The other day I went to Costco with my older boy -- during the Super Bowl, for stealth. It took a bit of persuading to get him there, so I told him about the ladies who stand around and hand out food samples.
Everything was going fine. A mozzarella ball, yum. A little square of pizza, delish. Even the chicken taquito was tolerable. Then I made the mistake.
A hunched lady with a bright red cart was handing out small pieces of chicken breast in teriyaki sauce. Or rather, "chicken" "breast" in "teriyaki" "sauce." I had just enough time to notice the cheery Tyson logo before my attention was drawn violently to the gelatinous wad in my mouth.
Its texture was roughly akin to firm tofu. It tasted of ... nothing. Nothing but the hot, salty water that squirted out of it, mixing with the salty corn syrup coating it. It was a salty, spongy chunk of protein-delivery material, coated with corn goo. It could have been made of any uniform, tasteless matter -- but it was made of flesh.
I thought of hormones and antibiotics pumping into a fat, diseased, declawed bird in a tiny cage, whose every awareness or instinct or impulse is an epiphenomenal byproduct of the process whereby chunks of soft, unused muscle are generated. I thought of the bird going crazy and pecking the bird next to it, and itself, with what's left of its beak.
I thought of tens of millions of these animal-esque flesh-production units, packed into huge warehouses, inputting and outputting industrial waste products, all going crazy and attacking each other.
I ate that shit. And I put some in my child's mouth.
Y'all'd already hassled me enough to make me feel guilty about the comparative lack of thought I give to my food choices. But for some reason, this ... I still feel slightly nauseated thinking about it.
Anyway, that's it. I'm done with industrial meat. It's evil. And it's fucking gross.
I talked with my wife and we decided on what I think is a fairly reasonable set of five rules:
- At least one meal a week will be vegan.
- No more than one meal a week will include meat, and that meat will come exclusively from sustainable sources, mostly local.
- No more meat at restaurants. I'd bend on this if I knew the restaurant well and could trust its meat sourcing claims, but only then, and that's fairly rare. (This will be the biggest sacrifice for me, personally.)
- The rules are looser for the kids. We want them to learn to eat healthy food through eating and enjoying it, not through following rules.
- The rules are fairly loose for us too. We're busy; we'll compromise; we'll eat the food our parents cook us when we visit them. No stressing or guilt.
Happy? Now gimme some recipes!
Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Threaded
Lisa Hymas Posted 8:43 am
07 Feb 2007
And everything in Deborah Madison's Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone is good.
Permalink
jthomson Posted 8:51 am
07 Feb 2007
Also, check out Isa Chandra Moskowitz's two cookbooks: Vegan with a Vengeance and Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World. But beware... you may soon eat vegan cupcakes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Permalink
lmz Posted 8:54 am
07 Feb 2007
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 8:55 am
07 Feb 2007
I'm going to put together my top ten fave easy vegan recipes and send them to you...
... stay tuned!
And enjoy every bite! (even and especially the gristly ones at your mom's place...)
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
Heidi Posted 11:05 am
07 Feb 2007
Grain and Seed Pilaf
Vegan Chili
Black Beans Cakes with Spicy Cilantro Sauce
Also, Vegetarian Times has all of their recipes online, and you can see them even without a subscription.
http://groxie.com
DIY Environmentalism
Permalink
mst Posted 12:13 pm
07 Feb 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:39 pm
07 Feb 2007
delicious "chick'n nugget" which is also very high in protein. You could serve even dedicated meat-eaters these nuggets, as I have done at work; and gotten rave reviews.
Cassandra (sandee)
Permalink
KathyF Posted 6:18 pm
07 Feb 2007
I like your "rules". That's a great start, and there are no end of delicious veg recipes out there to keep you occupied. I credit Mollie Katzen with teaching me how to cook vegetarian.
Oh, and the blog FatFreeVegan has some of the most delicious looking recipes and photos I've ever seen, with none of the deprivation the name implies.
Also, try the library for vegetarian cookbooks, to save money.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:30 pm
07 Feb 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Roz Cummins Posted 10:52 pm
07 Feb 2007
You just have to be careful that you don't fall into The Cheese and Bread Rut, which is easy to do (bagels with cream cheese, pizza, bagels with cream cheese, pizza, repeat.) I wouldn't say that sticking to a Vegetarian diet requires any real loss or sacrifice, but it does require awareness and effort. And adding vegetarian meals to a diet that includes some meat-eating is easy and delightful.
Permalink
Liz Borkowski Posted 11:00 pm
07 Feb 2007
I try to eat vegan a few nights a week, too, and that usually means bean dishes. Here are two of my favorite simple recipes:
Black Bean Soup
Indian-Style Chickpeas
They're from The Moosewood Restaurant Cooks at Home cookbook and the Meatless Monday website, respectively. Both of those are good sources for recipes that are fairly easy and healthy.
Permalink
humbug Posted 11:48 pm
07 Feb 2007
Permalink
Pandu Posted 12:07 am
08 Feb 2007
At that time I did not know what else to eat, so I gave myself two months to learn about vegetarinan foods. It didn't take that long. A month later I was wilderness backpacking in the Great Smoky Mountains (this was the first week in January), when I deciced it was time.
A few years later I met my wife. She ate meat, and I made no effort to pursuade her to stop. However, when we ate together, she says she could not help but visualize all sorts of environmental abuse related to meat production. She quit eating meat during the meal on our second date.
It's good that way, I think. I suppose people who give up meat for their own personal health do not experience this sort of change in consciousness, at least not to such a degree. It made me completely lose all attraction to meat. I was raised on expensive steaks every day. But within a few months of giving up meat, I never wanted it again. It is so repulsive to me that when I smell meat I hold my breath until I can get away. Otherwise the smell makes me feel angry enough to destroy the whole world, but fortunately the hope that people will change has thus far prevented such a rampage. Every time I see or smell meat, it reminds me of the cruelty, abuse, and destruction that goes with it, and I hope that it always does. The sweetness of feeling so much empathy for innocent animals goes far beyond compensating for any trouble it gives me.
Permalink
mihan Posted 12:22 am
08 Feb 2007
It would be great to have a place for folks to post recipes. Maybe a few blog threads? Omni, veg, and vegan?
I try for your rule #3, too; I'll admit, it is hard. But what I think is most important is your rule 5.
On cookbooks: Never been a huge Moosewood fan (maybe 'cause the evil ex was), but I love Laurel's Kitchen. You might also be surprised by how many good vegetarian and vegan recipes are in the new edition of the Joy of Cooking.
On teaching kids good habits: Some friends of mine (fellow veg-leaning omnivores) have a kid who ate vegetarian until she discovered that free-range, organic chicken actually tastes good. Now 6, she won't eat chicken unless it's free-range and organic. Snobbish or aware? Whatever, I think it's pretty cool.
On Tyson: Not that I ever ate Tyson products (I buy meat from small, local producers), but Tyson screws their workers and you should stop eating their products on those grounds, too. I spent a good deal of time a few years ago walking a picket line for UFCW local 538; in the end the union caved. It was awful, and Tyson got away with all kinds of illegal and unethical things.
Permalink
fruitarian Posted 1:05 am
08 Feb 2007
worldanimalnet.org
fruitarians.blogspot.com
pcrm.org
Permalink
Samuel Fromartz Posted 1:12 am
08 Feb 2007
I occassionally buy chickens - organic, raised by a farmer who uses mobile chicken homes in pasture (the Joel Saletan model). They are more gamey in flavor. Indulge occassionally in grass-fed and natural-plus beef (no antibiotics, homones, vegetarian feed).
As for dairy and artisanal cheese - I don't drink milk but met too many exemplary dairy farmers now to avoid it.
This winter we're eating more parsnips than ever. Blanched quickly then sauteed in olive oil with a hit of balsamic vinegar at the end. Nice side.
Samuel Fromartz
Author
Organic Inc: Natural Foods and How They Grew (Harcourt, 2006)
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:30 am
08 Feb 2007
But since vegans and vegetarians are doing miore than their bit to drive down our mindless level of meat consumption, I got nothing but love for 'em.
Victual Reality
Permalink
yankee Posted 3:03 am
08 Feb 2007
We became vegetarians 3 years ago for the same reason. I'd actually like to become vegan, but in the meantime I'm trying to find locally sourced dairy (Ronnybrook, etc). My husband being lactose intolerant, though, means plenty of vegan meals during the week.
I highly recommend the cookbook "A Year in a Vegetarian Kitchen" by Jack Bishop. Almost every recipe I've ever made from that book is pretty easy and really tasty.
yankee (nyc.theoildrum.com)
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:03 am
08 Feb 2007
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
dhwert Posted 3:09 am
08 Feb 2007
I can't stand the hugeness of stores like Costco, and their PORTION SIZES. If you have a chance to see the movie "Idiocracy" (a great Mike Judge satire on the devolution of our cultural intelligence), it includes a dystopian vision of Costco that's quite apropos and darn funny (as is much of the movie).
Your list of rules is quite good. I am quite partial to emphasizing the switch to small-farm, pasture-raised animal products, as Samuel and Tom do, since most carnivores are not going to go whole un-hog, at least not immediately. So this makes me more inclined to support restaurants that buy local, pasture-raised meat, since they are still fairly rare (although actually, in Corvallis they are more and more common). But #3 does fit with my main food guide, Wendell Berry, who says that a vegetarian approach makes the most sense when eating out, since we don't often know where that meat comes from.
And I have always liked the sensibility I learned in Extending the Table: in most of the world, meat consumption is a rare, celebratory event. We could fix a lot of the problems arising from excessive meat eating (which simply parallels the excessive consumption happening everywhere else in U.S. society, a la CostMartSamCo) simply by claiming this wisdom (and coupling it with the ancient/modern wisdom of eating grassfed animal products).
Good luck in your journey, David.
Dave Hockman-Wert
Corvallis, Ore.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:40 am
08 Feb 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdlVUGKUppE
Dhwert ...
NARRATOR: "Evolution does not necessarily reward that which is good or beautiful. It simply rewards those who reproduce the most."
"Idiocracy" is an updating of C.M. Kornbluth's famous 1951 science fiction story about dysgenic breeding, "The Marching Morons." It opens with a yuppie husband and wife on the left half of the screen (IQs of 138 and 141, respectively) endlessly debating the perfect moment to conceive their one child: "We just can't have a child in this market." Meanwhile, on the right side, Clevon is impregnating every woman in the trailer park.
Linky to the first 3:40 of the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeTU7ZUB07Q
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:24 am
08 Feb 2007
<<
And I would expect no less of a response from you than "Anyway, that's it. I'm done with industrial meat. It's evil. And it's fucking gross."
We became vegetarians 3 years ago for the same reason.
>>
There can be no "same reason" here, because in fact DR gives us two totally distinct reasons. But the way they work together is interesting.
One of those reasons is moral: "It is evil." And I am not sure he quite explains how he comes to that judgment. "Evil" because it involves cruelty to animals? "Evil" because it involves some injury to customers, perhaps the deception of customers? "Evil" for some other reason?
The other reason is aesthetic: "It is fucking gross."
Now, the aesthetic reason is fascinating, because, on the one hand, strictly speaking, it should not necessarily enter into a moral decision. If it is true of this food that "It is evil," then it should not matter at all whether it tastes like shit or like the indescribably wonderful food of the gods; in either case, it must be rejected.
On the other hand, it seems that the aesthetic judgment was a necessary preliminary to DR's (and perhaps also Yankee's) full implementation of the moral decision. On behalf of animals everywhere, and our cousins the chickens especially, I am very thankful that his teriyaki chicken sample, offered by that "hunched lady with a bright red cart" (who no doubt has a talking mirror and a companion raven back in her dungeon), was so shockingly abominably bad.
Hence, we may suspect that the instincts of Plato and other Greeks were operating very well indeed, when they wanted always to connect beauty and goodness. DR's Costco enlightenment was a footnote to Plato.
On the other hand, the English have a proverb, "Handsome is as handsome does." That refers to what we may call the Wickham Syndrome, after the stunningly good-looking Army officer in "Pride and Prejudice," who seduces Elizabeth Bennet's silly (or is she?) younger sister Lydia and nearly ruins the family thereby. So, sometimes, alas!, beautiful things must be firmly rejected. Not often, one hopes.
(Our favorite movie version of "Pride and Prejudice" is in fact the Bollywood musical "Bride and Prejudice." Very scenic. I could forgive Wickham anything.)
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Noah Posted 4:34 am
08 Feb 2007
See the Vegan Starter Guide from Friends of Animals for recipes and info.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:37 am
08 Feb 2007
Your contention that reducing meat consumption would be orders of magnitude better than all other options is rather exaggerated. For example, going childless would be far more effective than going vegan. Having a child essentially doubles your footprint (a 100/% increase).
Also, if I, me, personally dropped my already meager meat consumption to zero, it would have far less impact on CO2 than riding my electric bike and driving a Prius (as opposed to driving a Cherokee). I ran the numbers, and going vegan would not even come close on that one parameter for me. When I pointed that out in another thread I had two commenters mention that CO2 is not the only parameter involved, which is true, but it was the only one I was addressing at the time in response to another who claimed that going vegan would reduce CO2 more than going car-less.
Of course there are other environmental impacts from livestock besides CO2, like water use, pollution, and destruction of biodiversity. No doubt that the amount and type of meat you eat matters.
Going from the Americn average of about 250lbs a year to 50lbs would represent a five fold decrease (80%) in that part of your footprint, which is about where my family is. Going from 50 to zero would decrease it only an additional 20%. Worth giving up meat entirely? Not for me, and I suspect, not for most others. One can address most of the problems with idustrial meat production by consuming products produced by more humane and less envionmentally destructive methods.
Few in this world are going to voluntarily give up meat, hot showers, cars, the Internet, a warm home, family, or upright walking. We need to seek and promote more efficient ways to let people have those things, contraception, allowing two children instead of six, an electric bike, a Prius, etc, etc.
I skimmed the Livestock Shadow report. Along with rich nations, much of the problem lies with the poor people of the world who depend on livestock to stay alive. While there are about 700 million vehicles, there are over 1.2 billion head of cattle, not including pigs, goats, sheep, and chickens. The two overwhelming factors are human population growth and increasing wealth. Nothing new. The impacts of livestock and human population growth have been known for a long, long time. As we head for nine billion many of the predictions of the doom and gloomers are coming to fruition.
The report didn't make me feel very optimistic. They of course had no silver bullet to offer.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 4:43 am
08 Feb 2007
Menu:
Braised Tofu
Leafy Green
Rice (or quinoa, or potatoes, or some other starch--I'm assuming you already know how to make that)
Salad
(I'll leave dessert up to you)
Once you're used to the system, you can whip out this meal in half an hour - it's true: you put on the rice first, and by the time it's done, so is everything else!
Braised Tofu
Get yourself a block of tofu (firm or firm +; you can keep some in the freezer if you like; that gives it a chewy texture)
Cut it into slabs 1/4 to 1/2 in thick.
Put a thin layer of oil in a frying pan, med heat
Lightly brown the tofu slabs on both sides
Add the sauce* and turn up the heat. Braise until the sauce is the consistency you like (from wet to shiny glazing - your call)
*Sauce? Yes... what you put in the sauce is up to you--you can even use a ready-made TJ's sauce, but it's really easy to make one yourself:
something wet + something salty + something sweet + something savory = sauce
The sky is really the limit on what these ingredients can be. Just mix and match; here are some examples:
Wet = water, wine, broth, beer, etc
Salty = salt, soy sauce, miso, veg bullion cube, etc
Sweet = brown sugar, aloe syrup, honey if you're into it, maple syrup, rice syrup, etc
Savory = thyme, sun dried tomatoes, oregano, pepper, basil, garlic, cumin, mustard, citrus peel, etc
Just combine one from each category to make a little more than a half-cup of liquid per tofu block.
Leafy Greens 1 - Steamed
Insanely easy: Get leafy greens, cut them up, put them in a steamer, steam them, eat them.
This works with any leafy green: kale, collards, spinach, chard, dandelion greens, mustard greens, turnip greens...
Cooking times vary; just open the steamer, pull out a piece, taste it, and if you like it, it's done.
If you want to gussy them up a bit, you can toss the steamed greens with a simple dressing of olive oil, garlic, lemon and salt (or any other simple dressing for that matter)
Leafy Greens 2 - Braised
Get leafy greens, cut them up, put them in a hot pan with a little oil and a little garlic, stir till they wilt, add a little liquid (see above) and cover and turn down heat to simmer. When you feel like they're about done, remove cover, turn up the heat to drive off excess liquid, and you're good to go. You can add lemon juice and garlic and other savory things at any point during this process (different flavors depending on when you do it, so experiment)
Salad
Don't overlook salad! It doesn't have to be just boring greens and ranch dressing from a bottle: you can easily elevate it to where it belongs - an integral part of the meal, crammed with fresh, raw veggies.
So here's my salad formula:
Salad = Leafy Base + veggies + fruit + pickled item + fat item + dressing
Every one of these things, including the Leafy Base, is optional. You just mix and match according to what you like. Here are some examples:
Leafy Base = lettuce, bagged or bulk salad mix, spinach, arugula, amaranth leaves, pea shoots, etc
Veggies = broccoli or cauliflower florets (raw or steamed and cooled), carrots, boiled potatoes, bean sprouts, etc
Fruit = pomegranate, apples, raisins, grapes, tomatoes, bell peppers, oranges, grapefruit, dried cranberries, currants, etc
Pickled item = pickled beets, hearts of palm (sustainably harvested, please), olives, seaweed, etc
Fat item = avocado, nuts (roasted or raw), sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, croutons, etc
Across those categories, try and mix up the consistencies - crunchy, creamy, crisp, etc
Also, for an added touch, think about how the different colors go together.
For the dressing, use a readymade, or follow this simple rule:
Dressing = fat + acid + flavoring + optional creaminess agent
Fat = oil (any kind, but the quality makes the dressing, especially if it's a simple one: fancy olive oil here really pays off)
Acid = vinegar (any kind), lemon juice, lime juice, etc
Flavoring = salt, pepper, crushed garlic, thyme, lemon peel, mustard, wasabi, umeboshi paste, curry powder - go wild!
Optional creaminess agent = vegan mayo (Wildwood is best), tahini, almond butter, nutritional yeast, mashed avocado, etc
Get an old jar, put in one of each of these things (start with 2:1 fat to acid ratio and adjust from there; use less oil if your using an optional creaminess agent), shake it up, and you're enjoying salad!
Tools that really, really help (not necessarily with these recipes; more in general):
Salad Spinner - not just a yuppie indulgence anymore! Get the kind that seals so you can store it full in the fridge. That way, you can cut up and wash a couple of heads of lettuce and then for several days a salad is just a matter of grabbing a few handfuls of leaves.
Pressure Cooker - I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record (remember records?) about this, but these things are like magic: check out these cooking times for beans: http://missvickie.com/howto/beans/howtobeantypes.html
Hand Blender - the kind you can just stick into a cooking pot; it opens a whole new world of soups and sauces
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:06 am
08 Feb 2007
No. It is about the devolution of our genetic intelligence.
isteve.com/Film_Idiocracy.htm
NARRATOR: "Evolution does not necessarily reward that which is good or beautiful. It simply rewards those who reproduce the most."
Permalink
KathyF Posted 5:21 am
08 Feb 2007
Gregory, I will have to get out my pressure cooker and experiment. I bet it also saves on gas/electricity as well, since cooking time is shorter. A real plus for me in the summer also, since we have no AC here in England, where summer used to be quite cool!
Permalink
evanvoo Posted 5:22 am
08 Feb 2007
My favorite cookbooks are:
The Post Punk Kitchen by Isa Chandra Moskowitz
Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone by Deborah Madison
Cooking With Peta by Peta
The Garden of Vegan by T. Barnard and S. Kramer
World Vegetarian by Madhur Jaffrey
I would also highly recommend Becoming Vegan by Brenda Davis.
As far as eating out, you'll usually find the most options (other than at all-vegan or all-veggie restaurants, of course) at ethnic restaurants, such as Thai, Indian, Ethiopian, Chinese, Korean, etc.
This is so great! I hope you find, as I did, that you gain so much more than you lose by choosing a more humane and environmentally friendly diet. Nothing tastes as good as a clear conscience feels.
Erin
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:25 am
08 Feb 2007
biodiversivist,
Two points:
If you're going to consider it like that, then having TWO kids doubles your footprint. Really, it's so much more complex than that.
The complexities are important. Children are not simply numbers or ecological footprints. Some do good things for the world; some not so good. Some can influence good to be bad or bad to be good.
For instance, suppose going vegetarian reduces my ecological harm by 1/3. So I'm a 2/3. My wife is a vegetarian because of my influence. So she's now a 2/3 also. This is like multi-level marketing. The guy who made me a vegetarian gets some credit for that. I get some credit for helping my wife. She has helped reduce her parents' meat-eating. So their impact may be 9/10 each. I've helped several relatives reduce their meat eating, as well as co-workers, friends, etc.
There's no way to accurately do the math for this, but I think it's not unreasonable to figure that these efforts have accumulated to the point of offsetting my total ecological footprint, especially as I continue to promote vegetarian-style eating.
My children are still pretty young (10, 6, 4, and <1). We can have no real certainty of what they will do as adults, but for now they seem very much inclined to remain vegetarians. If they do, then I expect they will continue to have the same sort of impact on people. Our interactions with others can make a big difference on the world. If people didn't believe that, they wouldn't be in gristmill.
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:48 am
08 Feb 2007
I guess I control my meat-eating at the time of purchase, not at meal time. I realize that I have not been eating much pork because I can remember that the last time I ordered from Flying Pigs Farm was in the summer. Similar thing with chicken. Not sure I have a particular point, I just find it interesting that we feel the need to categorize.
Anyway, good resources for me have been Epicurious, where in the Advanced recipe search you can click on "meatless" and use a keyword like "lentils" if you have lentils in the house, etc. Also I cannot overstate the helpfulness of Local Harvest in sourcing locally-produced, sustainable meats & veggies.
Best of luck on your new journey, Dave!
Kaela
Permalink
Roz Cummins Posted 5:55 am
08 Feb 2007
Permalink
carrie floyd Posted 6:05 am
08 Feb 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:34 am
08 Feb 2007
Possibly there are ways of measuring "impact" which would suggest that this is true.
With respect to ethics, however, there is no "essential sameness" here at all.
The captivity of animals is always an important ethical issue. Another, separate issue is raising them in order to take their milk and eggs. And yet another, again entirely separate, is the slaughter of captive animals.
"Impact on the environment" in Noah's assertion can perhaps stand. He may be right or wrong, and I cannot judge.
But "impact on animals" is an extremely complex subject, and deserves to be treated with nuance. Pandu, one of the most enlightened of non-vegan vegetarians, has already written most beautifully on this subject in Gristmill. The relationships between our kind of animal, and the animals that we welcome to live with us, are often occasions of great beauty.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
animalfriendly Posted 7:30 am
08 Feb 2007
I highly recommend picking up the book Vegan With a Vengeance, by Isa Chandra Moskowitz. Those recipes won't disappoint you. Her newest, a cupcake book, is highly diverting and tasty as well.
For more recipes:
Animal-Friendly Recipes
Vegan Recipes
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 7:57 am
08 Feb 2007
It's called "ethnic" stew, and it requires that you suspend any notions about "authenticity," the appropriateness of appropriation, or anything else you might have come across in grad school, and replace it with an in-the-moment appreciation for the food on your plate. (and if, like me, you do have a thing for "authenticity," then you should read this excellent book: Curry: A Tale of Cooks and Conquerors, by Lizzie Collingham)
Here's how it works:
Ethnic Stew = liquid + ready-made ethic flavoring + sautée items + slow-cooking veggies + fast cooking veggies
Liquid you already know about: water or broth will never let you down. With some of these dishes you can also use coconut milk.
Ready - made ethnic flavoring = those various things in a jar. Household favorites around here include Thai Kitchen Green Curry Paste, Patak's Madras Curry Paste, Doña Maria's Mole Sauce, and Lee Kum Kee Black Bean Paste.
Sautée items = things that benefit from some browning, like onions, garlic, tofu, seitan, tempeh
Slow-cooking veggies = hard stuff like carrots and potatoes and things you like mushy, like eggplant
Fast-cooking veggies = more delicate things like broccoli, asparagus, peas, already cooked beans
Cut up all your veggies into bite-sized morsels, and divide them into two piles: slow and fast.
Heat up a pot with a little oil, and throw in your sautée items.
When they are brown, toss in the liquid and the ready-made ethnic flavoring. Stir until there are no lumps.
Put in the slow-cooking veggies, adding enough liquid to cover. Cover and bring to a simmer. Cook until the hardest veggie you've put in there seems not quite done.
Put in the quick-cooking veggies, and continue simmering until these are done. Near the end, if things seem too soupy leave the lid off and turn up the heat to drive off excess water. If that still doesn't do it, you can add a little flour or kudzu or cornstarch mixed with cold water, but don't overdo it.
Serve over rice; garnish with cilantro leaves. For a tinge of "authenticity" serve with "appropriate" extras: lime pickle, tortillas, chopped chilies, etc. If anyone asks, just call it whatever was on the label of the jar you used, and throw in a place name for extra panache, as in "Bangkok Green Curry" or "Oaxacan Mole."
Never fails! And makes great leftovers - the flavors meld even more the next day...
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:54 am
08 Feb 2007
If you have one banana, and you add one more, you have doubled the number of bananas (2 x 1 = 2). If you have one banana and add three more you have quadrupled the number (4 x 1). And I agree, it is much more complex than that.
An ecological footprint is much more than just what you eat. You and I cannot neutralize the footprint of our kids. It is not hard for me to accept that having two kids was an ecologically negative thing to do (less than optimal) as is driving a car, taking hot showers, and on and on. For me to make excuses and pretend otherwise would be called rationalization, which is a form of self-deception--necessary for religion, a major concern in the world of science and engineering.
I think it's not unreasonable to figure that these efforts have accumulated to the point of offsetting my total ecological footprint,
The many ideas and examples I have presented to people over the years may have also neutralized my footprint long ago, but that does not change the fact that I have added the footprints of two more human beings. Had I done all of those things and not had children, the environment would be supporting two fewer human beings--that's a fact.
You have introduced a new variable in the footprint contests, a kind of offset based on estimated reductions resulting from educating others--real hard to quantify. You can't just count converts. Most proselytizers tend to reinforce existing opinions, not change them. If that were not true, we would all have been converted to a single religion long ago.
We can have no real certainty of what they will do as adults, but for now they seem very much inclined to remain vegetarians. If they do, then I expect they will continue to have the same sort of impact on people
The same argument could be used for my children, who are not only huge nature lovers, but also go lightly on meat products. But, you seem to take it a step further, suggesting that a vegan with four kids will usurp less resources than one with no kids. By that logic, a vegan with ten kids would usurp even less, because, in theory all future generations will also be vegan and will spread the word. Sounds eerily familiar.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:37 am
09 Feb 2007
When a man and a woman love each other...
What I'm trying to say is that human babies come from sexual reproduction, which as far as I know, still requires a mother and a father. For a man to double his ecological footprint by having children, he has to have two kids because it's done in cooperation with a woman.
When couple has a child, each parent has the child. Did each parent double their ecological footprint? They did not.
...
You have introduced a new variable in the footprint contests, a kind of offset based on estimated reductions resulting from educating others--real hard to quantify. You can't just count converts. Most proselytizers tend to reinforce existing opinions, not change them. If that were not true, we would all have been converted to a single religion long ago.
If I try to convince you that killing animals is wrong, that sort of moral statement might pursuade someone if he is already thinking along similar lines. If I say that eating meat is a step up the food chain compared to eating plants, and that diet has about an order of magnitude more impact; a person might respond, "Oh, I didn't know that," and the new knowledge might change their behavior to some degree. I'm sure you've noticed that I'm also fine with taking a stand based on morals if that seems like it will help. Is there something wrong with that?
Perhaps the disagreement is over the fact that I do not believe people are inherently bad. It seems like you're saying that even people who try to be good cannot offset the harm of their being alive, but I doubt you really believe that. I'm saying that well-raised kids can help the world, and that people who care about issues can make a difference. If I can set a good example and teach my kids to care enough to try to good in the world, and they take this to heart, then I would say that indeed it is better than not having kids. If I did not believe that I had some good to offer the world, I would not want to live. Maybe that is a cause of bias on my part. If I can't help others, then it follows that they can't help me; and if that's the case, then what's the point of being here?
Permalink
mihan Posted 3:27 am
09 Feb 2007
Um... that's news to all the lesbian couples and single mothers out there for whom "dad" is a sperm donor. The sperm donor is not a "father."
The technical term for what we're talking about is the "replacement rate." If everyone lived to a ripe old age, the replacement rate would be 2 (it's actually more like 2.1, because some children die).
If each person had 2 kids, the population would not change (a.k.a. ZPG).
If everyone had 4 kids, the population would double in one generation (25 years), quadruple in two, etc. If everyone had 6 kids (like RFK, Jr.) the population would be nine times greater in 2 generations.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:45 am
09 Feb 2007
Well, right and wrong is largely relative, but if you said that to someone, you would be spreading false information. You would be misinforming that person by telling him his environmental impact would be reduced ten times (a footprint test score of 10 acres/10 = 1 acre). The world's leading authority on all things says that a vegan would reduce the food part of one's total footprint by half:
"Meat-based diets use about twice as many environmental resources as soy-based diets."
In addition, food represents only a part of one's footprint. Go take a footprint test. I can reduce mine 20% by going vegan, not any where near an order of magnitude.
Perhaps the disagreement is over the fact that I do not believe people are inherently bad.
No, we are simply discussing the fact that the more children you spawn the bigger the environmental footprint will be. Bad, and good are largely relative constructs. Abortion is bad to some, good to others, killing and eating a pig is good to an indigenous hunter, bad to vegans, and that list could go on to infinity. Reality does not, in reality, split cleanly into good and bad.
I'm saying that well-raised kids can help the world, and that people who care about issues can make a difference. If I can set a good example and teach my kids to care enough to try to good in the world, and they take this to heart, then I would say that indeed it is better than not having kids.
Better is an imprecise term. When talking about the usurpation of resources, four human beings will consume twice as much as the two who spawned them. Your worldview reflects that of many fundamentalist Christians who are convinced that the world would be better off with 40 billion people instead of 6 billion. I have two kids and they will impact the environment. I am simply being honest with myself. They are an indulgence I chose knowing full well they will have footprints at least as big as ours, but at least when we die, we will just have replaced our footprint instead of doubling it.
I am not critical of your having four children. I am big proponent of personal choice. I am critical of your self-deception that your veganism could in any way begin to compensate for their envrionmental footprints.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:55 am
09 Feb 2007
Mihan,
I should not respond to this red herring; but donating sperm does not make a man a father? So, tell me, what makes a father? If a man has sex with and impregnates a woman but takes no part in raising the child, is he the father? A judge will say he is, as will a doctor.
Do you mean that the copulation and impregnation followed by birth makes a father? Or is it the raising of a child by a man?
I was talking about a biological reality, not a social arrangement. Bringing up lesbians and sperm donors has nothing to do with it. Get back to me when single women are having children by parthenogenesis.
Also, I considered framing the issue in terms of replacement rate, but that is also not the subject. Replacement rate only takes into account numbers of people. The topic I was discussing was each person's impact on the environment.
------
Biodiversivist,
I'm ready to settle for disagreement on this. After graduating from college, I was inclined to live as a hermit in the woods and took major steps in that direction. After much additional contemplation, I deciced that service to the world was a more noble path, and that I could do this best in the humble role of a father.
I do my best to live lightly on the earth. I'm not perfect, but I think I do enough under the circumstances.
No, we are simply discussing the fact that the more children you spawn the bigger the environmental footprint will be. Bad, and good are largely relative constructs. Abortion is bad to some, good to others, killing and eating a pig is good to an indigenous hunter, bad to vegans, and that list could go on to infinity. Reality does not, in reality, split cleanly into good and bad.
I thought we agreed that a big environmental footprint was bad. The disagreement was that I believe I can more than offset my negative impact by adding the power of the pen to my own personal "sacrifices." We could debate the numbers without end. But in principle, would you agree that, for instance, Al Gore does not have to personally plant trees (or whatever like that) to offset his CO2 because his educational campaign has more than accomplished this?
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:02 am
09 Feb 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:01 am
09 Feb 2007
<<
Bad, and good are largely relative constructs. Abortion is bad to some, good to others, killing and eating a pig is good to an indigenous hunter, bad to vegans, and that list could go on to infinity. Reality does not, in reality, split cleanly into good and bad.
>>
On the surface, this looks like a clear example of moral relativism. But "in reality," there is no such thing as true moral relativism. BioD cannot himself be a moral relativist, in spite of what he wrote here. If he were, he would not be able to support the values which he so strongly and consistently does.
Now, there does indeed exist a kind of superficial moral relativism, which is just a lazy or weary or conflict-avoiding refusal to press an issue. E.g., some people think abortion is OK, others do not, so let those pregnant women terminate their pregnancies if they do not have a moral problem with that, and let the others complain about it if they want to. In fact, either abortion is always wrong, or it is morally acceptable in some circumstances: it is not possible for both those alternatives to be correct. Reality most certainly splits into good and bad. And it does so very often.
Whether it does so "cleanly" is another matter. The problem I have with moral absolutists, especially those with conservative religious attitudes, is that they are confident that the correct answer to any moral question is at once available to us. That is not at all the case. There is so much that we still need to learn in order to make very many moral decisions, and therefore it is the right thing meanwhile for us to remain patient and tolerant and non-judgmental.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:16 am
09 Feb 2007
The disagreement was that I believe I can more than offset my negative impact by adding the power of the pen to my own personal "sacrifices."
And here was my response:
ou have introduced a new variable in the footprint contests, a kind of offset based on estimated reductions resulting from educating others--real hard to quantify.
Let's hope that Gar does not see this thread because it certainly reinforces his point. The debate over carbon offsets would be turned on its ear if people began calculating them based on intangibles like education. It does give me an idea though. Gore and any number of educators could actually sell carbon offsets based on educational efforts alone (above and beyond what they would do in the absence of a carbon offset incentive).
Anyone out there interested in buying some carbon offsets from Pandu or myself? A dollar per word for every extra word we would not have written without the incentive. And no, I will not accept money to not write words.
I'm being facetious of course, I will accept money for not writing ...cha cha boom ... but the weak link in your argument, as I said before, is that whatever amount you feel you have reduced your footprint by, you must still add to it the lifetime consumption of the four new human beings. Hell, why don't we just blame it on our wives? After all, we sure didn't make any sacrifices to bring those childen into the world :).
You are assuming your influence will have an exponential growth greater than that of the consumption of your kids and grandchildren. And, as I said before, that is unlikely to be true or we would all be vegan by now since I've been listening to the vegan argument for over thirty years and it is unlikely that your powers of persuasion are that much greater than most other vegan's.
Changes have to happen on large scales. My individual efforts are good for my personal self esteem, but they make no measurable impact on a planetary scale. They do give me legitimacy in environmental circles and help motivate people to take my arguments more seriously. If I can find ways to multiply (and verify) my efforts a million fold, then, I might lay claim to some real credit. I can't just assume my words have offset my footprint as well as my children's and their children's ...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
mihan Posted 6:30 am
09 Feb 2007
The reason to bring up the issue of sperm donorship is that it muddies the whole issue of reproductive rate; a sperm donor can be responsible for creating many children. It's not a red herring, just an FYI; you'll notice that I didn't take it into account when discussing replacement rates. I just bring it up to point out that not all children have a mother and a father.
Canis,
Interesting discussion of morality. Would that I had time to consider it before rushing out into the cold, cold, cold.
Permalink
KathyF Posted 4:18 pm
09 Feb 2007
Used book stores. I've found lots of vegetarian cookbooks at used book stores, including new review copies that reviewers unload. And did I mention libraries? (Don't waste trees buying new books you may not like!)
Also, as for Vegan With A Vengeance, it's a perfectly fine cookbook that is for some reason the rage among the internets. There are many others out there that aren't so popular with young vegan bloggers but are equally deserving of your attention. The PETA cookbook has a lot of basic, family-friendly recipes that were written by Bryanna Clark Grogan. She also has a huge presence on the internet, frequently posting her recipes online.
If you want fancy, though, check out the Millennium cookbook.
I've also posted around 80-something vegan recipes online, here. (I just noticed how many desserts I posted! You can see where my heart is!)
Permalink
Pandu Posted 11:16 pm
11 Feb 2007
And, as I said before, that is unlikely to be true or we would all be vegan by now since I've been listening to the vegan argument for over thirty years and it is unlikely that your powers of persuasion are that much greater than most other vegan's.
Biodiversivist,
If you've been listening, you would know that I am not a vegan and have never advocated veganism. I am a lacto-vegetarian and promote good relations with animals such as giving protection to domesticated animals and using their products such as manure, milk, and wool.
I'm not going to give any more attention to your judgement that having children was a selfish indulgence. I think your conclusion is wrong and offensive; and at this point it's irrelevant to me.
Permalink