Freeganism.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

And, as has been pointed out, the Freegan hipsters should leave that dumpster food for the people that actually are starving. When you frame their actions like that, those douchebags really seem more concerned with pumping their own egos than actually helping people.

You know, there's two things that make this stupid:
1) I've yet to meet a freegan that does it 'because it's cool'. They are active in other ways and because of that they began to get into freeganism. So this argument is pointless except for your little hypothetical situation where people go freegan because it's 'hip'. And you like down to earth examples, not hypothetical ones, right?
2) Becoming freegan rids oneself of many aspects in which we would otherwise passively participate in a system of exploitation. It's plain bullshit - no other way around it - that those who do nothing expect those who have taken some measures to be more conscious to go all the way.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I see it backwards. If someone stops buying food, and that food which was made with the expectation that he'd buy it gets wasted because of that, isn't he dumpstering the food that the store was expecting him to buy? So the amount of food that's thrown away is same bulk +1 (because he's not buying) -1 (because he's dumpstering that much)
If anything, that would solve the problem they postulated by showing how someone who would otherwise buy products suddenly recurs to dumpster-diving, then he wouldn't affect negatively the amount of food that can be salvaged.

I think it's more like this:

(The following numbers are used to demonstrate a point. They are not based on anything.)

Store A has 100 customers per month.
Each customer buys 1 ton of food per month.
So, Store A stocks 100 tons of food per month, with an additional 10 tons surplus.
10 customers say, "Hey, look at that food they're throwing out. Let's eat that for free!"
At first, there's more being thrown out, but before long Store A sees that profits are down 10%, and so they cut back their stock and surplus by 10%.
Now, Store A stocks 90 tons of food per month, with an additional 9 tons surplus.
The 90 remaining still get their ton of food per month, but now the 10 former customers are getting less than a ton.

In the end, the more freegans there are, the less there is to be had. Not just because there's more people taking it, but because stores cut back on what they purchase, which means a reduction in volume of refuse.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

As the stores have to throw it out rather than sell it due to government-mandated health standards, yeah, you could say I'm sure.

McDonalds throws away thousands of french fries if they're left or not wanted to hit the floor.
THESE are the health standards food distribution works with. A week before the expiration date. That's the standard Walmart works with.
I'm almost certain you don't even know these health standards you're bringing up; you just think "the government puts them so they must have a pretty damn good reason"

probably like money. So I doubt they're in the business of throwing out their product just for the sake of being wasteful.

God damn it, that's plain ignorant.
Remember I mentioned Barnes & Nobles throws away books? Why do you think that is?
On our Barnes & Nobles we asked them if instead of throwing them away they could give them to us (a college group) to give out free literature of anything. They said they couldn't because if they gave away the books that don't sell, the books they do sell would decrease in value.
They ARE thinking about money when being wasteful.
Capitalism works around being wasteful! There is more profit is about 75% of a product is sold and the other 25% is wasted because the product is worth more if they get themselves rid of the over-supply in a manner in which the consumers won't take it (i.e. throwing it away)

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

On our Barnes & Nobles we asked them if instead of throwing them away they could give them to us (a college group) to give out free literature of anything. They said they couldn't because if they gave away the books that don't sell, the books they do sell would decrease in value.

Do they at least leave the dumpsters unlocked?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

The fact remains that there are still impoverished areas on this hemisphere. Mexico is quite poor, and less than 100 miles from where I live. And even here in the United States there are towns with depressed (beyond what is now the norm) economies without the funds or resources to have a soup kitchen.

Additionally, there's more than just soup kitchens providing food to the homeless/poor in the U.S. As rare as they seem, there are groups of caring people out there that get homeless/poor to gather in places like little-used parking lots and hand out hot just-cooked meals. Some even cook the food right there.

Just because America doesn't have as many hungry people as some other parts of the world does not mean that we should care less about our own hungry than another country's hungry.

Then if the Freegans want to make a difference they should donate time and/or money to existing charitable foundations, rather than scrounging food from dumpsters. Maybe the Freegans should teach the poor and hungry about how to obtain this wasted food instead consuming it themselves. They obviously have the ability to procure their own means of sustenance, so it seems to me that taking this ostensibly edible food from the dumpsters is more wasteful than just leaving it to the truly needy.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

In the end, the more freegans there are, the less there is to be had. Not just because there's more people taking it, but because stores cut back on what they purchase, which means a reduction in volume of refuse.

Which goes back to the comparison with boycotting. You could just as easily have said that freegans take away food because they're taking away food.
But initially you said that if someone becomes a freegan, a store would not see the difference, still having the same amount of food, and the surplus just gets thrown away.
If you consider, like in this above post, that freeganism does diminish the amount of consumer products, then we go back to the first thing I said.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Do they at least leave the dumpsters unlocked?

Not really. Most lock their dumpsters.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Then if the Freegans want to make a difference they should donate time and/or money to existing charitable foundations, rather than scrounging food from dumpsters.

Most definitely! That's ideally what I intend to do. But seriously there's so much food wasted in a city that feeding them and yourself is still possible.

Maybe the Freegans should teach the poor and hungry about how to obtain this wasted food instead consuming it themselves.

I agree with this, but you're again presupposing freeganism is just a cool thing bullshit 'alternative' individualists do.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

On our Barnes & Nobles we asked them if instead of throwing them away they could give them to us (a college group) to give out free literature of anything. They said they couldn't because if they gave away the books that don't sell, the books they do sell would decrease in value.
They ARE thinking about money when being wasteful.
Capitalism works around being wasteful! There is more profit is about 75% of a product is sold and the other 25% is wasted because the product is worth more if they get themselves rid of the over-supply in a manner in which the consumers won't take it (i.e. throwing it away)

That's exactly why the government pays to have agricultural surpluses either destroyed, or not produced at all. It's a means of preventing the bottom from dropping out of the food market, which would be bad for everyone.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

you're again presupposing freeganism is just a cool thing bullshit 'alternative' individualists do.

Dude, Freeganism is just a bullshit, hipster fad. Do you know what Freeganism is called when the Freegan in question doesn't have recourse to a family with money?

POVERTY.

It ain't "Freeganism" to someone with no money; it's dumpster-diving for survival.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

That's exactly why the government pays to have agricultural surpluses either destroyed, or not produced at all. It's a means of preventing the bottom from dropping out of the food market, which would be bad for everyone.

I actually wanted to mention that. It's the iconic example of what I mean when I say that's how capitalism works.
But if it's obvious that we can produce more than we actually consume, and yet millions don't have enough, it's evident there's somethign wrong with the way we go about thinking of the economy, wouldn't you say?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

It ain't "Freeganism" to someone with no money; it's dumpster-diving for survival.

That's no different than complaining about the word "ascetism"
Why complain about semantics?
Yeah, freegans are freegans because they could afford to drop out of a system in which they used to be privileged. So what?
The logical base of that argument is that, willingly or not, you're saying the poor do it because they have to, and if they didn't have to they'd be as bad consumers as us, therefore let them stay in the place they are?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I actually wanted to mention that. It's the iconic example of what I mean when I say that's how capitalism works.
But if it's obvious that we can produce more than we actually consume, and yet millions don't have enough, it's evident there's somethign wrong with the way we go about thinking of the economy, wouldn't you say?

I never said it was ideal. I just said that it is. If food prices dropped too low, farmers would go under. If farmers go under, there are no farms. No farms, no food. That's a gross oversimplification, but it stands.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

I never said it was ideal. I just said that it is. If food prices dropped too low, farmers would go under. If farmers go under, there are no farms. No farms, no food. That's a gross oversimplification, but it stands.

More than dumpstering, freegans promote community and individual gardens; something most everyone here just decides to set aside as if it were not important...
How does this stand against actual freeganism rather than the overly specific "hipster dumpster-diving for food"
If this is just arguing because someone in the first page got stuck with simply dumpster diving and that's it rather than an legitimate alternative to passive consumption, then I believe we can reach a conclusion if we realize that's what happened.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

So your entire statement is predicated on a workable system of anarchist government being in place? Why the fuck did you even bother saying it, then? If I were to follow suit, I could base my opinions on the geopolitical vacillations of the kingdom of Narnia, and both of our statements would have the same weight: zero.

If you're not going to think about things as they are, then don't bother thinking about them at all.

Simply, it was a statement of taking one example of something that we have to pay for as part of my greater philosophy of Anarchism. I wasn't saying "In this capitalist society, food should be free", I was saying "What kind of fucked society makes it so that you have to pay for what you need to survive?". It's not my problem that you misinterpreted what I said.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's no different than complaining about the word "ascetism"
Why complain about semantics?
Yeah, freegans are freegans because they could afford to drop out of a system in which they used to be privileged. So what?

Listen, it's all fun and games when you have recourse to things that you choose not to take advantage of. You can play hobo Freegan for a while, but if you get tired you can always take your smelly, trashcan Converse sneakers and go home.

What if you don't have that option? What if your back is against the wall? Are you going to give your actions some catchy name and claim moral superiority? Not bloody likely. If someone went to a bum and offered them money, you think they'd refuse?

Likewise, a Freegan probably would refuse, the irony being that they don't actually need the handout and can return to prosperity pretty much at will.

Psychologically speaking, Freeganism and poverty are fucking worlds apart. That ain't semantics.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The logical base of that argument is that, willingly or not, you're saying the poor do it because they have to, and if they didn't have to they'd be as bad consumers as us, therefore let them stay in the place they are?

First, the poor most likely would be just as, if not more, consumerist as the nation at large, should they get the chance.

Second, I don't think we should leave the poverty-stricken to die, but a couple of Boho kids from the local community college picking through the garbage for six months before going home to the suburbs will not help.

You want change? Try social programs, job creation, agitation for living wages, etc. At best Freeganism is just another form of charity, which is simply a measure taken to alleviate the symptoms, not combat the underlying cause.

Don't try to build a world from refuse. Garbage in, garbage out, yeah?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Most of what you say I actually agree, but there's some thing I've addressed that keep disturbing me.
I'm not being condescending or claiming more knowledge than you by asking this, but let me ask, how many freegans do you know?
I want to know if this is just a hypothetical construction or an argument by experience.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

Simply, it was a statement of taking one example of something that we have to pay for as part of my greater philosophy of Anarchism. I wasn't saying "In this capitalist society, food should be free", I was saying "What kind of fucked society makes it so that you have to pay for what you need to survive?". It's not my problem that you misinterpreted what I said.

Would you like a little cheese with your whine? Give me a break. You spout fluff, nothing more. Maybe you should read a book rather than listening to "Imagine" on repeat.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Most of what you say I actually agree, but there's some thing I've addressed that keep disturbing me.
I'm not being condescending or claiming more knowledge than you by asking this, but let me ask, how many freegans do you know?
I want to know if this is just a hypothetical construction or an argument by experience.

Purely hypothetical. I don't know any at all. Well, I know some of the type, but I don't know for sure that they dumpster-dive.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Then if the Freegans want to make a difference they should donate time and/or money to existing charitable foundations, rather than scrounging food from dumpsters. Maybe the Freegans should teach the poor and hungry about how to obtain this wasted food instead consuming it themselves. They obviously have the ability to procure their own means of sustenance, so it seems to me that taking this ostensibly edible food from the dumpsters is more wasteful than just leaving it to the truly needy.

Most of the homeless and poor already know how. But many of them are transient, so they don't always know where. So if the freegans take the food, prepare it, and give it to the homeless and poor, they're doing something good.

There's also the fact that a lot of the food needs preparation. If a homeless guy goes into a dumpster and finds a steak, he has a piece of bloody meat, but chances are he doesn't have a way to cook it. A freegan, on the other hand, can find the steak, cook it, and give it to the homeless guy with barbeque sauce.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Which goes back to the comparison with boycotting. You could just as easily have said that freegans take away food because they're taking away food.
But initially you said that if someone becomes a freegan, a store would not see the difference, still having the same amount of food, and the surplus just gets thrown away.
If you consider, like in this above post, that freeganism does diminish the amount of consumer products, then we go back to the first thing I said.

The store would not see the difference at first. Or if only a couple people went freegan.

But if a bunch of people go freegan, then the store will notice (at the least the loss in profits).

[Godslayer Jillian]

I've yet to meet someone that went freegan because they wanted to be freegan and that's it.
Of the ones I know around here, one runs a chapter of ABC which supports prisoners, focusing on political prisoners.
One has a route when he goes dumpster diving; and I don't mean a route of businesses, I mean a route of families that agree to sharing what he dumpsters.
The one that would be the more lifestylist plays in a band that's playing this next week on a benefit concert to savea no-drugs/no-alcohol venue. That's the most 'hipster' it gets
The other one, I don't know a lot about, but he's always helping around the local farmer's union

I only mention the four I personally know or otherwise it wouldn't be a valid argument, but even from them an all others they know from other places, not one single freegan has gone freegan to feel morally superior.
So there's no reason nor evidence to believe that.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Most of the homeless and poor already know how. But many of them are transient, so they don't always know where. So if the freegans take the food, prepare it, and give it to the homeless and poor, they're doing something good.

There's also the fact that a lot of the food needs preparation. If a homeless guy goes into a dumpster and finds a steak, he has a piece of bloody meat, but chances are he doesn't have a way to cook it. A freegan, on the other hand, can find the steak, cook it, and give it to the homeless guy with barbeque sauce.

I agree with you, but I kind of figured all of this would fall under the whole "working for charitable organizations" bit.

[Beneath the Shadows]

It often can, but there are still people who'd rather do it by themselves, or with a group of friends.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I only mention the four I personally know or otherwise it wouldn't be a valid argument, but even from them an all others they know from other places, not one single freegan has gone freegan to feel morally superior.
So there's no reason nor evidence to believe that.

I have two main problems with your statement.

First, you say that one must have physically observed something in order to talk about it. That is patently false. What of aeronautical engineers designing high speed airplanes they will never fly, historians studying long-dead civilizations, or, more to the point, sociologists reviewing data taken from cultures they haven't physically observed.

Second, you assert that simply because you know four people that practice Freeganism your remarks are lent some kind of validity. That's tantamount to saying that because I've met a few practicing Muslims in my time I must be an expert on Islam.

I'm sure that there are Freegans that do what they do because they actually believe in it, but, based on what I've seen in this thread and the links posted here, I do have a hard time taking the idea seriously. Couple that with the fact that Freeganism is either, at best, treating the symptoms of a social disease rather than treating the root cause, which other, more established charities already do, or, at worst, completely ineffective, I can't see the value. That's why I think that charity work would be far more effective.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Would you like a little cheese with your whine?

Would you like some friends?