Hey, all! Here's the recipe for the crazy cake that I brought in with the cream cheese icing. Enjoy!
Chocolate Crazy Cake:
- 3 c. flour
- 2 c. sugar
- 6 tbsp. cocoa
- 1 tsp. salt
- 2 tsp. baking soda
- 2 tsp. vanilla
- 2 tsp. vinegar
- 10 tbsp. (2/3 c.) oil
- 2 c. cold water
Mix together and bake at 350 degrees for 45 min if using a 9"x13" pan, or 35 min if using a 8"x9" pan.
Paula Deen's Cream Cheese Frosting--Veganized!
- 1 lb. of vegan cream cheese, softened (Tofutti is my favorite)
- 2 sticks vegan margarine, softened (check the ingredients! Willow Run and Earth Balance are both vegan)
- 1 tsp. vanilla
- 4 c. confectioner's sugar
Mix cream cheese, margarine and vanilla until smooth. Add the sugar on a low speed intermittently. When everything is mixed, beat on a high speed until light and fluffy.
Enjoy, folks!
Monday, November 28, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The Epidemic of Anthropodenial
I am separate from all other living beings on earth. I am a rational being far superior to others. I can do anything I want to the lesser beings on the planet.
Sounds horribly selfish, no? But that's how most humans on this planet think. Humans are special. We're not animals. This mindset is called anthropodenial, and it runs rampant throughout most of the world. We were discussing this today in class. Some of us 'buy' anthropodenial, and some of us don't. This usually depends on the degree to which we're involved in an organized religion. The Christian Bible is a textbook (literally) example of anthropodenial: man shall have dominion over all creatures of the earth. Therefore, we have the right to do essentially whatever pleases us to animals and the earth. There are more contemporary interpretations of this idea (see Matthew Scully's book Dominion) that claim that this "dominion" really means responsibility. Since we were granted higher reasoning and morality abilities, we have the responsibility to care for and not abuse these 'lesser' beings. Of course, the former idea is more comforting; we don't have to do anything or be responsible for any decision we make concerning animals or the environment. They are ours to do with as we please.
Of course, you can see how this extreme anthropodenial has led to environmental problems. Do we not routinely torture and slaughter animals for non-essential food, and cut down millions of trees for non-essential paper products, and burn billions of gallons of oil for non-essential plastic products? We do every single one of these things to, well, make money, but also because we believe we have the right to, because we want to, and because we can. We see both animals and the environment as lesser beings unworthy of our care.
I can understand feeling superior to trees and grass (I do not feel this way, to be clear), but how can anyone separate themselves so severely from animals? Gene Baur, the founder of Farm Sanctuary, in his book Farm Sanctuary, questions this while observing people looking at one of those "Body Worlds" exhibits of the anatomies of dead human beings. He heard comments about how "That one looks like steak, Mom!"If you'd prefer a visual, here's a short video of a scan of a human body from above starting at the top of the head. I'm sure you'll see a lot of things you recognize from your plates.
Not only do we barely differ from animals in anatomy, but also in mental functioning. A pig can reason at the level of a three-year-old child. A dog can reason at the level of a two-year-old child. Newsflash: your bacon was probably smarter than your dog. How about that?
Factory farming is just one of the products of anthropodenial. By the time that humankind figures out that we're not so special, it may be too late. We may have finally done the irreversible damage that will lead to our downfall as a species. Try thinking of yourself as just a spare rib, just a shoulder for someone to enjoy, just a flank steak to be grilled. Because really, that's all you are. If you keep that in mind, your views, diet, and negative impact on the earth just may change.
Sounds horribly selfish, no? But that's how most humans on this planet think. Humans are special. We're not animals. This mindset is called anthropodenial, and it runs rampant throughout most of the world. We were discussing this today in class. Some of us 'buy' anthropodenial, and some of us don't. This usually depends on the degree to which we're involved in an organized religion. The Christian Bible is a textbook (literally) example of anthropodenial: man shall have dominion over all creatures of the earth. Therefore, we have the right to do essentially whatever pleases us to animals and the earth. There are more contemporary interpretations of this idea (see Matthew Scully's book Dominion) that claim that this "dominion" really means responsibility. Since we were granted higher reasoning and morality abilities, we have the responsibility to care for and not abuse these 'lesser' beings. Of course, the former idea is more comforting; we don't have to do anything or be responsible for any decision we make concerning animals or the environment. They are ours to do with as we please.
Of course, you can see how this extreme anthropodenial has led to environmental problems. Do we not routinely torture and slaughter animals for non-essential food, and cut down millions of trees for non-essential paper products, and burn billions of gallons of oil for non-essential plastic products? We do every single one of these things to, well, make money, but also because we believe we have the right to, because we want to, and because we can. We see both animals and the environment as lesser beings unworthy of our care.
I can understand feeling superior to trees and grass (I do not feel this way, to be clear), but how can anyone separate themselves so severely from animals? Gene Baur, the founder of Farm Sanctuary, in his book Farm Sanctuary, questions this while observing people looking at one of those "Body Worlds" exhibits of the anatomies of dead human beings. He heard comments about how "That one looks like steak, Mom!"If you'd prefer a visual, here's a short video of a scan of a human body from above starting at the top of the head. I'm sure you'll see a lot of things you recognize from your plates.
Not only do we barely differ from animals in anatomy, but also in mental functioning. A pig can reason at the level of a three-year-old child. A dog can reason at the level of a two-year-old child. Newsflash: your bacon was probably smarter than your dog. How about that?
Factory farming is just one of the products of anthropodenial. By the time that humankind figures out that we're not so special, it may be too late. We may have finally done the irreversible damage that will lead to our downfall as a species. Try thinking of yourself as just a spare rib, just a shoulder for someone to enjoy, just a flank steak to be grilled. Because really, that's all you are. If you keep that in mind, your views, diet, and negative impact on the earth just may change.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The Only Way Out
I've been hearing a lot of folks talking about the idea that if we just go back to small-scale, humane methods of farming animals, we will solve the problems associated with factory farming. Michael Pollan, Barbara Kingsolver, and many other animal welfare advocates support this ideology. Sounds quaint, but does it work?
Well, first, let's look at it from an animal welfare viewpoint, my personal favorite, of course. Is it humane to bring something to a premature death for the sake of one's taste buds? Pigs are killed at around the human equivalent of twelve years of age, before they are even teenage pigs who rock out to hard metal and hate their parents for a few years.
It's simply unfair, and there can be no standards for welfare in this system. As one PETA employee interviewed in Eating Animals puts it, that would be the equivalent of legalizing child labor and simply trusting that each employer would treat its child employees humanely and fairly. It just doesn't make very much sense. It's still needless killing.
I know that not everyone shares my viewpoint. But even if you can dismiss the inhumanity of raising animals for food in principle, small farming of animals on a large scale is logistically impossible. For example, (and, unfortunately, I can't recall the source of this information, so I apologize) based on the amount of chicken Americans consume, all of the chicken raised on small farms in the entire country at this moment would only be enough to sustain Staten Island. That's an incredible figure, but it's a fact. So please, explain to me how our country's small farmers would ever be able to sustain the appetites of an entire country, let alone a largely obese country. They could not.
As professor James McWilliams argues in this article, the only way we will ever truly end factory farming is to make meat socially unacceptable. And really, with the amount of problems that factory farming causes for humankind and the environment, it should be socially stigmatized. Think about the reasons for the US working to make smoking socially unacceptable--it is hazardous to the smoker's life and to the lives surrounding him or her. And meat is different, how? It contains carcinogens, it creates disease for everyone, whether someone eats it or not. I was struck with swine flu in 2009 (which has been essentially proven by geneticists to have come from a hog factory farm in North Carolina), but I've never had pork in my life. I don't think that's very fair. And I'm not just complaining because I was stuck on the couch for a week; this is a real problem. We're going to keep creating epidemics and pandemics like swine flu, mad cow disease, and avian flu if we don't change our behaviors. And, to make matters even worse, the antibiotics fed to animals make human antibiotics less effective. So, when everyone becomes horribly ill from these diseases we create through our farming practices, the only ones who will be able to be cured are people like me; those who abstain from antibiotic-infested animal products.
Arguably, eating meat is even worse than smoking cigarettes for your health, it's just that meat kills you more slowly than cigarettes. It is far worse for the environment and other people than smoking could ever be. So, will we start combatting factory farming by stigmatizing meat now, or will we wait until it's too late? How much longer should we have to be 'tolerant' of lifestyles that include meat? You can say that the diet is personal, that each person should just do whatever works for them. This is no longer an option. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If we are going to solve this environmental, human health, and animal rights crisis, stigmatization is truly the only way out.
Well, first, let's look at it from an animal welfare viewpoint, my personal favorite, of course. Is it humane to bring something to a premature death for the sake of one's taste buds? Pigs are killed at around the human equivalent of twelve years of age, before they are even teenage pigs who rock out to hard metal and hate their parents for a few years.
 |
| F the PoPo! |
I know that not everyone shares my viewpoint. But even if you can dismiss the inhumanity of raising animals for food in principle, small farming of animals on a large scale is logistically impossible. For example, (and, unfortunately, I can't recall the source of this information, so I apologize) based on the amount of chicken Americans consume, all of the chicken raised on small farms in the entire country at this moment would only be enough to sustain Staten Island. That's an incredible figure, but it's a fact. So please, explain to me how our country's small farmers would ever be able to sustain the appetites of an entire country, let alone a largely obese country. They could not.
As professor James McWilliams argues in this article, the only way we will ever truly end factory farming is to make meat socially unacceptable. And really, with the amount of problems that factory farming causes for humankind and the environment, it should be socially stigmatized. Think about the reasons for the US working to make smoking socially unacceptable--it is hazardous to the smoker's life and to the lives surrounding him or her. And meat is different, how? It contains carcinogens, it creates disease for everyone, whether someone eats it or not. I was struck with swine flu in 2009 (which has been essentially proven by geneticists to have come from a hog factory farm in North Carolina), but I've never had pork in my life. I don't think that's very fair. And I'm not just complaining because I was stuck on the couch for a week; this is a real problem. We're going to keep creating epidemics and pandemics like swine flu, mad cow disease, and avian flu if we don't change our behaviors. And, to make matters even worse, the antibiotics fed to animals make human antibiotics less effective. So, when everyone becomes horribly ill from these diseases we create through our farming practices, the only ones who will be able to be cured are people like me; those who abstain from antibiotic-infested animal products.
Arguably, eating meat is even worse than smoking cigarettes for your health, it's just that meat kills you more slowly than cigarettes. It is far worse for the environment and other people than smoking could ever be. So, will we start combatting factory farming by stigmatizing meat now, or will we wait until it's too late? How much longer should we have to be 'tolerant' of lifestyles that include meat? You can say that the diet is personal, that each person should just do whatever works for them. This is no longer an option. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If we are going to solve this environmental, human health, and animal rights crisis, stigmatization is truly the only way out.
Population, Food, and Sustainability
This post is in response to the two videos and article for this past Tuesday's class.
We have seven billion human beings on this planet. Seven billion. That is a ridiculous number--an unfathomable number. Some people (who I believe are truly sick) celebrate this fact as some sort of accomplishment of humankind. Really, it's not. I promise.
(More than) a few issues arise with this sort of population growth, the most significant, in my opinion, being the ability to sustainably produce food for this amount of people. This is especially a problem in the US--with obesity rates so high, there's no question, even without looking at the facts, that we consume more than any other country in the world. The average American consumes forty-three times more resources and food than the average African, according to Jason Clay's speech.
The two videos we watch offer different solutions for the same problem. In the "Tribal Natural Resources" video, the Native Americans living on the reservation claim that the key to sustainability is small farming and hunting--living off the land, essentially, as their ancestors did. In the other video, the speech by Jason Clay, Clay claims that sustainability in food production can be achieved through working with the largest production corporations. Since they have such a monopoly over the industry, farming practices in general will be far more sustainable even if we can only get the top one hundred corporations to agree to sustainable practices.
Both Clay and the Tribal Natural Resources group offer valid solutions. However, I believe that the Tribal Natural Resources group's solutions are idealistic and unrealistic. Now, don't get me wrong; I have an indescribable respect for that way of life, and I think it's a way of life that would work well for an individual reservation or community. However, I could never see it working on a global scale, especially with the way Americans consume food and resources. We would need to consume far less and reduce our population significantly if we would ever wish to remotely attain that life of small farming.
Another problem that arises is that there are too few small family farmers, and the amount of farmers is decreasing in general in the western world. We can't expect people, with the amount of educational and career opportunities that exist in the developed world, to stay at home and farm. There are people who both have careers and farm, but this is unrealistic for many working people. It is a noble idea, but it simply will not work on a large scale.
In order to truly make food production more sustainable, we need to work with what we have now, as Clay says. The corporations aren't going to disappear. Our desires for processed foods are not going to disappear. We have to work with the large food producers and consumers. However, I do think it is essential for humans to work as hard as we can to reduce further population growth and our consumption alike. One thing that we need to reduce is the amount of food that gets turned into non-food. For example, potatoes to potato chips, soybeans to tofu, okay; corn to high fructose corn syrup and soda, not okay. Another wasteful use of resources is, of course, animal food production. Putting in 26 pounds of food such as soybeans, corn and grain to obtain one pound of beef is just about the most unsustainable and inefficient practices in the world of modern food production.
Fortunately, this is where we have the power as consumers. Try to buy the simplest, most efficient form of food, locally if you can, and make your own meals and foods. We need food to live, and there is no way we can avoid contributing to the industry in some way, but if we are more selective with the food that we buy, perhaps we can change the industry for the better.
We have seven billion human beings on this planet. Seven billion. That is a ridiculous number--an unfathomable number. Some people (who I believe are truly sick) celebrate this fact as some sort of accomplishment of humankind. Really, it's not. I promise.
(More than) a few issues arise with this sort of population growth, the most significant, in my opinion, being the ability to sustainably produce food for this amount of people. This is especially a problem in the US--with obesity rates so high, there's no question, even without looking at the facts, that we consume more than any other country in the world. The average American consumes forty-three times more resources and food than the average African, according to Jason Clay's speech.
The two videos we watch offer different solutions for the same problem. In the "Tribal Natural Resources" video, the Native Americans living on the reservation claim that the key to sustainability is small farming and hunting--living off the land, essentially, as their ancestors did. In the other video, the speech by Jason Clay, Clay claims that sustainability in food production can be achieved through working with the largest production corporations. Since they have such a monopoly over the industry, farming practices in general will be far more sustainable even if we can only get the top one hundred corporations to agree to sustainable practices.
Both Clay and the Tribal Natural Resources group offer valid solutions. However, I believe that the Tribal Natural Resources group's solutions are idealistic and unrealistic. Now, don't get me wrong; I have an indescribable respect for that way of life, and I think it's a way of life that would work well for an individual reservation or community. However, I could never see it working on a global scale, especially with the way Americans consume food and resources. We would need to consume far less and reduce our population significantly if we would ever wish to remotely attain that life of small farming.
Another problem that arises is that there are too few small family farmers, and the amount of farmers is decreasing in general in the western world. We can't expect people, with the amount of educational and career opportunities that exist in the developed world, to stay at home and farm. There are people who both have careers and farm, but this is unrealistic for many working people. It is a noble idea, but it simply will not work on a large scale.
In order to truly make food production more sustainable, we need to work with what we have now, as Clay says. The corporations aren't going to disappear. Our desires for processed foods are not going to disappear. We have to work with the large food producers and consumers. However, I do think it is essential for humans to work as hard as we can to reduce further population growth and our consumption alike. One thing that we need to reduce is the amount of food that gets turned into non-food. For example, potatoes to potato chips, soybeans to tofu, okay; corn to high fructose corn syrup and soda, not okay. Another wasteful use of resources is, of course, animal food production. Putting in 26 pounds of food such as soybeans, corn and grain to obtain one pound of beef is just about the most unsustainable and inefficient practices in the world of modern food production.
Fortunately, this is where we have the power as consumers. Try to buy the simplest, most efficient form of food, locally if you can, and make your own meals and foods. We need food to live, and there is no way we can avoid contributing to the industry in some way, but if we are more selective with the food that we buy, perhaps we can change the industry for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)