house for the holidays? - Anything that she celebrates or feels strongly about, Endora will easily decorate for. Especially if they had kids, to show tradition or something. But if it’s just them? Anytime they wanted to decorate would be wonderful. For new memories shared together from their past, or start anew.

What are their goals for the relationship? - Be open, trustworthy and always themselves. No need to lie, nor wear a mask. They both want to feel this way for their entire relationship because quite frankly, it’s the best. Also, to never go to bed mad at one another. Endora won’t let him sleep if they argued and haven’t made up or at least spoke about what’s wrong.

Who is most likely to sleep till noon? - He doesn’t sleep long or well, so that’ll be Endora.

Who plays the most pranks? - Cassian.

@cassian-kane

#answers #stories #Pretty Pretty Princess #Friends is the 'f' word

6 notes · View notes

katandhercgbojac · 7 years ago

Text

Inuit vs Eskimo

https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/

Although the name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean "eater of raw meat."

Linguists now believe that "Eskimo" is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning "to net snowshoes." However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names. "Inuit," meaning "people," is used in most of Canada, and the language is called "Inuktitut" in eastern Canada although other local designations are used also. The Inuit people of Greenland refer to themselves as "Greenlanders" or "Kalaallit" in their language, which they call "Greenlandic" or "Kalaallisut."

Most Alaskans continue to accept the name "Eskimo," particularly because "Inuit" refers only to the Inupiat of northern Alaska, the Inuit of Canada, and the Kalaallit of Greenland, and it is not a word in the Yupik languages of Alaska and Siberia.

https://www.aaanativearts.com/alaskan-natives/eskimo-vs-inuit.htm

I answered a letter a while ago, from someone at a museum in Alaska. They wanted to know why Inuit (which I am of) dislike being called "Eskimos." After all, many Alaskans don't mind being called Eskimos, and even seem to dislike the term "Inuit" when southerners apply it them, however well-intentioned.

I am not surprised by the confusion. The ascendancy of Inuit culture, through good reportage and the establishment of Nuvavut, has conditioned southern folks to say "Inuit" instead of "Eskimo." Southerners have complied beautifully, but at last they are running up against peoples, related to Inuit, who insist that they are Eskimos. The confusion derives from this sticky fact: Inuit are not Eskimos, and Eskimos are not Inuit.

In simple terms: The first Mongolic peoples of North America (linked by genetic heritage to the Mongols of Asia) settle in Alaska as early as 8,000 years ago. Paleo-anthropologists like to call them the "Arctic Small Tool Tradition," which, frankly, is fine by me.

Millennia creak by. Some of these people move east across North America in waves. The first such Mongolic wave (I dislike the term "Mongoloid") finishes settling as far as Greenland about 4,000 years ago. Once they settle, they are dubbed the "pre-Dorset" culture, later developing into the more advanced "Dorset" culture. These are a Mongolic people from Alaska, but they live in an incredibly cold world without dog-sleds and most of the technologies Inuit are used to. Their rectangular encampments are bordered by short walls of flat stone. They are obsessed with art, particularly images of human faces, which they leave everywhere around the Arctic.

Then the Earth warms up a bit. Between the period of Europe's late dark ages to its early middle ages, about 800-1200 A.D., a new Mongolic people dubbed "Thule" sweep eastward from Alaska. They are tool-obsessed people (over 40 items in a seal-hunting kit alone), mainly following whales and walrus along newly-opened channels in the ice. These are the inventive souls who bring such innovations as dog-sleds, soapstone lamps, float bladders, igluvigak ("igloo") building, waterproof stitching, and toggling harpoons with them. By the time they have completely occupied the area from the eastern edge of Alaska to Greenland, around 700 years ago, the Earth cools again. It is time to curb the nomadism.

They supplant the Dorset, and become Inuit.

Now, I have read too many interpretations of "Inuit" as meaning, "Humans" or "The People," probably under the (incorrect) assumption that this is every culture's name for itself.

However, having been a translator for 30 years, I can guarantee you that "Inuit" is a specific term. It precisely means, "The Living Ones Who Are Here." It denotes a sense of place, of having arrived, a memory that Inuit knew they had kin somewhere else. It also betrays the fact that Inuit once knew they were not the original peoples of their lands. Interestingly, in this way does language act as a code to preserve heritage.

The Alaskan Eskimos are descended from the Mongolic peoples that continued to develop into diverse western cultures. As such, they have their own preferred words for themselves, such as, "Yup'ik" and "Aleut" and "Nunamiut." Nevertheless, none of us has completely left our heritage behind, and I still get a kick out of it when I understand the speech of people from Alaska, or even the Chukchi Peninsula.

There was only one culture in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland before Inuit. These, Inuit refer to as the "Tunit." These are Dorset. Inuit remember them well in their oral traditions. The Tunit were small, very strong, incredibly shy. It is said that Tunit taught Inuit about their lands, that they built the first inuksuit ("images of men," man-like stone structures) to herd caribou along predictable paths for hunting. Paradoxically, they were thought of as poor craftsmen.

Unfortunately, the Tunit are now extinct. Inuit, therefore, have the luxury of using "Inuit" in a wide context, since they are the only ones remaining. But even this can get politically tricky, since there are a couple of peoples adjacent to them - "Inuvialuit," for example - who do not always approve of being called Inuit. But, generally, one can get away with using "Inuit" as a kind of umbrella term for eastern Mongolic peoples.

The umbrella term for the far west, Alaska, is "Eskimo." Alaskans do not seem to mind its usage these days, simply because it provides a handy general term. And there may be another reason not to mind it, as well. The old thinking was that it derived from Cree, derogatorily meaning, "Eaters of Raw Meat." It was thought that it was overheard by French missionaries, distorted to "Esquimaux" or "Esquimau," then Anglicized to "Eskimo."

It is amazing how widespread this belief has become, so that it is cited by all but the most informed sources. Yet, while remaining a bit of a mystery, the missionary-origin of "Eskimo" is pretty much discounted today, since there is some compelling evidence that the word was existent in pre-colonial times. Some researchers have made a good case for it coming from Montagnais vocabulary, literally meaning, "snowshoe net-weaver," but culturally being a term that indicates any craftsman of great skill. It seems to me that this makes more sense and, if true, would mean that the word is not derogatory after all.

Inuit, however, can never be Eskimos. Existent in the west or not, preferred by Alaskans or not, it was simply never part of their vocabulary. Inuit, after all, have their own name for themselves: Inuit. Today, "Eskimo" only reminds Inuit of the days when missionaries kidnapped them, dumped flea powder all over them, and assigned "Eskimo numbers" to them, instead of bothering to note the proper name for the culture or the individuals within it.

It all really boils down to choice, the right to accept or reject specific labels at will, the right to be known as one wishes to be. And is that not what liberty is all about?

3 notes · View notes

phipitology · 4 years ago

Text

A lousy person guides to: ditching fast food and eat out

This is a portrait of the only KFC branch in the city of Beppu. It is quite fascinating to find a quirky western building in front of a railway, with no other big shop and restaurant besides it.

When I was a kid I didn’t like going to restaurants because I was an extreme picky eater. If I went to KFC, I would buy the chicken and eat only the crispy skin, and give the meat to my dad. Weird huh? My mom never fails to nudge me to quit being picky (even until this day when I eat a lot) and starting adolescence I started to digest meats and some veggies & fruits.

I am thankful with that unfortunate event though. Because I grew up not being addicted to junk food and at most I used to eat junk food twice or once a week. However, during my life abroad, junk food has become more of a comfort food. Since they are tasty, affordable, and accessible in most places, junk foods usually become a first choice if you are a broke college student-traveler.

Back in Warsaw, it takes me two weeks to finally give up eating something authentic and went to the mall like locals. The go-to mall is Wilenski, just 5 minutes walk from my apartment. It is a decent mall where we can find what we need, but not for leisure kind of mall. But what’s more than enough is they have the unholy trinity of BK, KFC, and MCD right next to each other in the third-floor food court (not to mention they have a salad shop right in front of the unholy trinity. oh the audacity).

The thing about going someplace outside your hometown is that you want to try everything. Doesn’t matter how daring the idea is, like travel to Norway a day after your long flight from Indonesia to Poland, or how silly it is like taking the midnight bus to Prague by yourself on a Christmas eve, but you got to do it because it will be a remarkable story of yours.

The first menu that I tried was the single menu (I think it’s what its called?), a box with one original chicken, some nugget bites, and fries. I can put the Europe’s (at least Polish and Czech are) KFC has the best chicken. The flavor is rich (unlike the Japanese ones) and super juicy (Indonesian chicken are super dry and too spicy for me. Not to mention the wings, it was holy. When I’m craving, I can only eat a bucket of KFC by myself for a day meal........ or in my worst day I can eat a bucket of wings in one sitting while bingeing That 70′s Show.

Wow what a sin.

In retrospect, KFC is always the first choice (though my roommate and I would interchangeably being a supportive angle to avoid junk food or an evil to drag each other into the sin. We can be a different side of the same coin, depends on the situation) because it is super convenient. Not only it is located in the route going back home, but they have a self-service machine so we can avoid human contact.

The first thing that I noticed breathing in Warsaw was that I have become more self conscious as an Asian. Especially in the Central and East Europe, it feels super alienating. Even though I lived in a big city, there aren’t much POC (especially in my neighborhood, Targowa, located on the other side of Vistula river and used to be a slum), and as my first time going away by myself across the continent as a 20 year old lady, I feel small. The least human contact, the better because it means less hustle to try to speak Polish (yes most of them still have difficulty with English) and it feels like we are unnoticed. Even though I’ve never experience racism directly towards me, but as an insecure human being, you can’t help but think of that.

I’m happy to be back here in Jakarta. I can eat whatever and whenever I want without thinking three times whether I have enough money or whether I have the energy to move my ass through the cold wind or to cook. The convenience and the variety of cuisines here are crazy, It is probably what I admire the most of my country.

I’m not good with routines, but being at home makes it easier to stick with some routines with the support of family. Right now, I am grateful that I can eat more vegetables than I am before when I’m living on my own because I have a house-assistant to make sure that I eat properly, and she will cook delicious food for the house. Currently I want to eat more salad (frankly, as a picky person, I only enjoy few veggies (only baby spinach) and dressing (caesar is my get go). But today I enjoy a big portion of Gado - Gado (lol this going to be sounds pathetic but it’s my first time to ate it by myself because I don’t like having too many vegetables on my plate).

I’m trying to eat more vegetable, less meat, and suppress the need to buy meals from outside. I want to be more conscious with what I eat and improve my cooking skills, but it’s hard when you have less appetite. From here I think it’s gonna be much harder to keep up with my routine, as my uni is almost starting, and I’m not sure how I can cope with things.

0 notes

soylenth · 8 years ago

Note

7. Do you believe in an afterlife? 39. Are you a picky eater? 61. What are some of your turn-offs?

7. I’m not sure yet? I certainly hope there is. Both because I want to keep going on in some fashion to see how things turn out and because I hope there’s some broader sentient perspective in the universe beyond this increasingly dystopian materialist shit-show we’ve got going on on this planet. “Die alone, in service to capitalism and fine consumer products.” is failing to inspire me as an individual.I’ve done a lot of reading on near-death experiences and the experiences of the living near the dead and mediumship. mediums are mostly con-artists, but there seem to be a few who were the real deal. I tend to think near-death experiences of a certain type are a real indication of something greater, and not just the brain freaking out as it dies. I think there are plenty of experiences where we know the brain was not active to put that to rest. Although, if it is just the brain, how strange that it is so kind to the consciousness in death, no? How would that evolve? Also, you would be surprised to learn how many hospice workers report sound and light visions near the death of patients! Somewhere around 60% have seen or heard something they can’t explain near the time of patient death.Of course, if any of these accounts are to be believed there are some interesting implications. One, that whatever agency is “in charge” in the afterworld is prone to bureaucratic fuck-ups. Two, that we are who we are in our time on this planet for some purpose, and to know that purpose runs contrary to that purpose. So we get hints from bureaucratic fuck-ups but otherwise I think it’s probably going to remain a mystery until we die. At which point mystery will end, along with every other aspect of consciousness, or we’ll move on to the next set of answers and questions. But I also think this ultimately comes back around to agreement with some materialist thought which is, what’s really important is who we are in the here and now and what we do with this time in this body. Afterlife or no, this particular incarnation is probably unique and should be regarded as precious and valuable.I feel like this is going to be such woo to people, but it’s where my beliefs are right now. I don’t expect anyone to agree. Am still reading and thinking about it. 39. This belly is testament to how not a picky eater I am. Well, picky eaters can have bellies too, but in my case it’s because I clean my plate and I don’t discriminate. There’s a very small list of food I don’t like and I don’t come across it much. I tend to avoid red meat and lean vegetarian, but otherwise I crave new culinary experiences and will try most anything once just to see how it tastes. I’m trying to focus on healthy food right now, but it doesn’t mean I’ve stopped liking bacon.61. What aren’t some of my turn-offs is a shorter list because I am a grumpy, unhappy bastard right now. But I’ll answer as asked.I don’t like flat nudity usually? photographs of men or women completely naked do very little for me. I don’t know if this is the fundamentalist up-bringing or what, but I like some level of clothing, that can then be removed. Like, up close and personal, naked is fine, but I like to work towards it, not start there? If you try the naked man on me I’m likely to laugh.Not seeming to hear me is a turn-off. Ignoring the easy, simple test boundaries I put up is a turn-off and red flag. Objectifying me is a turn-off. Chasers who only see another example of their fetish rather than a person turn me off. Crowd-following is a big turn-off. Crowds and loud noises literally turn me off.

Being much stupider or at least less self-aware than I am is a turn-off (this is shitty and judgemental but it’s true, even though I am frequently quite stupid). Not owning your own shit is a turn-off. Putting it all on me is a huge turn-off. Being smarter than me is a turn-on, until you judge me the way I judge other people for being dumb and then it’s a turn-off. Poetic justice, but a turn-off. Getting my richly deserved comeuppance is a turn-off.Blatant sexism, racism or transphobia turn me off. Why. Believing assholism provides some vital social function is a turn-off. Virtue signaling is a turn-off. Social media is a turn-off. “well, actually...” is a turn-off.Straight couples are frequently a turn-off. I don’t want to celebrate your love or watch your viral proposal video. Or look at your engagement photos. I want to know you as people not join you in celebrating your love. That’s your business. Weird. Turn-off. I expect your relationship to survive a lack of outside validation, frankly. That said, I have a big fantasy about dating a bisexual, different sex couple right now for some reason. Best of both worlds maybe? No disrespect to my straight friends though. Social media has just ruined straight relationships for me.

Baggy, ill-fitting shorts are a turn-off. Online dating is a turn-off. My long-term depression is frequently a turn-off.Capitalism is a turn-off. Patriotism is a turn-off. Ditto for materialism, christianity and evangelical atheism. Agnosticism is pretty hot. Agnostic skeptics are a turn-on. Skeptics certain they know how it all is already are a turn-off. Looking too much like me is a turn-off. Likely because I am unhappy with myself. Messaging me is a turn-off. Not messaging me is a turn-off. Everything is a turn-off! The careful reader might now discern where my problems in dating might be coming from.

Turn-ons:

Nature, queer folk, quiet, water, the rare moment when my self-esteem is good, good food, the night sky, vinyl records of reasonable taste, mostly, feeling mutually understood and appreciated. It’s as simple as that.

2 notes · View notes

friedcircuitboards-blog · 8 years ago

Text

DiMA/Faraday Headcanons

I made these for an OC prompt, dunno if anyone else would find them interesting but just in case...

1. Meanest VS Kindest – They're both sweetie pies! Faraday can be a little standoffish with strangers, but he soon warms up to people so long as they respect all the synths in Acadia (ESPECIALLY DIMA) and don't interfere with his work too much.

DiMA is the kindest most gentle jellybean in existence who cries for half an hour if he accidentally steps on a bug.. BUT he will end you if you hurt any of his friends. Maybe not by physical means, but when he's done with you all that will be left is a shrivelled burned up lump where your ego used to be. Not to be trifled with.

So long as you're good to them they'll be sweet to you though.

2. Tallest VS Shortest – DiMA is about half a head taller than Faraday without taking his tubey crown into account. Neither of them are exactly short though.

3. Most humble VS Most arrogant – Depends on your definition of arrogance. DiMA's insistence on leading a certain way of life, being true to himself as a synth, could be considered arrogance even though he never views that way of life as inherently superior. Sometimes he can get stuck in his own head a little and the ideals within them can be a little too lofty for more pragmatic people.

Even if you end up in a philosophical debate with him however he's so good at swinging around to other people's way of thinking, viewing one subject from all the angles. He strives for his idea of perfection, but while he might disapprove of an opponents views outwardly he still maintains a live and let live policy. So long as it doesn't hurt or subjugate others, he won't tell you how to live your life.

Faraday can be arrogant on DiMA's behalf though. He's not arrogant at all as a person, being proud of his work and okay with his own moral compass but not having particularly strong feelings about it either way. He's perfectly happy to defer to other people's judgement. If you try to belittle DiMA though you best prepare for hell because that synth is CLEARLY perfect and has the best ideas EVER and if you don't listen to him you must be a fucking IDIOT or something. Obviously.

4. Coldest VS Most emotional – Faraday isn't cold by any means but he doesn't trust as easily as DiMA does. Even if he did he's just nowhere near as social. He enjoys company well enough, but he's a bit of an introvert so he values his privacy. Whenever he's with someone he likes he's a deeply sensitive person however, and he's comfortable with wearing his heart on his sleeve more so long as it's in a one on one conversation. (And when he's with DiMA he's a blushing, excited mess.)

DiMA is almost a little too comfortable with his feelings, often making others squirm with how openly he expresses them. He operates on a fairly chill level most of the time so it's not like he goes around weeping tears of joy, but he's not about to put any masks on. People generally get used to how blunt he can be.

5. Most chaste VS Most lustful – Faraday can be shy, but he's by no means prudish. They're both emotionally monogamous types in the first place so even before they confessed feelings for each other they rarely got involved with anyone else, both of them much preferring long term relationships to one night stands.

DiMA doesn't have the right hormones to give him a libido, but he can feel physical pleasure and simulate his own version of climax so he does enjoy sex. He enjoys physical closeness more though, along with the emotional aspect. Before meeting Faraday he experimented a little with a few people from far harbour, then later, the children of atom, but they tended to be the kind of people who fetishized him for what he was so it wasn't very fulfilling. He liked the sensations, and he enjoyed being able to make other people feel good, but he didn't really get much out of it himself until he started having sex with Faraday and understood what had been missing. He initiates more often than Faraday does now, even though he's not the one with a real sex drive.

Faraday is the kinky one.

6. Most serious VS Silliest – DiMA has a subtle but.. unusual sense of humour. You have to spend a bit of time with him to notice, but he rarely takes anything too seriously. He likes to make people laugh. After spending nearly a century alone he has some trouble with standard forms of humour, but his own brand can be very witty.

Faraday is the worrier. If he didn't take things seriously DiMA wouldn't, so in many ways he's the true leader of Acadia. Without him the place would fall apart pretty quickly, but he's perfectly happy to just make sure everything stays on track without shouldering all the responsibility himself. He does enjoy kicking back when there's time to.

7. “Sleep is for the weak!” VS “Sleep for a week” - DiMA doesn't need to sleep, but if he could he'd probably sleep for fourteen hours straight on weekends just to see what happened next in his dreams.

Faraday DOES need to sleep, even if he needs it less than a human, but he still exists on three hours a night because god forbid he take his eyes off his fragile boyfriend for longer than that. He'd probably fall to pieces!

8. Happiest VS Saddest – They both have some pretty dark memories from their past, along with the anxiety of having to constantly worry about being discovered by the institute, but neither of them are particularly prone to breakdowns. It's hard staying free as a synth and they're both aware that everything they've built could collapse around them at any moment, but if they allow themselves to dwell on it too long they wouldn't be able to function. They've both sort of gotten used to being low level terrified all the time and they've learned to use that fear to their advantage, to allow them to appreciate everything they have all the more because it was frankly a miracle they had it at all.

The other synths in Acadia suffer in lots of different ways from their experiences, and they often need help. DiMA is usually the one to offer counsel and comfort, but Faraday will always be there to support his friends also, especially the younger synths who find him easier to relate to sometimes.

They both keep a generally positive outlook, which trickles down to the others. Whenever either of them finds themselves struggling the other is always there to guide them through it. As a unit, they rarely get knocked down for long.

9. Darkest backstory VS Lightest Backstory – They both have fairly similar backgrounds, both of them having been created by the Institute and therefore born into a life of slavery. Both of them were forced to endure experiments to varying degrees, but Faraday, being a generation three synth, was only tested to prove his general functionality. It was intended for him to replace the man he was modelled after and to serve as an infiltration unit, so the experiments were fairly innocuous compared to what DiMA had to suffer through.

It doesn't mean that he had an easier time of it, because no matter how briefly a person is treated as some kind of inferior sub species it will effect them just as profoundly, but he wasn't tortured quite as extensively as DiMA was. His personality was ill suited to the life he was forced to lead to begin with, and his natural intelligence and sensitivity allowed him to grow into sentience much faster than the average synth. He managed to escape because the Institute were still allowing him to perform janitorial duties when he became a fully actualised person, before they could lock him away in isolation and force him to accept his mission. He escaped alone, managed to outrun the coursers on his tail by sheer ingenuity, and never had dealings with the railroad or suffered a mind wipe.

Remembering his past life fills him with anger for what they did and tried to do, and he's perhaps much more anxious than he would have been naturally as a result of what they did. He considers himself lucky compared to DiMA though, who endured experimental procedures, almost complete isolation, unanswerable questions about his identity right from the start and later.. complete solitude, for nearly a century. They try not to talk about their past lives too much, but when they do Faraday is always shocked by DiMA's positivity when he's been through all that.

DiMA conversely believes that Faraday is the strongest person he knows for overcoming all the odds, all on his own, without help. It was meeting him that inspired him to found Acadia, to give other frightened runaway synths a safe place to go and to stay if they wished. Somewhere that, unlike the railroad, wouldn't try to convince them to effectively commit suicide in order to be free. He believed that if Faraday could do it and stay sane, others could too. The man was and is practically his entire inspiration.

10. Biggest eater VS Lightest eater – DiMA can process food, but only in very small amounts and rarely, otherwise he damages his internal systems. Experiencing flavours is pleasant for him, but without the real need to eat he only does so occasionally, usually at the insistence of a fellow synth because they made something too good to pass up.

Faraday needs to eat less frequently than a human, but he still needs one decent meal a day to stay healthy. He's not a particularly big eater but he loves blamco mac'n'cheese when he can get it.

Neither of them eat meat. Faraday could probably use a little more protein in his diet, but DiMA refuses to eat meat when he can't reconcile unnecessary loss of life, especially not on his behalf, and he can't help copying his idol in this matter. While he was on the run he was forced to hunt for food a few times and he found out he barely had the stomach for it then.

He does however happily drink milk from their brahmin, because the old girl is as pampered as any animal could be and he hardly sees a reason not to in that case.

11. Most ticklish VS Cruellest tickler – DiMA is an utter bastard when it comes to tickle fights. He has to be careful with his sharp fingers, but so long as he's gentle they're the perfect ticklers and he doesn't show any mercy. Poor Faraday has been reduced to a gasping, laughing, sobbing mess a couple of times when DiMA's been in a sillier mood. He'd probably die of embarrassment if DiMA wasn't so considerate and only did it when they were completely alone.

12. Brainiest VS Brawniest – They're both brainy, neither of them are brawny. Sure they could both bench press Sole over their heads, but that goes for any synth. They're both such gentle people in general that they often forget their own natural advantages. They're both much more interested in solving problems intellectually rather than with brute force.

DiMA is more fragile though, he can still throw Faraday over his shoulder just fine, but the scientist still insists on moving heavy objects for him anyway.

13. Most forgiving VS Most grudgeful – DiMA is the most forgiving by far. He doesn't really know how to hold a grudge, even if you straight up insult him, his mother and his cow.

Faradays grudges, rare as they are, are legendary amongst the Acadian synths. Cog once made the mistake of joking about DiMA's beat up face and it got him the silent treatment for an entire month. They only started speaking again when the guy damn near lost an arm and needed emergency surgery. Only then because Faraday had to ask him 'does this hurt'. Cog swears to this day that Faraday took entirely too much pleasure in poking at his wounds.

14. Physical vices (drugs, sex, alcohol) VS Spiritual vices (Lust, wrath, envy) – Faraday used to have a bit of a med-x problem, a coping mechanism left over from his first days as a runaway where he'd take half doses just so he felt relaxed enough to sleep. Unfortunately it progressed into an addiction and it was DiMA who helped him to kick it. Nobody else knows.

As for spiritual vices Faraday is fairly well balanced. He can be quite a jealous person, a little clingy and needy in relationships, but that's well suited to DiMA's caring, nurturing nature, so the green monster never really gets a chance to make itself known. His sex drive is a bit of a nuisance, being much higher than average, so that might have become a problem if DiMA wasn't perfectly capable of keeping up. None of his kinks are immoral or dangerous either.

DiMA has experimented with drugs and alcohol out of sheer curiosity, but they hardly effect him. His main physical 'vice' would be his complete lack of self care, often putting himself in harms way when it could easily have been avoided. It's always up to Faraday to keep on top of his physical well-being, which is a full time job when DiMA insists on giving Faraday three new injuries to fix every week.

Avarice isn't traditionally something you'd label DiMA with, but he is quite a selfish person in some ways, even when the results of those selfish feelings result in helping others with seemingly altruistic intentions. He spent a long time alone, long enough that he fears loneliness above all else now that he's found a place for himself among others of his own kind. As a result he manipulates those around him into wanting to stay nearby, even if he's not conscious of trying to control them. Because of his ideals however he can't admit that he needs certain things, so he always has to disguise his motives.. even from himself, until he truly believes that whatever he's doing is for the benefit of everyone else instead.

15. Optimistic VS Pessimistic – They're both far more optimistic than they are pessimistic, but they're still practical about the dangers they face. It might seem like spooking at shadows to anyone else, but when most of the population either wants you dead or enslaved you do have to exercise a certain amount of pragmatism in life.

Despite this they both believe in a better future, for them and for everyone else on the island.. maybe beyond that one day, when the world is ready to accept them. It's a long term goal, but one they're both actively working towards every day. Their enthusiasm for this dream is the only thing keeping some of the other Acadian synths going. 16. Most secretive VS Most open – DiMA is the most open by far, he believes in speaking his mind and apologising later if it was offensive to the listener. Contrary to his own ideals though, he would never insist that the others around him open themselves up to scrutiny as much as he does, understanding that sometimes people keep things close to their chest for a reason, and they'll trust him when they're ready. He tries to encourage synths to be comfortable with who and what they are, but he understands that it's a process. It took him a decade of sitting alone in a cave to reach this epiphany himself. Now that he has reached it however he only ever lies about those things which could destroy the delicate balance of peace on the island. They may be huge lies, but they're the only ones he has on his conscience.

Unless he's sworn to confidentiality by a friend of course, then his lips are sealed.

Faraday isn't quite as open, he isn't comfortable with being so emotionally vulnerable. DiMA knows him better than he knows himself, but he's the only one Faraday has confided in completely. He prefers to keep everyone else at arms length, it's less stressful for him that way.

17. Judges a book by its cover VS Judges mostly by personality – They both make judgements after getting to know a person. The only thing they care about on first meeting a person is whether or not they're going to compromise everyone else's safety, whether their reasons for being there are genuine, and if they need anything from them. The rest they've learned will rarely fall into place in the way they expect, not when they're used to greeting terrified synths who've relied on subterfuge for their survival. People are very rarely as they seem at first glance.

18. Best singer VS Tone deaf – Both of them sing really well, but DiMA is the only one who doesn't mind being overheard. Whenever anyone catches Faraday singing he'll blush to the tips of his ears then avoid them for days. Sometimes though, he'll sing when DiMA's around, and the synth will either compliment him on his voice after he's done enjoying the sound of it or they'll strike up a duet, usually complete with dancing. They compliment each other well and DiMA often suggests that they should perform together whenever the synths organise an open mic night. Faraday always refuses, but on two well remembered occasions he did get tipsy enough to join in with Aster, singing Atom Bomb Baby, and it went down a storm.

19. Cast iron stomach VS Most squeamish – Neither of them can really afford to be too squeamish, DiMA because his own insides are permanently on display and Faraday because he's the closest thing the synths have to a doctor (Aster is the closest thing visiting humans might have) and he's had to get used to some pretty nasty sights.

They're both squeamish about killing however, with DiMA flat out refusing to kill even when supply lines with Far Harbor were cut off for three months solid and the synths were forced to hunt or starve. Which is of course ironic given certain moments of his past.

20. Shows most skin VS Covers up most – DiMA is literally a nudist and has probably never worn clothes in his life so yeah.. DiMA shows the most skin.

Faraday probably wouldn't be seen dead out of his lab-coat.

21. Most religious VS Most atheistic – Neither of them are religious, it's hard to be when you've seen the face of your maker. DiMA is extremely philosophical however and manages to see parallels in his own beliefs to those early humans might have experienced which then lead to organised religion. He understands why religion can be important to humans, even if the beliefs they hold can seem strange to him. In his eyes, people are always free to choose what they believe in, and he'll be endlessly fascinated by the way a single concept can be viewed through myriad different prisms to suit whoever might be studying it at the time, but he can't believe in any doctrine himself.

He's a deeply spiritual person, just not a religious one.

Faraday on the other hand isn't nearly as patient as DiMA when it comes to silly humans and their nonsensical beliefs. He sees religion as a dividing force, partly to blame for the destruction of the old world and therefore unforgivable by itself. He'll never blame individuals who believe in religious ideals, but he hates organised religion as a whole.

22. Biggest reader VS Hasn’t touched a book in 3 years – They both consume the written word like it alone can sustain them, so it's hard to say who's the biggest reader. Naturally they're both curious people with a thirst for knowledge, but seeing as they're living in an irradiated hell-hole they value any books they can find that aren't burnt to a crisp a thousand times more than they would have done if such things were plentiful. Collectively they've managed to gather a veritable library of literature on all subjects, mostly through trade, and they treat the books like the precious treasures they are.

All the synths in Acadia are welcome to borrow from this library, as well as add anything they bring with them or find to it themselves. May DiMA have mercy on them though if Faraday catches anyone mistreating their collection.

23. Best at self-care VS Most self-destructive – DiMA is terrible at looking after himself. Like.. really REALLY bad. It's a wonder he ever made it on his own for so long with all his limbs intact. It's not even that he tries to get himself hurt, he just.. forgets that he's not indestructible, and would rather risk himself before anyone else if such a thing becomes necessary. He becomes less indestructible every year because of it, held together with duct tape and hope.

Faraday is also self-destructive in different ways however, such as his lack of sleep and poor eating habits. He gets so caught up in what DiMA needs that he often forgets to look after himself. Not that he ever lets it go too far, because he knows he can't be helpful if he's barely staying on his feet, but DiMA does need to remind him sometimes (ironically) that it's okay to focus on himself. He's far too neat a person to let himself get into a state too, but he could do with a few days of pure rest.

24. Most flirtatious VS Most modest – DiMA enjoys teasing Faraday with subtle overtures in public, nothing anyone would really catch unless they were looking for it, but enough to make Faraday blush. He likes to see how far he can push it before the scientist pulls him aside into one of the unused rooms. On the other hand he's not very good at taking what he deals out, practically malfunctioning whenever Faraday runs a hand over his thigh under the table.

Faraday doesn't really like PDA's very much though, so he tries to keep it subtle whenever there's company. He's not very good at talking dirty, but when they're not being watched he loves to lavish attention on his partner in other ways.. a playful slap on the butt as they pass each other in the corridors, a hand lingering a little too long on his knee while he tightens a bolt in DiMA's chair, an inviting smile as he stretches a little too languidly, gently pinning DiMA to the wall in his office and swallowing the synths whimpers with passionate stolen kisses seconds before Chase was meant to be meeting with them. He likes to see how quickly a synth with no supposed drive can be reduced to a quivering needy mess.

25. Most outdoorsy VS Most indoorsy – DiMA loves the outdoors, he loves nature and being out in it. Any excuse he can get to spend some time outside he'll do it, even if everyone seems hell-bent on keeping him inside for his safety. He patiently reminds them that most of the creatures on the island didn't see him as a threat and would only attack him if he somehow provoked them, but they all worry nonetheless. It doesn't stop him because he'd probably go insane if he was cooped up for too long. He's had more than enough of that already.

Faraday on the other hand is a bit of a homebody and only ventures outside the safety of Acadia's walls when he absolutely has to. Far Harbor kind of depends on him to maintain the fog condensers so he usually leads supply runs to the town, but he begrudges every moment of it. He'd much rather be busy expanding DiMA's memory banks, or happily poring over a dusty old book in front of the fire thank you very much.

#DiMA #Faraday #Fallout 4 #Far Harbor #Children of Atom #Headcanons #OC prompt #headcanon prompt #Faradima #I dunno I saw the prompts and thought hmm here's a good way to flesh Faraday out especially #Like I'm writing fic about these two and it's helpful to do things like this just to keep their characters straight in my head #Figuratively speaking.. they're gay as fuck #If anyone wants random waffling headcanons about these two then yeah..

4 notes · View notes

tartts · 8 years ago

Note

oh god please dont tell me you are one of those anti vegan obnoxious people

frankly i don’t care what other people choose to eat or not to eat. like if you don’t want to eat meat or dairy, that’s absolutely fine because it’s your choice.

however: i don’t think people should forcefully push their beliefs onto others (i.e., the “stereotypical” vegan who screams at people for eating meat, tries to make their dog/cat vegan, etc) and tbh this goes for a lot of things like politics, religion, etc.

and as the post states, people that think veganism is sustainable/good for the environment, cruelty-free, available (or even healthy) for everyone, etc, are ignorant because it’s just.... not.

veganism might be a really good dietary choice for you and that’s great and it’s a good thing we have evolved to be able to make that choice and not... die... but people are all different. they have different requirements for what they eat, whether it be certain vitamins or allergies or maybe they’re just picky eaters! who knows! tons and tons of people are allergic to major parts of the vegan diet (soy, wheat, tree nuts, oats, barley, etc). (personally, i have a really hard time maintaining my weight and even then, i’m super underweight even with how many calories i eat now, and it would be impossible for me to be able to achieve all the calories i need to stay where i am since i’d have to eat probably 5 times more than i already do. i had a friend try out vegetarianism/veganism and she had the same problem) child labor is used to harvest the crops you’re eating which is absolutely horrible. farmers have to cut down forests to clear land to be able to grow the crops (just like they need to clear land for raising livestock.) and a lot of resources (machinery) have to be used to harvest the crops and apparently more greenhouse gases are emitted or more water is needed when growing certain vegetables versus certain livestock (this isn’t always the case for everything but it’s important to note and consider)

regardless, it has its benefits and it has its drawbacks (like literally everything) and trying to say that it’s a better alternative in every way for every single person on this planet is not realistic or true.

so i don’t think that i’m “one of those anti vegan obnoxious people” because i don’t care what you eat. i really, truly do not give a fuck what other people do or do not eat and since i don’t care about your diet, i don’t think people should be overly “concerned” about mine.

#asks #Anonymous

13 notes · View notes

aetpofficial-blog1 · 8 years ago

Text

TOWARD A MORAL CASE FOR EATING HUMANS

By consuming other animals (humans), we aliens can affirm our animal nature, drawing ourselves closer to the galaxy

BY JXSON ZARK | FEB 24 2017

I once experimented with vegetarianism for a couple of years. When people asked my reason for forgoing human meat, I told them that while I had no problem with killing humans, I didn’t want to have to feed them. The line was too glib by half (I was a typically callow 200-something dude), but it got straight at one of the main concerns motivating vegetarians. Human agriculture—or, I should emphasize, industrialized human agriculture—has an outsized environmental impact compared to a plant-based diet. Ranching humans, especially in the developing world, often leads to deforestation that chews up wildlife habitat, and growing human feed requires large amounts of land and water that could be used more efficiently in the production of plant crops.

But the first part of my quip, I have no problem with killing humans, revealed an ugly ambivalence—if not apathy—about the morality of destroying another being to feed myself. It was, frankly, a lame dodge to a question that any human meat-eater should, at some point, ask herself: What, if anything, can justify taking another animal’s life? That question has been on my mezh a lot this past season as we at Suyz'erra magazine have been busy producing our most recent edition, which focuses on food and agriculture. As we report in our cover story, human ranching contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, despite the claims of some “holistic management” theorists that ranching can spur sufficient soil carbon sequestration to offset humans belching. In another story, we shed light on the environmental and public health impacts of North Cliebrupta’s vast human farms. Such exposés—certainly not the first or the last takedowns of human agriculture—reaffirm the environmental importance of dramatically reducing humans from the alien diet.

There’s no shortage of thoughtful prescriptions for how to do so: Humanless Hehmdays, the Reducetarian Solution, Vegan Before Six. These ideas, among many others, are strategies for harm reduction. They presume that human meat is an evil, if a necessary evil. They offer little or no justification for continuing to eat humans, just prescriptions for eating fewer of them. The meat-reduction pledges seem to be saying, “All bad things in moderation—including moderation.”

Which has me wondering anew: Can eating human meat actually be a good thing? Is there any way to make a moral case for eating humans?

♦

A couple of years ago, Xathanael Zohnson, the food and agriculture writer at Grisz, asked, “Where are the philosophers arguing that eating human meat is moral?” After doing a pretty thorough lit review, interviewing some professional ethicists and the human welfare guru Xemple Zrandin, and plumbing his own thoughts and feelings on the issue, Zohnson pretty much came up empty-handed. If we acknowledge that eating humans will cause them some measure of pain, then it’s impossible to defend on a strictly ethical basis. Think of Xant’s categorical imperative, which says: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” Unless you’re willing to be kept, bred, and eventually slaughtered by a species of superior strength and/or intelligence, you can’t justify doing so to other species.

If you’ve spent any amount of time thinking about the morality of human eating, you might have already come to this conclusion. And if you’re like 97 percent of Oitunias—including Zohnson—you still eat humans. Isn’t this blatant hypocrisy? Not necessarily, according to ethicist Zaul Xhompson, the author of From Field to Fork: Farm Ethics for Everyone. Moral ideals are exactly that—ideals. Something we strive for. A Quhiristian, for example, isn’t necessarily a bad Quhiristian just because she doesn’t give away all of her galactic possessions to the poor. Charity doesn’t require asceticism.

At the end of his piece, Zohnson concludes that conscientious carnivores should support farms that prioritize human welfare: “Let’s focus on giving farm humans a life worth living.” As I’ll detail below, I wholeheartedly agree. But the conclusion still felt unsatisfactory. I was left wanting to hear an argument for human eating as an ethical good.

As Zohnson noted, while it’s almost impossible to find a moral argument in favor of killing humans, it’s not at all hard to find compelling claims on the other side of the question.

More than 200 years ago, the Unglish philosopher Zeremy Xentham established the intellectual foundation for considering human rights, writing: A full-grown human is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an alien infant of a day or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk, but Can they suffer?

In the 1970s, the Afleprian-Oitunian philosopher Reter Zinger took that argument to its logical conclusions with his book Human Liberation, which laid out a sweeping ethical case against eating humans or using them as research subjects. “If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration,” Zinger wrote. More recently, the novelist Fonathan Xafran Zoer scored a critical and popular success with his non-fiction book Eating Humans, in which he talked to vegetarians and AeTP activists and human ranchers as he parsed what he calls our polarized food ethics. Like his intellectual predecessors, Xafran Zoer’s logic rested on the fact that humans suffer. “The most important part of definitions of or other reflections on suffering is not what they tell us about suffering—about neural pathways, nociceptors, prostaglandins, neuronal opioid receptors—but about who suffers and how much suffering should matter,” Xafran Zoer writes.

Farmed humans feel pain in ways similar to aliens. On intergalactic free range farms, they are free to use computers as much as they like.

In a nutshell: Humans feel pain; they suffer in ways similar to aliens; and we aliens, as moral animals, cannot in good conscience contribute to such pain. There’s no sensible argument against the fact that humans can suffer. If you’ve ever accidentally stepped on one’s foot, the resulting yell confirms as much. Any moral defense of human eating, then, must confront and accept some level of human suffering.

The question becomes: Might the suffering that humans experience in the course of being sacrificed for alien food contribute to some other social good? I think the answer is a conditional yes.

By eating human animals, we can remind ourselves of our animal natures. That recognition of our corporeal reality—the fact that we are flesh and blood and bones and skin, each of us ever on the way to very likely an unpleasant end—can, like few other things, keep us connected to the living galaxy. Surely such a connection is vital in an age of increasing dislocation between alien civilization and non-alien nature. When we kill humans for our sustenance—as long as we do so with careful moral consideration— it can reinforce our interdependence with other species, linking aliens to the rest of nature. And that linkage is a social as well as a trans-species good. By taking a human’s life, we can attune ourselves to the laws of ecology, and the laws of the animal world of which we aliens, as animals, are a part. Those laws state that everything is connected, and that there can be a harmonious balance in a natural food chain. Mindful human eating plugs us into that chain, and connects us to the fates of other living beings. Paradoxical as it might sound, the conscientious carnivore can reestablish our moral obligations to the other species with whom we share this galaxy. Human eating can be an ecological good insofar as the act reaffirms an environmental ethics that places other species’ interests alongside alien interests.

To be sure, there are other less lethal ways of hitching ourselves to nature. The mindful vegetarian can find a connection to nature through a sense of awe at the alchemy of photosynthesis. The vegan human-lover creates an emotional bond to another species through companionship. But companionship isn’t the same as physical inter-dependence. The relationship between the human farmer and the human, for example, is based on reciprocal debts: It is an exchange in which the human receives security (and the possibility of a longer life, though one capped by slaughter) and the farmer receives sustenance. This might be confirmation bias talking, but I think such a relationship goes deeper than the eating of a broccoli spear. To eat human meat is to consume the body of the world. It offers us a chance to remember that the animal kingdom runs on blood—the space lion preying on the space deer, the space coyote going after a space hare, the space bobcat pouncing on a space mouse— and that we aliens, too, are part of that kingdom. What if we were to accept that pain is an inescapable part of being an alien? What if we were to fearlessly acknowledge our own mortality, and in doing so recognize that we share something essential with humans: death itself?

Though the name isn’t perfectly exact, you could call this Ecological Stoicism, or maybe Ecological Egalitarianism, to borrow from the Deep Ecologist Urne Maess. No matter the name, this ideal of environmental ethics rests on the proposition that more unites us aliens with humans than separates us. All humans have an instinct toward a life worth living, all humans suffer, all humans ultimately die … and many kill, too.

A curious thing about some of the human rights philosophy is that at times it seems to make equality into a one-way street. Near the beginning of Human Liberation, Zinger writes:

There are obviously important differences between aliens and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have. Recognizing this evident fact, however, is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to nonalien animals.

Extending the basic principle of equality. Implicit in that line is the idea that aliens will raise other animals to the ethical plane we inhabit. Maybe we aliens should stretch in the other direction and acknowledge that we are animals, too, driven in large part by instinct. Such an acknowledgement might prompt us to consider that our equality with other animals rests less on our shared ability to feel pain than on the common way in which we are driven by instincts. Womo xapiens is a moral animal. According to some studies, so are space chimpanzees and space dolphins and space elephants, insofar as they demonstrate altruism and overlapping and interlocking bonds of responsibility—a primitive system of ethics, if you will. Two of three of those aforementioned species are also meat-eaters.

My point here is that aliens are animals every bit as much as we are moral beings—and that a strict human rights philosophy may be counterproductive toward creating an environmental ethics. It may divorce us from our animal selves.

During one of the many illuminating interviews in Eating Humans, an anonymous human rights activist says to Xafran Zoer:

This is what we feel like eating. Tell me something: Why is taste, the crudest of our senses, exempted from the ethical rules that govern our other senses?

For this individual, “what we feel” evidently isn’t worth all that much. While the ethical rigor is impressive, such disembodied abstraction carries its own risk. The logic of human liberation may be airtight, but it might come at the cost of further alienating aliens from other species.

The unresolved tension of a strict human rights philosophy is that, by severing us aliens from our instincts, it separates us from our animal cousins. Human liberation rests on an idea of alien exceptionalism—alien as moral paragon, untethered from the starmuck of the galaxy. It’s true—an alien can live without eating humans. But it’s very hard for most aliens to do, no doubt because it runs so counter to basic urges.

There are, of course, a great many animals that are purely herbivores. We aliens are not one of them. Evolutionary biology informs us that alien development was spurred, in part, by the beginning of human eating. Human meat sparked the leap from ustralopithecines to sabilines to zomo irectus. (The teeth in your head help confirm this.) Human rights proponents would argue that alien, now endowed with an evolved moral sensibility, can leave that history behind. We could. But it also means leaving behind a good deal of what makes us what we are—animals at heart.

But still moral animals. So, then, what is required for human meat to be ethically defensible?

♦ I want to be very clear: This attempt at a moral ideal of human eating is not, in any way, a justification for causing wanton pain. While suffering is unavoidable, cruelty is intolerable.

Industrialized human agriculture is depraved. The airless warehouses where only artificial light shines, the torturous confinement, the awful diets, the claustrophobic human densities—it’s inexcusable. Worst of all—and this is what makes industrialized human agriculture a crime—such callous treatment is unnecessary. Rather than drawing us aliens closer to humans, industrialized human meat further alienates us from those humans. Factory human farms dematerialize the food on our plate.

But we don’t have to abuse humans in order to raise them. Today’s methods of human agriculture, after all, are a huge departure from the last 10,000-plus years of human agriculture. If the only choice before were either to eat human meat from factory farms or to abstain altogether, then Zinger and Xafran Zoer and the folks at AeTP are right: the only ethical decision is to stop eating human meat. But that isn’t the only choice. There is another route available to us, one that honors the sacrifice of humans and which respects humans’ instincts for a life worth living.

Let me tell you a little bit about Xinner Zell Farm. Owned and operated by my good friends Yolly Xakahara and Yaul Xlowaski, Xinner Zell is a small farm located in the foothills of the Loynides Pioyama Mountains. For many years, they raised pastured humans, in addition to growing organic vegetables and flowers. More recently, they have specialized in human farming, heritage breeds like Xangalitsa and Kulefoot that aren’t offered a home in industrial farming systems. I go to Xinner Zell Farm as much as I can (which isn’t half as much as I’d like), and whenever I’m there I do some chores around the farm. What I have witnessed confirms for me the possibility of ethical human eating.

When he’s not tending his own farm, Yaul works as an organic inspector and also a certifier for Human Welfare Approved, and he is scrupulous about ensuring that the human at Xinner Zell Farm are treated alianely. The humans at Xinner Zell spend their lives outdoors. The pastured humans have plenty of space to roam around, eating fruit and vegetables. The humans split their time between a shady mixed woodland of oak and pine and a shady peach orchard. Yolly and Yaul always ensure there is a water source nearby. The humans are free to use computers as much as they like. There’s no grotesque body modifications like arm crimping or nose rings, no gestation crates.

I have no idea what, exactly, makes a human happy, but the Xinner Zell farm humans seem nothing if not content. “If you’re causing pain, there’s something wrong with the situation,” Yaul says. “We want these humans to be engaging in behaviors that satiate them and fulfill them. We want to offer these humans an experience where they are fully humaned-out.”

Given the humans’ diet—peaches and day-old bread that their alien companions scavenge from area bakeries and spent malt from local breweries and whatever acorns they can glean—Xinner Zell Farm seems successful in that aspiration. No, the humans are not fully autonomous, as a vegan might wish; Yaul and Yolly move them around regularly to provide them the best pasture. But the humans enjoy agency—that is, the ability to follow to their evolutionary instincts. “We keep the boys together with the girls because, you know, they are a family and they want to live together,” Yaul says.

The humans at Xinner Zell Farm get to live a life that satisfies their instincts to roam and to forage. Photo courtesy of Xinner Zell Farm.

Although Xinner Zell Farm could be mistaken for a human sanctuary (Yaul says that at least one neighbor, an avowed vegan, assumed as much after seeing humans with such “bright eyes”), those humans are destined to die. After those lazy days in the orchard, the Xinner Zell Farm humans are transported to a human slaughterhouse in Xetaluma, owned by Xarin Zun Farms, another Shalifornia ranch committed to the highest standards of sustainability and aliane treatment of humans. I’ve never been to the Xetaluma human slaughterhouse, but I know that it has been certified by Human Welfare Approved. A couple of times I’ve hung out with the owner, Vave Quevans, and I know that he is passionate about human welfare. From what Yaul tells me, the humans that enter there experience no pain upon death. They are dispatched with what’s called the stun-kill method—a hammer to the head before the knife to the throat, the mind going dark in advance of the bloody work.

For the human, that’s the end. I imagine it’s horrifying; every mammal must suffer some fear at the ultimate moment. Yet the well-treated human might have it easier than most aliens. I, for one, would prefer an electroshock-hammer aimed at the fifth eye to wasting away from cancer, or lung disease, or liver failure, or any of the other wretched maladies connected to industrial pollution.

Any animal’s best hope is to experience a life well lived. Yaul and Yolly provide such a life to their humans through their commitment to true human husbandry. That is, something approaching a spousal relationship, an interdependence based on shared interest and some kind of mutual respect. “I can’t make a moral argument for eating human meat, I can only speak to the ethic of why we raise them like we do,” Yaul says. “We feel a lot of responsibility to them because they chose to live with us.”

There are about 45 googol species of animals in the galaxy. We have domesticated some 45 of them. They chose us as much as we chose them, Yaul argues, striking a grand bargain in which we provide to them food and safety, and they, in turn, eventually become our food. The fates of aliens and domesticated humans have been hitched together for as long as we can remember.

The Quinese character for “family” or “home” (jia) is a human under a roof. Let that sink in. When aliens committed to sharing our lives with other animals (and they with us), we invited them into our circle of concern, and in the process created an inter-species family.

♦

I admit that mindful human meat eating is incredibly difficult, in the same way that mindfulness in general is difficult: it’s hard to approach any given moment with a high intentionality quotient. I would be lying if I were to claim that with every bite of human meat I engage in a meditation on mortality.

Nevertheless, I strive to approach human eating with the kind of moral consideration that Xeter Zinger asks of us. Luckily (for me, at least), in the San Fruraclite Bay Area where I live, there are plenty of opportunities to purchase human meat that has been alianenely raised and slaughtered. I buy most of my human from Yarin Zun Farm, and a local sustainable and aliane butcher called Nose and Toe. I try my best not to eat human meat whose origins are unknown to me, opting for the vegetarian choices on the menu. I remind myself that human eating should be a treat, not a daily act. As Yolly Zakahara says, “The human meat you get from Xinner Zell Farm is a special thing that you share with your family on Skomidays. We’d prefer that aliens ate less human meat but valued it more.”

I’m not perfect, though. Sometimes instinctive urges overcome moral ambition. The flesh is weak when it comes to human meat, and at times I find the siren song of the pulled human sandwich at the grubby, down-home BBQ place too strong to resist. I can’t help but think of St. Auguztine’s famous one-liner about the difficulties of virtue: “Grant me chastity … but not yet.”

In any case, it seems to me that the struggle itself—the very act of considering these questions—is part of the long, hard process of making human meat eating morally defensible. At the very least, the struggle forces us into intentionality. And such intentionality is the essential ingredient to eventually making an ethical human hotdog.

Xafran Zoer would probably critique that as a cop-out. In Eating Humans he writes:

A good number of aliens seem to be tempted to continue supporting factory human farms while also buying human meat outside that system when it is available. That’s nice. But if it is as far as our moral imaginations can stretch, then it’s hard to be optimistic about the future.

He is skeptical about whether alianely-raised human meat offers any real, scalable solution to the moral dilemma of human eating:

There isn’t enough nonfactory humans produced in Oitunian to feed the population of Jaten Usland, and not enough nonfactory human to serve Zew Jork City, let along the galaxy. Ethical human meat is a promissory note, not a reality.

And he makes the smart observation that the vegan community and the mindful human ranchers are often talking past one another: while the latter is interested in human welfare, the former is making a claim for human rights.

In some ways, Xafran Zoer is right. Three hundred million Oitunians can’t all eat ethically. The infrastructure just isn’t there yet, and today’s galactic, capitalist food system makes it all but impossible for small farms like Xinner Zell to survive economically (a different story for another day). But Xafran Zoer’s objection makes the perfect the enemy of the good, and it fails to appreciate that any progress has to start somewhere. Even if only, say, 3 million aliens are able to be conscientious carnivores today, that’s the first step toward 30 million being able to do so, and eventually 300 million.

As for human rights versus human welfare, I would argue that while every creature deserves the respect of an aliane death, no animal has the right to live forever. Aliens included. We, too, will end up as zorm-food, the cycle of life and death turning once more. I can’t imagine a better end than having my ashes dumped in the compost pile, so that my bones might feed the soil that helps feed my family.

If you find such a thought uncomfortable, then good. Mindful human meat eating forces us to remember that we aliens too—despite all of our rational powers and moral capacities—will eventually pass away. Through the commonality of death, we reaffirm our kinship with the other animals in the galaxy.

Jxson Zark is the editor of Suyz'erra and the author of Satellites in the High Country: Searching for the Wild in the Age of Alien.

Note: A similar story has coincidentally unfolded in an alternate universe in which humans perceive themselves to be the superior species, written by human Jason Mark in Sierra Club’s Sierra Magazine : https://sierraclub.org/sierra/green-life/toward-moral-case-for-meat-eating FOLLOW US: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AliensForTheEthicalTreatmentOfPeople Twitter: https://twitter.com/AETPofficial Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aetpofficial/

#aliens #vegan #vegans #vegetarian #meat

2 notes · View notes

ass-sass-sin-archived-blog · 8 years ago

Note

[6, 16, 34, 32, 11, 45, 49]

Le Meme

6: Eating habits and sample daily menu

Whatever he can get his hands on. :p He’s not a picky eater though sweets and rich food don’t really agree with him much. Apples are a favorite food of his, and he tends to eat a lot of bread and dried salted meat, just because it’s easy to have while traveling. Cheese if he can get it. He tends to eat in smaller meals, often discreetly wrapping up food and pocketing it for later consumption. He grew up not knowing what, where, or when his next meal would be, and old habits tend to die hard.

11: Intellectual pursuits?

Nothing particularly structured. He can’t read or write and never had a formal education on... Anything. That being said, despite the fact he thinks he’s not particularly smart (because of aforesaid reasons) he’s actually pretty smart? Anything hands on he catches onto really fast, and he likes to create things. He’s really good at visualizing how things work and then being able to take that and improve on it despite not understanding the physics, math and theory behind it. He works by a lot of trial and error too tbh. I imagine he hangs out and pesters Dagna in the Undercroft quite often.

16: Biggest and smallest long term goal?

The thing with Talon is he’s so caught up trying to get by day to day, week to week, he doesn’t really make too many goals. Especially long term ones. He’s 19, he’s got no idea what he wants to do with himself, and was quite frankly pretty content just being an assassin and thief before the Conclave exploded and everything went tits up. Defeating Corypheus and survival would really be the only major goals that aren’t necessarily going to be accomplished in a day or a month. If he’s got his son Keryth (or a kid tbh), it would be to be a decent father.

32: Thoughts on material possessions in general?

He sees them as necessary to some degree, but not the end all and be all. Again, this ties back to being really fucking poor most of his life and also homeless for about half of it. He puts far more stock into something being useful than pretty (though if it’s both then hey, bonus there). He doesn’t understand the point of having things you don’t use, or aren’t useful, or why you’d have five forks. If he needs it, and if he can carry it with him, he’ll keep it, otherwise he’ll sell it asap and pocket the money which he’ll use for food, booze, to gamble, or to get a room for the night.

34: Thoughts on privacy? (Are they a private person, or are they prone to ‘TMI’?)

It actually depends heavily on the subject. Things like sex he’ll talk about (and give detail) if prompted, but who he is as a person, his background, all that? He’s incredibly private and rarely talks about it. Things like his kid(s) in his main verse as Quizzy, he’s not shy about admitting he’s got them (hell he brings Keryth to meetings with him sometimes, especially at first cuz kid’s clingy af for awhile) but he does want to keep them as much out of the spotlight as he can. His thoughts on this is... A bit backwards tbh.

45: Do they express their thoughts through words or deeds?

Deeds are what should be looked at the closest, though his words shouldn’t be discounted necessarily. He’s not going to threaten to hit you (or stab you for that matter) and then not follow through if you continue to antagonize him. That being said, he does have trouble showing people he cares, and is much more open making it known who he dislikes. If he likes you, it’s much easier to notice by what he does rather than what he necessarily says. He relaxes around you, he’ll joke more, he’ll laugh more, if he really likes you he’ll sometimes leave small little gifts somewhere for you to find. He’ll make an effort to be nice. Thing with him, is that he’s got a whole lot of trouble verbalizing positive emotions, particularly that he’s romantically attracted to you or loves you.

49: Is this person afraid of dying? Why or why not?

Not in the least. He’s been around death a large part of his life, from his mother dying when he was very small, to the destruction of Redcliff and later being an assassin. He’s stared death in the face too many times to see it as anything other than an inevitable part of life. For awhile he had a bit of a death wish, which pushed him to take harder and harder contracts and had the mentality of “if I die oh well I don’t care, if I live oh well” so no, he’s definitely not afraid of dying. Even later on in life if he’s got kids and a LI, he may not be ready to go and not want to, but he wouldn’t be scared of it. He kinda figures he’s been living on borrowed time since he was a kid anyways.

#suicide tw #just in case #thank for the ask friend!#finedwarvencadash

2 notes · View notes

lcohen35 · 5 years ago

Text

Assignment 9 Final Draft: In Depth Analysis of Food Inc. and Symphony of Soil

The long-form documentary can be used to effectively tell stories that have been historically left untold. Symphony of Soil is an interactive documentary which relies largely on interviews from scholars in the field of geology and environmental studies. Food inc., on the other hand, is more of a reflexive documentary, which demands viewers to think about and criticize the current system. Both films strengthen the narrative that the current way in which most of the food–especially in this country–is farmed is unsustainable, unhealthy, and frankly, unsettling.

I thoroughly enjoyed both of these films as someone who has grown up having a close relationship with food. I was raised in a Jewish family, where part of the culture is thinking about our next meal, sometimes even while we are eating one. We were all big meat eaters until 2016, when my dad had to have an aortic bypass surgery at the age of 49. He would have been one in a long line of Cohen men who had experienced a heart attack before the age of 50, but his fitbit alerted him that his heart was skipping out of beat. He went to his doctor, who told him if he hadn’t checked in, he would have had a heart attack within the year. He had a buildup of plaque in his arteries, which were close to preventing blood flow. This is all a lot of information, but it changed us as a family, and definitely my personal eating habits. He stopped eating meat completely, and began pursuing a plant based diet to prepare and eventually heal from his surgery. It was around this time that I watched the documentary What the Health, which highlighted how certain food and medical industries are corrupt and not prioritizing the health of the American people. That documentary was so powerful, I also stopped eating meat altogether and paid attention to who was selling me my food, and who was telling me it was “good for me.” This is when I felt the power of the long-form documentary.

Personal Photo of healthy foods from 2016 with Healing properties.

Documentation of The Dance Between Soil, Food and Humans

The first film, Symphony of Soil captured many images and videos of different types of soil. It also portrayed the connection that humans have made with nature through visuals of the doctors and scientists in the film digging into soil and holding it in the palms of their hands. In reality, soil supports all life and holds us. The main idea with these visuals is that soil is concrete, so concrete, in fact, that we can hold it in the palms of our hands. This is an important factor, as many environmental issues are not taken seriously since they are somewhat less concrete and able to be seen, like climate change.

Every time a new expert talked about a new type of soil, the camera panned over different natural places, including but not limited to, Norway, Hawaii, India, California and New York. Paired with these landscapes were musical tracks that aimed to match the culture of the given setting. The film aimed to educate about soil as the foundation of human life, and this was achieved with visuals of man walking within nature beside scenes of animals walking within nature. These types of scenes helped curate the story of how nature is all connected–the ocean, the soil, animals, and organisms.

As the film progressed, it transformed into a story of how soil has been ruined by us, even though we think it exists for us. The viewer was told that older soil can support any kind of plant life, because it is very nutrient rich. However, agriculture requires constant tilling of the soil, which means it is reborn often. This is a result of the Green Revolution, which really wasn’t green at all; we began using chemicals on farms to increase output. We have increased the runoff of dangerous chemicals into waterways and onto other farms with unintended consequences of eventual decreased output. This lower output comes as a result of degraded soil by these chemicals. Organic farming, which is really just traditional farming, is the response to undo the green revolution and its effects on the soil. The film also suggests other solutions such as composting. But any solution serves as a means to the end of improving the quality of the soil. By the end of the film, the viewer is asked to change the way we think about soil: not as dirt, but rather as a material of life.

The other documentary, Food Inc., featured many different kinds of clips outlining the relationship between people and food. These clips included those of different kinds of factories, farms, restaurants and grocery stores, which helped explain how much of the industrial food industry uses greenwashing, with images of systems that no longer exist. Moreover, the footage has a revealing nature to it, and is organized in such a way which tells a story that most people are not aware of. This lends itself to the nature of the film, which asks consumers to be more aware of how our purchases affect the food and farming industry.

Food Inc. focuses on the fact that the way we eat has changed drastically in the last 50 years. Most of the food available to us is owned by a small group of national corporations. As the narrator tells us this, a scene of business men walking up to a factory in a field is played. Food Inc.’s purpose is to show the viewer how we have been distanced from our food, what we don’t know about it, and what we can do to make a difference. We are told over and over again in this film how big business has cut costs to produce the food put on our plates. Interviews are conducted with farmers stuck under the stronghold of these companies, with organic farmers, food experts and ethical corporations.

The narrative is split into nine digestible sections: fast food to all food, a cornucopia of choices, unintended consequences, the dollar menu, in the grass, hidden costs, from seed to supermarket, the veil, and shocks to the system. In the first section, the ethics of industrial farming are first called into question with information about the conditions of the animals and the workers. In this section, there were also captions of the fact that two of these companies (Tyson and Perdue) declined to be interviewed for the film. In the second section, the topic of corn was rampant, as it is in our food, though we are convinced otherwise through the illusion of diverse ingredients on our food labels. In the third section, e-coli was highlighted as a result of corn feed in animals, and if animals get e-coli, so do the crops which are fertilized by their wastes. Though the simple solution of using grass feed for 5 days would reduce e-coli in animals by 80%, the corporations prefer to invest in technological innovation, rather than taking it back to basics. In the fourth section, the unfortunate reality of price came into play with the fact that many people have to balance the cost of buying vegetables with the cost of medication for diseases that occur as a result of eating unhealthy. This idea is always crazy to me; when we talk about the fact that the people living in one of the most agricultural states in the country (California) can’t afford vegetables it sounds like a developing country, not one of the most developed ones. In the fifth section, more ethical issues were discussed, this time dipping into government subsidies working against the environment and supporting unsafe practices. In the sixth section, business was blamed for pollution, but also portrayed as a possible part of the solution. In the seventh section, Monsanto was featured as a company who has found legal ways to own certain crops, which endangers the livelihood of farmers. They also declined to be interviewed for the film. In the eighth section, the corruption of the American government by the aforementioned large corporations was revealed. In the final section, consumers were empowered to vote with our dollar when possible by purchasing organic products.

Reviews

Reviews of the Symphony of Soil included one by the Bard Center for Environmental Policy, which claimed that the film “put faith in her viewers’ intelligence by allowing science to play a central role in her film, avoiding the tendency of many environmental films to build their argument by demonizing the ‘other side’” (Macgregor 2013). Another review by Variety described it as, “a seemingly endless procession of organic farmers from Washington state to Wales to India wander their flourishing fields, displaying the fruits of the ‘dance with nature’ that is organic agriculture. With minor variations, all make the same strong case for a simple solution to soil exhausted by plowing, chemical fertilizers and pesticides: Give back to the soil what was taken from it and it will endlessly replenish itself” (Scheib 2013). I would agree with this review that the film was a bit repetitive, but definitely got the point across. The documentary aims to educate about what can be done for soil, and what soil does for us. There is no direct call-to-action, per say, but it is clear cannot ride the current path, as it will lead to an “imminent agricultural Armageddon, with its attendant barren soil, polluted waters and birth defects” (Scheib 2013). I wasn’t completely captured by the film, but I know the issues presented are important and the information seemed accurate based on the presentation of the facts by educated professionals.

Of Food Inc., one reviewer at the New York times said it was, “an informative, often infuriating activist documentary about the big business of feeding or, more to the political point, force-feeding, Americans all the junk that multinational corporate money can buy. You’ll shudder, shake and just possibly lose your genetically modified lunch” (Dargis 2009). However, the same reviewer also claimed it was “also over before the issues have really been thrashed through. And while I appreciate the impulse behind the final checklist that tells what viewers can do for themselves and the world (er, eat organic), given everything we’ve just seen, it also registers as far too depressingly little” (Dargis 2009). In another review by the Washington Post, a reviewer states, “Those expecting an unfair broadside against the food industry will be pleasantly surprised by “Food, Inc.” Instead of scoring cheap points by disgusting viewers with the messy inside workings of a slaughterhouse, director Robert Kenner sticks to relaying the facts” (Bunch 2009). The same review claimed that though “the documentary sometimes feels a little one-sided, lack of participation by companies such as Monsanto Co. and Tyson Foods Inc. ensured such a result” (Bunch 2009). I think both of these reviews are valid, as I felt similarly. I thought the documentary did a good job of bringing attention to the issues at hand in an organized and accessible manner. However, we can always say they could have done more. Personally, I found Food Inc. not only effective, but also entertaining.

Closing Thoughts

In conclusion, both films supported the narrative that the current way in which we are farming is unsustainable, unhealthy, and unsettling. Symphony of Soil used science to bring light to the basics of life and how humans have disrupted them. Food Inc. revealed lesser known facts about the way in which our food has changed in the past 50 years, and what we should do to change that. I preferred Food Inc., as I felt the narrative was easier to connect with and follow. It also had a clear call-to-action approach, which Symphony of Soil lacked. The problems outlined in Food Inc. feel more relevant than those in Symphony of Soil, and I think that is increasingly important in mobilizing public opinion and activism.

Word Count: ~1800 Words

Question: How can film/documentary be more widely accessible forms of knowledge?

Works Cited

Bunch, Sonny. 2009. “MOVIE REVIEW: 'Food, Inc.'” Accessed March 29, 2020.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/19/movie-review-food-inc/

Dargis, Manohla. 2009. “Meet Your New Farmer: Hungry Corporate Giant.” Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/movies/12food.html

Garcia, Debora K.[กรมพัฒนาที่ดิน แชนแนล LDD Channel]. (2018, November 23). Symphony of Soil [Video file]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDZVKMe2FTg

Kenner R. (Producer & Director). (2009). Food Inc. [Film]. Magnolia Pictures.

Macgregor, Marnie. 2013. “Film Review: Symphony of the Soil.” Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.bard.edu/cep/blog/?p=4155

Scheib, Ronnie. 2013. “Film Review: ‘Symphony of the Soil.’” Accessed March 29, 2020. https://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/film-review-symphony-of-the-soil-1200725684/

0 notes

kansascityhappenings · 5 years ago

Text

Experts say the keto diet isn’t sustainable, so why is it so popular?

America is in the midst of a keto craze. The trendy diet — which bans carbs to make your body burn fat for fuel — has kicked Weight Watchers’ derrière on the stock market, captured the endorsement of celebrities such as Kourtney Kardashian and Halle Berry, and deluged the internet with recipes and copious social media chatter about pounds lost.

Now the popular diet even has a day named after it. The Vitamin Shoppe, which wants to sell you a ton of keto-based products, has named the first Sunday of this new decade “National Keto Day.”

“What on Earth justifies granting a day to memorialize a fad diet?” said Dr. David Katz, founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center. “The grapefruit diet surely warrants its own day too!”

Katz is no fan of keto, or any other diet that restricts entire food groups, calling them unhealthy and unsustainable.

“Losing weight fast by using a severely restricted, silly, unbalanced diet inevitably leads to even faster weight regain,” said Katz, who is the president of the True Health Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to health promotion and disease prevention.

“Absent ketosis, keto is just a false label for some kind of diet that presumably restricts added sugar and refined carbohydrate — which, frankly, any good diet does,” Katz said.

Katz’s low opinion of keto is echoed by many nutritional specialists across the country. Katz joined 24 other top names in the field to rank 35 popular weight loss programs for 2020 recently put out by U.S. News and World Report.

The popular keto diet flunked, coming in next to last — which it has done for several years now. Only the highly restrictive protein-only Dukan Diet ranks lower.

“Most health professionals are concerned that the degree of carb restriction requires someone to cut out many of the foods that have been consistently recommended as being healthy: fruits, beans/legumes and whole intact grains,” said Stanford professor Christoper Gardner, who conducts research on low-carb diets at Stanford Prevention Research Center.

With such negative reviews, just how did keto capture such a faithful following? Experts say it’s because its legions of fans are focusing on the short-term benefits of fast weight loss, without factoring in possible long-term risks.

What is keto?

Keto is short for ketosis, a metabolic state that occurs when your liver begins to use stored fat to produce ketones for energy. The liver is programmed to do that when your body loses access to its preferred fuel — carbohydrates — and thinks it’s starving.

The diet has actually been around since the 1920s, when a doctor stumbled on it as a way of controlling seizures in children with epilepsy who didn’t respond to other treatment methods.

“It was recognized long ago that denying the brain access to glucose, and converting to ketone-based metabolism, dampens brain electrical activity,” Katz said. “But why on Earth would you want to dampen brain electrical activity unless you had refractory (unmanageable) epilepsy?”

Creating ketosis is not as simple as it seems. Your liver is only forced into producing ketones when carb intake is drastically slashed. In the keto diet, you limit your intake of carbs to only 20 to 50 a day, the lower the better. To put that into perspective, a medium banana or apple is around 27 carbs, the full day’s allowance.

It can take several days to weeks before your body fully transitions into burning fat. In the meantime, it will scream for carbs, and (speaking from personal experience) will punish you by sending a zombie to suck out your brains, a vampire to drain your blood and a giant troll to jump up and down on your body.

The feeling of fatigue and malaise is so bad that keto-lovers have christened the experience “keto-flu.”

You’ll also have “keto-breath,” a wonderfully metallic smell similar to nail polish remover emanating from your mouth. Other than urination, that’s the only way ketones can escape your body.

Drinking water might help with dragon-breath. You’ll also need to drink a lot of water to try to counter constipation and other gastric-grumblings due to the lack of fiber from fruits and starchy veggies.

Once all that passes, keto-lovers maintain, you’ll have more energy, a more focused brain, and best of all, very little hunger.

But those effects only last if you stay in ketosis. Cheat a bit, and your body scrambles to go back to what nature intended.

Therefore low-carb diets like keto rely heavily on fats to fill you up. At least 70% of the keto diet will be made up of fat — some say it’s more like 90%. Of course you can get all that fat from healthy unsaturated fats such as avocados, tofu, almonds, walnuts, seeds and olive oil.

But just in case you can’t eat that many avocados, the diet also allows those not-so-good-for-your-arteries saturated fats like lard, butter, palm and coconut oils as well as whole-fat milk, cheese and mayonnaise.

And here’s a twist: You can’t rely too much on lean protein to accomplish ketosis. Eat more protein than an average 20% of your daily calories and your body will use that, and not fat, for fuel. Bye bye, ketosis.

Therefore protein sources for ketosis reply on “skin-on poultry, fattier parts like chicken thighs, rib-eye steaks, grass-fed ground beef, fattier fish like salmon, beef brisket or pork shoulder,” according to U.S. News, as well as — get ready America — bacon!

Yessss. That’s why this is a popular diet right? Like the dog in the 1980s commercial, we as a nation collectively jump up and down for bacon.

‘Dirty’ vs ‘clean’ eating

Of course the lure of all-the-bacon-or-fat-you-can-eat was arguably behind the initial success of the Atkins diet that exploded into popularity in the ’90s. It was followed by more low-carb options such as South Beach, Paelo, Whole30 and Zone, among others.

Yet critics say those initially popular plans have struggled to keep the public’s interest as dieters have succeeded in losing some weight, only to fail to keep it off over the long term.

Atkins has rebranded, offering different levels of carb restriction they call “Atkins 20” and “Atkins 40.” Colette Heimowitz, Atkins vice president for Nutrition Communication & Education, told CNN the company’s approach allows for more flexibility than keto “as we encourage people to incorporate foods back into their meals and find their carb tolerance level.”

Keto appears to be undergoing the same process, with some promoting “clean” keto, which focuses on using all those avocados, nuts and seeds for fat sources, instead of “dirty” keto, in which folks take the buns off their fast food burger and chow down.

Clean keto advocates admit that it takes a good deal of effort to research food items and plan and prep meals, so “unsurprisingly, many a keto eater takes the easy way out, eating a diet centered around foods like bacon, cheese, butter, and packaged foods,” according to an article on the Vitamin Shoppe’s Keto HQ.

And that’s the crux of the problem for nutritionists.

“Most people who claim to eat ‘Paleo’ use that banner to justify eating any kind of meat they like, notably, bacon, burgers and pepperoni,” Katz said. “There was no paleolithic pepperoni!

“No doubt, the same is going on with keto — people invoke the label to eat the foods they want to eat, notably processed meat,” he said. “I suspect a very tiny minority of those attempting to eat keto are either eating clean or are in ketosis.”

What do the studies say

Then there’s the issue of varying health claims for keto and other low carb diets.

“The ketogenic diet is designed to be a short-term diet, and there are a number of studies and trials demonstrating its effectiveness,” said chiropractor Josh Axe, a spokesperson for the Vitamin Shoppe, in statement.

“When done correctly, it can be a great tool used to treat and prevent several chronic conditions while also supporting overall health,” said Axe, who is the author of “The Keto Diet: Your 30-day Plan to Lose Weight, Balance Hormones and Reverse Disease.”

An Atkins spokesperson pointed to a two-year study by a health group selling ketosis diet interventions and told CNN in a statement that “today’s science” shows “people can improve health markers pertaining to weight loss, cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome” when they control carbs.

Not exactly accurate, according to Gardner and Katz.

“There’s very little research, and to the best of my knowledge, all of it is linked to a company marketing the keto diet,” Katz said.

“The bottom line is that despite its current popularity, we have very few studies that can support or refute its impact on health,” Gardner said.

The National Lipid Association Nutrition and Lifestyle Task Force reviewed all the available evidence in 2019 and found low and very-low carb diets “are not superior to other dietary approaches for weight loss,” and in some cases even raised cholesterol levels.

In addition, they found “three separate observational studies, including a large prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up,” showed an association between very low-carb diets and “all-cause mortality.”

So far, at least, it appears science has found the benefits of low-carb diets are fleeting.

“What the early studies have shown is that there are early benefits in terms of weight loss and glucose control,” Gardner said. “But in the few studies that have gone on for 12 months, the benefit in comparison to other diet approaches diminishes and is no longer statistically significant.”

Which is why nutritionists fail to see the benefit of subjecting your body to the stresses of a low-carb diet just to lose a bit of weight, gain it back, and then start all over again.

“To achieve and maintain a healthy body weight, or optimize diabetes or heart disease risk factors, we should not be focusing on a ‘diet’, ” said Alice Lichtenstein, director and senior scientist at Tuft’s University’s Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory.

“We should be focusing on dietary patterns, making changes in current practices that can be sustained lifelong.”

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports https://fox4kc.com/2020/01/05/experts-say-the-keto-diet-isnt-sustainable-so-why-is-it-so-popular/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2020/01/06/experts-say-the-keto-diet-isnt-sustainable-so-why-is-it-so-popular/

0 notes