Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 288

Thread: Fast Food Nastiness

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenBrain View Post
    It's always a bit shocking to me when I encounter people who are completely baffled by this process.
    I'm not really shocked at all. This is pretty much in line with the attitude towards everything. Out of sight, out of mind. Willfully ignorant. People don't want to think about the suicides at the human farms that produce their electronics, their 3-pack of plastic whatever from walmart, the lives ruined by governments working with corporations to secure mineral rights. People typically don't even think much about the homeless people they walk passed in the morning going to work. So why care about the food?

    For the most part, for most people, they don't care about anything like that until it affects them personally on a time scale short enough that even a moron can see the negative change. With food, it's so slow and just the health part alone takes a long time to really become noticeable, and by then it's at the very least almost too late.

    I think people are so used to things being done for them as far as the basics go, they don't even want to know because it will force them to take an honest personal inventory and ultimately lead them into having to admit they are wrong.


    All that being said, considering how we live, there are some serious logistical problems with feeding everyone with fresh local food. Those of us who are lucky enough to be in an area that will grow food at all, have enough space to grow food and have the time to put into it should totally do so. But what about everyone else?

    So here's a question for somebody more schooled than I am in these things... What would be the affects of the human population spreading out more and growing more food for themselves? If we all just spaced out as evenly as we could and went for it. Better for the ecosystem or worse? For arguments sake, let's pretend that everyone would know what they were doing and weren't greedy pricks. So ignore the selfish/moron factor. How doable is this? If it was possible, how much of this would rely on relatively recent technology?

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by rett2 View Post
    Thanks, good to know.

    Not even having to label it? Sometimes I get lulled into believing in progress and then the powers that be go and take an ugly step in the wrong direction.
    For the most part, people becoming more socially progressive. Some of that is reflected in law, much is not. Popular opinion has less affect on law than you would think. It has very little ability to change or prevent laws that are being bought and paid for by those very few who can afford to buy policy for their own gains. You want a voice? Help end legal bribery. Article V. Do it.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    So here's a question for somebody more schooled than I am in these things... What would be the affects of the human population spreading out more and growing more food for themselves? If we all just spaced out as evenly as we could and went for it. Better for the ecosystem or worse? For arguments sake, let's pretend that everyone would know what they were doing and weren't greedy pricks. So ignore the selfish/moron factor. How doable is this? If it was possible, how much of this would rely on relatively recent technology?

    With consideration to the way you frame the question I'd say it's doable. If we were not selfish or greedy and everybody knew what they were doing we could easily create an environment that could coexist with nature and take care of all our food needs. Technology might play a role especially in aquaponics. We may have already created too many superbugs due to over pesticide and antibiotic use but I think if we practice successful breeding of more resistant plants we could tip the balance back in our favor.

    Anybody that has flown over this country knows there's SOOOOOOO much land compared to people that spreading out would not be a problem. In the US, 2/3 of the population lives concentrated in the cities along the coasts. The rest of the country is for the most part wide open.

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Great Lakes State, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,647
    Last edited by PalmStriker; 08-03-2014 at 06:47 PM.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by PalmStriker View Post
    Time to outlaw greed...
    ...AND, you can even eat the seed.

    Dig the shirt.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenBrain View Post
    With consideration to the way you frame the question I'd say it's doable. If we were not selfish or greedy and everybody knew what they were doing we could easily create an environment that could coexist with nature and take care of all our food needs. Technology might play a role especially in aquaponics. We may have already created too many superbugs due to over pesticide and antibiotic use but I think if we practice successful breeding of more resistant plants we could tip the balance back in our favor.

    Anybody that has flown over this country knows there's SOOOOOOO much land compared to people that spreading out would not be a problem. In the US, 2/3 of the population lives concentrated in the cities along the coasts. The rest of the country is for the most part wide open.
    I know that there is tons of unoccupied space all over the globe, but how much is that land is capable of growing and how much of it is practical? I don't really believe either way, I simply don't know. At what global population would this not be possible?

    It's also worthy to note that the extraction of the materials we use to create our newer technologies is quite destructive, let alone the manufacturing and shipping of these products. Can we all have an iPhone too? You know where I'm going with this?
    Last edited by Syn7; 08-05-2014 at 01:39 PM.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    NorthEast Region, N. America
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    I know that there is tons of unoccupied space all over the globe, but how much is that land is capable of growing and how much of it is practical? I don't really believe either way, I simply don't know. At what global population would this not be possible?

    It's also worthy to note that the extraction of the materials we use to create our newer technologies is quite destructive, let alone the manufacturing and shipping of these products. Can we all have an iPhone too? You know where I'm going with this?
    It seems that there needs to be a stronger sense of community. And also, in the cities, people would need to stop living in "box" buildings. There would need to be groups, or whole neighborhoods of people, occupying a certain area/town center for this to work, and demolishing most other buildings.

    In the suburbs/ rural places, where housing is spaced far apart, people would need to converge and live on say, one particular property. Let's say Farmer Joe has 70 acres of land. Good. An entire town can move onto that one piece of land and abandon all the rest of their properties. Everywhere else can be foraging, fishing and hunting grounds, water supplies, and places of travel.

    The theory should not be to get everyone to be spaced evenly apart, but to get people back into concentrated clusters (with total freedom), like small tribes, with a strong sense of community.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    I know that there is tons of unoccupied space all over the globe, but how much is that land is capable of growing and how much of it is practical? I don't really believe either way, I simply don't know. At what global population would this not be possible?

    It's also worthy to note that the extraction of the materials we use to create our newer technologies is quite destructive, let alone the manufacturing and shipping of these products. Can we all have an iPhone too? You know where I'm going with this?

    Good questions. Technology may be the answer. We're moving pretty fast with 3d printing so lets say we develop a way to control atoms and molecules in such a precise way as to use 3d printing to recreate the materials we use rather than mine them. We dump in carbon and other wildly available raw materials like trash and pull out lithium or whatever, or maybe even a fully functioning iPhone. When that iPhone is trash we dump it into the 3d printer to re-combine the materials into a new one. Tech like this could completely change they way we dispose of trash and eliminate the need for such destructive mining practices.

    Since water never really disappears but rather just changes form it's feasible to pipe inland desalinated sea water to any region that is too dry to grow in. With technology like greenhouses and piping in fresh water the temperature really wouldn't be a problem, so as long as there is sunlight we could grow crops just about anywhere on earth. In my technologically advanced utopia we could even 3d print lights, electronics and other environmental systems to grow crops underground. Heck, we might even be able to 3d print or to use a Star Trek term "replicate" the food and water we need and skip the growing process altogether.

    If we get to a point where we master the above tech then population wouldn't be a problem. We could live as high in the air as we want because we would have developed such advanced materials as to make super high skyscrapers possible. We could also carve out entire cities and ecosystems underground and artificially light it using such advanced tech.

    Right now in this reality we need to get a handle on our emissions and trash and grow beyond our me me me ideology and learn how to work together in order to preserve what we have. If we can survive ourselves then I have no doubt we will develop the kind of tech I mentioned above and much much more.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by MarathonTmatt View Post
    It seems that there needs to be a stronger sense of community. And also, in the cities, people would need to stop living in "box" buildings. There would need to be groups, or whole neighborhoods of people, occupying a certain area/town center for this to work, and demolishing most other buildings.

    In the suburbs/ rural places, where housing is spaced far apart, people would need to converge and live on say, one particular property. Let's say Farmer Joe has 70 acres of land. Good. An entire town can move onto that one piece of land and abandon all the rest of their properties. Everywhere else can be foraging, fishing and hunting grounds, water supplies, and places of travel.

    The theory should not be to get everyone to be spaced evenly apart, but to get people back into concentrated clusters (with total freedom), like small tribes, with a strong sense of community.
    I like your ideas but to further what I said in the reply to syn, I think technology will allow us to live in our own spaces. These spaces could be very well designed ecosystems within buildings or underground or on the oceans...etc. We could still preserve most of the empty land as long as we build up and down more efficiently. We are reaching the end of suburban sprawl and with the rising populations I think we'll have no choice but to create mega cities. The real question is how much green space can we create within these cities so that we can still enjoy nature. Also, these mega cities of the future need to improve on public transportation so that we can travel everywhere in the city and locally within the city there needs to be more efficient bicycle and pedestrian routes so that most of the city could be "walk up" rather than everybody driving a car. My wife and I drive to Dallas quite often to visit family. We usually take the HOV lane and what we always comment on is the vast majority of cars have only one occupant. This seems like such a strain on our roads and environment. It'd be nice to have some sort of public transportation system between and in ALL cities and towns which would reduce the need for so many cars.

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    45,475

    McTaiwan

    I'm trying to imagine what this would taste like....

    McDonald's hosts free banquet in Taipei
    2014/12/13 20:10:55



    Taipei, Dec. 13 (CNA) McDonald's Taiwan hosted a free banquet for 150 people in Taipei Saturday.

    Many of the participants were from central and southern Taiwan, including Nantou, Changhua and Kaohsiung, the fast food restaurant chain said.

    The event, which took place at the historic Red House Theater in Ximending, was the first of its kind held by McDonald's.


    [CNA photo Dec. 13, 2014]

    Although only 150 openings were available, over 10,000 people tried to sign up when registration opened Dec. 1, McDonald's said.

    The Taiwanese-style feast was prepared by Huang Ching-lung, a local chef specializing in Taiwanese cuisine, using the same ingredients used in McDonald's meals.


    [Chef Huang Ching-lung. CNA photo Dec. 13, 2014]

    By holding such a creative banquet, McDonald's is hoping to overthrow local people's poor impression of the food chain, said Vicky Lee, marketing director for McDonald's Taiwan, adding that 60 percent of ingredients used by the company in Taiwan are purchased locally.

    (By Wang Shu-fen and Y.F. Low)
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    45,475

    McCheerleaders in Taiwan

    Gimme an M! Then gimme some fries! McDonald’s Taiwan has cheerleaders serving burgers!
    evie lund 12 hours ago



    Usually, eating at McDonald’s is a pretty standard experience that doesn’t vary too much from country to country, beyond sampling whatever interesting local variant burgers are available, that is. It’s probably why nervous travellers often make a beeline for McDonald’s rather than opt to experiment with the local cuisine. However, eating at McDonald’s in Taiwan usually always guarantees a little extra entertainment to go with your fries – in the form of cosplaying waitresses! We’ve already reported about their maid costumes, kitty schoolgirl costumes, and sexy doctor and nurse costumes, and now we’re happy to report that Taiwanese Maccy D’s have gone all-American by adopting cheerleader costumes, as well! Join us after the jump for the pics!

    Upon entering the fast-food eatery, you’ll be greeted by a cheesy grin and possibly some cheeseburgers.



    While the cheerleader uniforms perhaps aren’t as snazzy as we might have hoped, they certainly look comfy. To be honest, we were picturing something in the traditional red and yellow McDonald’s colour scheme, but then again, we’re picky.



    If you were hoping the staff was going to leap on each other’s shoulders in human pyramid formation while yelling “cheer if you want fries with that!,” we’re sorry to report that everything seems to be business as usual, albeit conducted in form-fitting shiny lycra.



    There’s even cheerleading oufits for the boys, although they’re spared having to wear a little frilly skirt. Nobody gets pompoms, though (we guess it might be a health hazard to have something that could potentially trap thousands of germs rustling around over everyone’s fries and boxes of nuggets).



    Netizens in Japan were delighted by the above snaps, with many cooing over the cuteness of the cheerleader outfits and the brightness of the McDonald’s staff’s smiles. Perhaps one commenter put it best when they said: “Taiwanna go there now!” Hmm, with the recent trouble McDonald’s has been having in Japan, perhaps a little cosplay could do wonders to boost sales!

    Source: Yurukuyaru.com, Hamusoku.com
    Images: Yurukuyaru.com
    Rate this:
    Next step, McBreastaurants.
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Great Lakes State, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,647
    Or Burger Ching with ninjettes.

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    45,475

    Ouch

    um....can I get nachos with that?
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Great Lakes State, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,647

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    45,475

    Nice new MikeyD's location

    5:30 am HKT
    Jan 30, 2015
    Culture
    Hungry in Hangzhou? McDonald’s Applies to Lease Taiwan Leader’s Home


    Hangzhou’s West Lake draws crowds of tourists every year.
    Associated Press

    For years, local authorities in the Chinese city of Hangzhou have put Taiwan leader Chiang Ching-kuo’s former home up for rent.

    Now they have a taker: McDonald's MCD -0.25%.

    The U.S. fast-food chain has applied to open shop in the historic lakeside villa, a spokeswoman for McDonald’s Corp. said. She declined to disclose further details on plans for the villa, located in the hotbed of a tourist town and once owned by the son of the famed Chinese Nationalist Party leader Chiang Kai-shek.

    Local Chinese media is reporting that McDonald’s applied to roll out a McCafe coffee shop, selling 20 yuan lattes and sweet cakes instead of Big Macs and McFlurries from its typical McDonald’s fast-food chain.

    Hangzhou authorities are requesting public comment on conversion plans for the villa, which Mr. Chiang inhabited before the Nationalists lost control of mainland China, spurring him to find a more permanent home in Taiwan. The two-story house, overlooking the scenic West Lake, was built in 1931. The trees lining the garden are reportedly ones that Mr. Chiang planted himself, according to Hangzhou tourism authorities.

    If social media outrage is any indicator of public sentiment, the application may not pass muster. “This is a joke,” one person wrote on Weibo. “Can we turn Mao’s old house into a KFC?” another person wrote.

    China has proven to be a mixed bag for Western companies that attempt to move into historic spots. KFC opened its first China outlet decades ago in a prime spot along Tiananmen Square in Beijing and still operates there today. But Starbucks shut its doors in 2007 at its Forbidden City outlet, succumbing to public outcry that the coffee chain was inappropriately stomping on Chinese culture grounds.

    Conversions of historic buildings are fairly common in China. Luxury giant Hermes recently overhauled an old French Concession fire department for its Shanghai flagship store. Outside of the country, brew-pub company McMenamins converted the John D. Kennedy Elementary School in Portland, Ore. for its current-day bar, movie theater and hotel. A night club opened in former Episcopal Church of the Holy Communion in New York in the 1980′s. It closed its doors in 2007.

    – Laurie Burkitt

    “Can we turn Mao’s old house into a KFC?” bawang? Were you the person who wrote that?
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •