Talk:Freeganism

Grad Students.

There's a sign up in my department's grad student lounge warning us that if we come to the Friday workshops and eat the free lunch, we have to stay for the talk--too many people eat and leave. Or eyebrows will be raised. PFoster 13:19, 28 November 2008 (EST)

It's the influence of Piled Higher and Deeper. ArmondikoV^moral 13:57, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Moonbattery

I reckon it is definitely moonbats annonymous. There's a whole anarchistic ideology that lies behind it. It's not just people choosing to live out of skips because they're cheap, they think it's saving the world. Let's also not forget how stupid it is. It's not free, someone has paid for it and they're just freeloading on scraps. The movement, like the VHEM, won't survive if they try and recruit more members because it's so self defeating. If it gets popular, eventually everyone will be trying to live the anarchistic dream of freeloading... but there'll be no one left to get the free stuff from! So, I think by that kind of standard, it's more than a "diet" and certainly one of the most outright silly of moonbat movements. ArmondikoV^moral 09:03, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Do they think it's directly "saving the world"--or do they simply think that it's making a political statement against a system they oppose? And it's not "stupid," that's just you being judgemental. And it is free-to them, which is sort of the point. You could argue it maximises economic efficiency, if anything, as waste becomes energy through human consumption. And, unlike VHEM, freetarians aren't trying to recruit/convert everyone--they're just living their lives in a way that works for them. If it gets popular, it doesn't mean everyone will start getting into fist-fights over the choice dumpsters--it means people would start to think about new and hopefully better ways to produce food to feed more people better at less cost to the ecosystem...nothing batty about that. PFoster 09:41, 1 December 2008 (EST)

It's a textbook example of extreme moombattery (along with Buy Nothing Day, which is based on much the same anti-consumerist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ideology.) If freeganism is simply "making a political statement against a system they oppose", the very fact that they oppose the "system" and feel some driving need to make a "statement" against it is what consigns this to the loony bin where it keeps good company with Critical Mass, Earth First, animal liberationists, and freight-hopping punk squatters and their ilk. I also take issue with the idea that they aren't out to recruit/convert anyone - they are in fact out to convert people to vegan diets and shut down the meat industry. I mean, if this isn't an example of extreme moonbattery I'm not sure why we even have the category. Is this yet another case (a-la Bill Clinton somehow not qualifying as a chickenhawk) where only the right wing loony bin is criticized on this site while the left wing loony bin gets a free pass? Secret Squirrel 10:20, 1 December 2008 (EST)

No, it's not a case that the "left wing loony bin gets a free pass." It's the case that this is not from the loony bin. And shutting down the meat industry might be a good thing--in terms of environmental and social justice. Opposing the "system" as you put it, and envisioning other alternatives, is where politics begins. Nothing crazy about that. Your objection to "anti-consumerist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ideology" seems to be just that--ideological" and not reasoned. PFoster 10:25, 1 December 2008 (EST)

"Your objection to "anti-consumerist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ideology" seems to be just that--ideological""

No, it's non-ideological. It means I regard all those who aren't generally happy with the world (or with life, or with themselves, which is really where political extremism comes from) and who have their various proposals for drastic change, with the same suspicion -- whether it's those who think shutting down the meat industry would be a good thing for environmental and social justice, or those who think shutting down abortion and birth control and teaching creationism would be a good thing. Opposing the "system" and envisioning alternatives isn't where politics begins, it's where politics ends. Working within the system (instead of nihilistic protest gestures against it) is where politics begins. Secret Squirrel 10:43, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Not if the system is gamed so that only certain options are possible--or even thinkable (pace Gramsci...) PFoster 10:47, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The system is gamed this way for a reason. The consensus that emerged out of the Great Depression and World War II was that when people who "envision alternatives" are allowed to put those alternatives into practice (usually in an undemocratic way, which is really the only way such "alternatives" can be put into practice, with no regard for what anyone else thinks of them), disastrous consequences result. Nazism, Fascism, and Stalinism were all particularly deadly examples from Europe, and the Great Depression providing textbook examples within the United States of both the results of poorly regulated markets, and of batty fringe movements (e.g., the Townsend Plan, and Upton Sinclair's EPIC) promising a cure-all. Books like The Vital Center (Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.) and The True Believer (Eric Hoffer) outlined where the boundaries of political thought should be drawn, correctly IMO, and the modern consensus is the combination of (1) a regulated capitalist economy with a social safety net and the right to collective bargaining; and (2) a liberal democracy with individual rights and civic participation both held in high regard. If certain options aren't possible nor thinkable, it is because those options could not happen without chucking liberal democracy or a regulated capitalist economy out the window. How, for example, would shutting down the meat industry be possible unless it were done undemocratically, without the consent of those whose diets (or livelihoods) are affected? In addition, the "direct action" style of protest favored by these anarchistic movements is inherently undemocratic. Secret Squirrel 11:56, 1 December 2008 (EST)

So people who envision alternatives to the liberal/neoliberal/capitalist order are akin to those who promote "Nazism, Fascism, and Stalinism"? Godwin's Law. I win. PFoster 12:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Well said. Though this also supports why I'm with keeping "Buy Nothing Day" out of moonbattery; it relies on market mechanisms, even if in the end they'll be utterly useless. Researcher 12:02, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I'm with Secret Squirrel on it being moonbattery. I'd say it is a political movement, but it is definitely a very fringe one. Moreover, it's more fringe (in terms of popular support) than many of the things we label "extreme wingnuttery". Even if it has *some* good benefits, the overall underpinnings are not sound. (Perhaps I'm biased against it--many kids at my college got sick eating in a coop that was using this philosophy without telling those eating in it.) Researcher 11:12, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Alright--I'll agree if Researcher is aligned against me--gut Buy Nothing Day stays out of the moonbattery cat? Agreed? PFoster 11:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

By Nothing Days are ridiculous, but not moonbattery. So, agreed. Researcher 11:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Um, okay - Buy Nothing Days can stay out of the category. Even though I think it has pretty much the same anti-consumerist agenda at heart, it is silly and ultimately harmless, cut from the same stuff as those who protest high gas prices by not buying gas for a day. Secret Squirrel 12:13, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Consume!!!! buy more stuff!!!who cares about unfair labour practices overseas? Who cares about production for consumers and dwindling energy resources or greenhouse gasses? I want more meat, so cut down that rainforest in Brazil! Those Indians should get with the times! More! Consume more! PFoster 12:23, 1 December 2008 (EST)

It seems to me this is a combination of boycotting an industry they think is harmful, reducing others' waste, and acquiring necessary materials at no cost. Is that really moonbattery? If some want to convert the whole world to this system, that's moonbattery, if they do shoplift, that is certainly highly questionable, but maybe not moonbattery. Freeganism on the most basic level, saving perfectly good food from rotting in landfills and instead using it for sustenance while saving thousands of dollars a year, is a far cry from moonbattery, in my book. It actually makes perfect sense. DickTurpis 11:19, 1 December 2008 (EST)

There are real health risks that are often completely overlooked or even denied in many of the activities of "freegans". Moreover, many do engage in quite morally questionable behavior, from shoplifting to having friends/acquaintances set aside food just for them at a restaurant, to be "thrown away". Researcher 11:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I suppose this is a question of whether something that is a personal lifestyle choice is nonetheless unfounded or just plain ridiculous, or has an objectionable agenda behind it even if it doesn't seem to hurt anyone else if considered alone without regard for the agenda behind it. Taking laetrile as a purported cancer cure is also unfounded, ridiculous and has an objectionable agenda behind it, but in itself doesn't hurt anyone (except maybe the person taking it); that doesn't make it any less worthy of categorizing as quackery and pseudoscience. Same would apply here IMO. Secret Squirrel 12:06, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I think part of the problem is presenting this as inherently political, when it isn't always. To an extent, it's simply a lifestyle choice. People can reasonably object to the way the food industry works in this country, particularly regarding environmental issues, and specifically looking at meat. Boycotting an industry you think is harmful is not irrational, but of course you still have to eat. Growing your own food is not always practical, so collecting what other discard is a way to eat for free, prevent your money from going to entities you think are harmful, and reduce waste in an appallingly wasteful society. Is that much unfounded and ridiculous? Certainly it doesn't work if everyone does it, but since I know of no one who promotes this for everyone, that isn't an issue. Shoplifting or giving/selling such food to others without their knowledge is a separate issue. DickTurpis 12:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

(EC) Well, now you're defining a movement by the fringes of that movement. Obviously one has to be careful about what you take. I have a friend who is basically a freegan, but realizes that it is very difficult to get all your food through dumpster diving. Bread products and vegetables are an easy find, while meat and dairy, if eaten at all, are a much greater risk. Shoplifting is not a necessary part of the movement, though I imagine there are some who do this regularly. Likewise Co-ops doing this without telling their customers is not the norm, and has nothing to do with people engaging in this lifestyle willingly. I'm also uncomfortable with labeling something as moonbattery merely because it has little popular support. Does the fact that most people think eating discarded food is icky make the mentality behind it any more crazy? DickTurpis 12:17, 1 December 2008 (EST)

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is paying for the freegan's food. Basically very few economic systems are 100% efficient and the food industry which is subject to the vagaries of weather, public taste, transport, fuel prices and subsidies is one of the least efficent of the lot. Particularly for short shelf-life low-cost items. If a freegan doesn't buy an item that they would otherwise consume then it means that the overall market for that items is reduced and the unit cost increases. It can be seen as analogous to video & mp3 copyright pirates, or public transport fare-dodgers ("the train wasn't full so I was just making use of an empty seat that would ötherwise have gone to waste), they are parasites on those who do pay the full rate. As a way for a small group to get a free ride from the sysetm it can work but like pyramid-selling schemes it collapses when everyone joins in. So promoting it as an answer to food shortages is moonbattery, accepting it as a side-effect of an imperfect world is not. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:21, 2 December 2008 (EST)

"If a freegan doesn't buy an item that they would otherwise consume..." many Freegans I've met still purcahse food when they want or need to--but they never pay for certain foods. The market for meat would not expand in the cases that I'm thinking of if these people stopped eating it "for free," because they would only eat it for free and would never purchase it. I think what's missing here in your parasite analogy is an acknowledgement of the fact that we live in an incredibly wasteful system that produces far too much--if US Americans cut down to a reasonable amount of calories every day and cut by even a half the amount of meat and animal products they consume, the situation would be entirely different.And for the fifteenth fucking time, nobody-freegan or otherwise--is saying that everyone should do this. PFoster 11:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

(EC) Once people discard food they lose any claim to any losses they may take from that. Since people are under no obligation to buy anything ever, the idea that they "owe" store their business, and the store is taking a loss by them not shopping there doesn't work for me. If stores are taking a huge loss, they can adjust their policies to cut back on waste (obviously they will never have a perfect balance, but from what I know the volume of waste is pretty astounding). With landfills filling up at alarming rates, recycling of this sort has a net positive effect, rather than a negative one. Obviously not everyone can live this way, but there is no danger of that, nor do I believe it is encouraged. Should freeganism suddenly become a popular lifestyle, we'll see the free market in action there as well, as demand exceeds supply (which would presumably not increase) freegans will find they cannot meet their needs this way and will be forced back into paying for at least some of their food, again contributing to the system. My main qualms about freeganism is if people who can afford to buy food but don't are taking away from the homeless, who need this free food to survive. I believe, at this stage, it really isn't a problem yet. I don't know of this being promoted as an answer to worldwide food shortages, so that seems like a bit of a strawman argument to me. DickTurpis 11:47, 2 December 2008 (EST)

<EC> The fact that it can only exist as a minority movement is what the makes it moonbattery. As an ideology it's half-baked - it criticises a system without presenting a viable alternative. The freegan lifestyle is only sustainable if a tiny minority of people do it, and ultimately it is parasitic - freegans are still consuming the products of the consumer industries that they criticise - they're just letting others (the companies & their paying customers) pay for what they consume. Yes, we are in a wasteful society, but anybody taking advantage of that waste should recognise that they're doing so selfishly & opportunistically, or from personal necessaity (e.g. poverty). Anyone who claims they are doing so for ideological reasons is a moonbat. weaseLOId~ 11:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)

(UNDENT) I just want to disagree with Dick about one thing. Freeganism and dumpster-diving should be a choice, not a necessity. The argument that they are taking food out of the mouths of the homeless troubles me in that it implies the homeless "should" be dumpster-diving. They shouldn't; they should be being cared for by a reliable social safety net. PFoster 11:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I agree, but pragmatically that isn't happening entirely, and the homeless are often forced to go through dumpsters. If their already difficult existence is made more difficult by freegans who are not forced to do this, then that is disturbing. From what I know, that isn't a big issue at this time. DickTurpis 12:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Weasel, it's NOT AN IDEOLOGY and NOBODY WANTS EVERYBODY TO DO IT. Sorry about the caps, but for fucks sake, get it through your head, man--that point has been made several fucking times on this page. Shit. And it's supposed to undermine the corporations--through parasitism or whatever else you want to call it. They are--in the freegans' minds, part of the problem. and if you actually bothered to talk to and read about these people beyond what's in this blog, you'd know that freegans, being part of wider anarchist social movements, are actively "presenting a viable alternative." Many viable alternatives. Know what's going on before spouting off nonsense. PFoster 12:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Well thanks for the friendly attitude. I don't see anywhere in this thread saying that Freeganism isn't an ideology (& the word appears quite prominently in the article). Everything I've seen indicates that it is ideologically motivated: in protest against consumer culture, etc. Whether you define that as an ideology or an ethic is just semantics: it's still choosing a lifestyle because of political beliefs rather than necessity. & I didn't suggest that anybody wanted everybody to do it - I said that the fact that it is intended as a small minority movement is what defines it as a moonbattery. I don't know what "resenting a viable alternative" means, but I reckon any movement that opposes the status quo should have at heart some kind of idea about improving it or providing an alternative. weaseLOId~ 12:23, 2 December 2008 (EST)

"presenting," not "resenting", my bad. And sorry about the attitude--but if you take "ideology" to imply totalising and universalised worldviews, it's not an ideology in and of itself. And that's been made clear, I think. it's part of a larger, yes, ideologically-driven struggle to question and change the ways in which food is produced and consumed in order to create better chances for social justice. Nothing batty about that. And go to any anarchist bookstore and check out the volumes and volumes which have come out in recent years on the question of food economies for viable alternatives.PFoster 12:31, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Apology accepted, & I did wonder if you meant presenting. I know I came late to this debate & don't know much about this movement, but it was me who first put this in the moonbats category, so I thought I should give my reasons. I take your point about it being related to ideologies but not one in itself; probably the article needs to be reworded to make this a bit clearer. I can understand all the reasons for freeganism, but still think it's a pretty strange choice to make, & less respectable (IMO) than self-sufficiency or choosing strictly ethical consumerism. But I guess that's just me, & not everyone at RW would agree. weaseLOId~ 12:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I'll agree that it's strange and perhaps less respectable than self-sufficiency, but self sufficiency isn't terribly viable in the urban environments in which freeganism seems to be the most widespread. You can't grow crops without arable land. Furthermore, I question the idea that since freeganism isn't sustainable if everyone does it, it is therefore moonbattery. Certainly if there is an unsustainable lifestyle if undertaken by the entire population it is that of the middle class American. The planet could not support 7 billion people consuming the resources of the average American, at least not without shortages rendering it unaffordable, if not impossible. Is the American lifestyle therefore moonbattery as well? DickTurpis 22:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)

A good point well put. weaseLOId~ 06:19, 3 December 2008 (EST)

So they eat out of bins? Big fucking deal. I take it there's some rich kidzz on here who aren't affected by the price of food? I'm giving this option some serious thought.Scherben 16:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Scherben

I know I'm late to the game on this, but as someone that runs a Food Not Bombs chapter, there's nothing moonbat-ish about this. The US alone throws away 40% of all food ever produced, most of it still edible. Pointing out that we have more than enough food to feed the planet and that nobody needs to starve by dumpster diving and giving it to folks that need the food, is about as un-moonbatish as you can get. Also, checking for food safety is ridiculously easy: avoid most meat, or anything that touched anything unsanitary, wash everything and use your eyes and nose to see if the food is bad. I've been feeding the homeless for YEARS with veggies that would've been tossed and we've never once had anyone get sick. TokenSkepticMagician 13:25 13 June 2022 (JST)

Interesting

As occurs many, many times, the talk page is far for interesting than the article. My .02: If freegans are just dumpster-diving to avoid paying for food, it's not a "movement", it's like squatting and living on the dole - not much better than laziness. If, however, the movement actually has a goal (like "saving all that wasted food") then it might have a point. I used to work at a Pizza Hut, and at the end of the night we'd throw out any unused dough. Meaning anywhere up to 30 pounds or so of proofed, ready to bake, bread. If we ran the oven for ten-twenty more minutes we could have finished it off and made food, and perhaps given it to the "hungry" - people who couldn't afford to eat there anyway, but for whom a 20 ounce cooked pizza crust would be a savings in making their family's next meal. Rant over... PS, I disagree with a lot of what SS said, but I'll leave it at that until I digest further and comment in-line above. ħuman 02:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I know that in NZ, bakeries often have a lottery to win all the leftover bread at the end of the day for students and poor families. They can't sell it, because their big thing is having their bread fresh every day, but it'll keep long enough to make huge savings that week on their food bills. Big corporations don't think like this, though, because hungry people are what makes their profits, I presume, or perhaps just from institutional inertia. Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 07:33, 3 December 2008 (EST)

When I worked in a cafeteria, I had one boss the forbade the student workers (like me) from taking anything home, because then we'd just "make extra in order to take it home." I had another boss that thought it was horseshit and encouraged us to take home whatever was left over. (Mostly pizza.) I know there have been reports (not sure how genuine) of US companies no longer giving food away to food banks, etc., for fear of lawsuits. Just a few random things to throw out. Researcher 09:29, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Some of it is legal, as well. This might not apply to Pizza Hut throwing away thier unused dough (that's most likely laziness of the franchise owner than anything else), but I know that you have to be careful with health code violations when dealing with this kind of stuff. Our church always lets people take home leftovers, but we can't give any of it to homeless shelters and the like, because it's hot food. If nobody comes to the church to take it away, it gets thrown in the trash. I'm also reminded of the "muffin top" episode of Seinfeld :) JazzMan 15:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Exactly - often the very reason food is discarded is that it has hit its "legal" shelf-life, so it would be a serious issue to then pass it along to the needy. "Day-old" bread, of course, is still good, it's just not "today's" anymore. The unused dough thing is actually not very simple to fix - obviously, it would need to be run through the oven to make it into crust. Then it has to be transported to where it is needed - in the middle of the night, which is not convenient for anyone, really. Of course, if that issue was resolved, it is then a bread product that will keep for many days when refrigerated. Which leads to the next problem(s) - adding ingredient/nutrition info, "use by" dates, etc. It's not actually a good example, since it would be useless to freegans, unless they were very ingenious. It's more an example of waste that is very hard to avoid (and believe me, if they can figure out a way not to waste it, they won't). ħuman 16:19, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Another aside, regarding the "freegan lifestyle" - some of us try to make use of as many "discarded" items as possible - rather than letting them go into the waste stream. My town facilitates this to an extent with a "swap shop" at the transfer station (dump) where we are encouraged to leave usable items we no longer need or want, and also to forage through them for things we need or want. (A similar function with small transaction costs occurs at thrift stores and the like, even up to the level of "antique" stores, where many items cost less than comparable, less well made, new items.) I didn't buy the keyboard I am typing on, someone didn't need it anymore. My "guest" computer cost nothing, of course it has a crt not a newstyle thin monitor. My workshop has a wall lined with twenty feet of used kitchen cabinets, and uses a pair of smooth solid-core doors as the work surface. Just as with food, we (in the West) discard much usable "merchandise", which, if not captured and redirected, we then bury or burn, throwing away all the labor and resources that went into them. As you might guess, engaging in this sort of "lifestyle" also makes me think that as many goods as possible should be built for very long lifetimes - a chair will still be a chair in a hundred (or a 1000) years, as long as it doesn't break. Some things there isn't much point to making last too long, since they become obsolete too fast (like computer equipment, broadly speaking), but making crappy furniture just doesn't make sense, to me. Just some more random .02s...

As far as the cafeteria experience described above, surely any well-run food operation tells the workers how much food to prepare based on history and careful forecasting, the workers don't just make however much food they feel like making. Like at the pizza place I referred to above, we virtually never threw out the equivalent of more than one "batch" of dough, so that partial batch that was thrown out needed to be made to meet customer demand. And what we made, back in the early 80s, was carefully projected to meet demand based on history (and coupon cycles, which would pretty much double sales). ħuman 15:17, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Why does this article exist?

It's shit. A stub, no citations, of dubious missionality. Why is an ethical stance on food waste and consumerism suddenly woo? There's no denialism being promoted. No misinformation being spread. This reads more like a shitty rant than a genuinely informative piece. Carthage (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the old guard loved this page, given the other commentary and the timeperiod it was mostly edited (2008-2011). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)