Eco-cooking

File: gorp.png (645KB, 638x429px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 638x429px

>>1051124
Yeah it's called a "campfire"

>>1051124
i would guess alcohol, you can source it for a premium for a few shekels extra, form a guilt free source.

and its a natural thing & it evaporates. can sourced from like rotten apples made with yeast into alcohol etc.

propane could have traces of light oil, but can be good too as it burns very clean. and biofuel will leave ash piles that concentrate some chemicals if you mean stuff like pellets

>>1051124
>environmentally friendly
>cook

Yeah no.

If you want to be kind to your environment please don't cook. There is no 'environmentally friendly' way to do it. Cooking is about destruction and the environment is about growth.

Eat raw both when in the woods and at home. Have a carrot, apple, some berries. The best most nourishing food doesn't need to be cooked and doing so would only lessen it.

>>1051130
No.

Campfire destroy wood, which must be taken from the land for fuel. They leave unsightly blemishes, breathe smoke into the atmosphere, and frighten wildlife. They are of man, no nature.

>>1051145
>fire is of man, not nature
Want to know how I know you aren't Australian?

>>1051149
I spelled all my words correctly?

>>1051145
"most environmentally friendly", the operative term in that phrase is most, indicating not an absolute but rather a measure of degree.

>>1051140
That's exactly the info I was looking for thank you. Any suggestions on alcohol stoves?

>>1051155
That was my point: cooking food is not environmentally friendly no matter how it is done.

>>1051159
just die and let your remains fertilise nature, then
I'll be over here with my toasted marshmallows and hot stew

>eco-cooking
>buys industrially-manufactured stove from producer that pollutes through processing & refining
>buys fuel from producer that pollutes through industrial processing & refining
>drives car to woods
>labors heavily to set up camp, increasing metabolic processes, resulting in greater exhalation of bunny-killing gases
>im-helping.png

>>1051145
>There is no 'environmentally friendly' way to do it. Cooking is about destruction and the environment is about growth.

this guy's never heard of culling or the circle of life.

>>1051172
Culling animals is a practice invented by humans to justify their actions after decimating animal habitats. Wild animals survived long before the practice of culling was made up.

The circle of life does not require cooking as a facilitator.

>>1051173
>Wild animals survived long before the practice of culling was made up.

this guy's never heard of the younger dryas extinction.

>The circle of life does not require cooking as a facilitator.

destruction is a property of nature. "cooking" being "artificial" doesn't make its form of "destruction" inherently "bad" in "nature".

>>1051172
Did I ever day I was looking to make the planet better? No, I want to minimise the impact of an activity I enjoy doing. I remember when this board was a beacon of civility where we could all enjoy our hobby. I guess now it's beginning the descent to cancer-tier. I'll remember you /out/ you were great.

>>1051175
Pretending you meant climatic events when you really meant individuals killing individuals of another species, suggests you aren't really serious.

Cooking is practiced exclusively by man, and it is very much a modern invention. I never described it as artificial just that it is of man and stands apart from nature.

>>1051178
I am suggesting only that you stop being a pretend-friend to the environment.

Why is seeking out the least impactful way to do a destructive thing a worthwhile activity to you, but stopping that destructive thing entirely is not?

I suspect that what you want is a veneer of eco-consciousness that you can feel good about and you don't really care about your impact. This is how many people in the west live, buying hybrid cars and the like. All such people do is wreak a different type of destruction.

I'd respect you all more if you were just open and honest about not really caring.

>>1051130
wood fires are dirty combustion. lots of particulates and CO. but very nice regardless.

>>1051158
As I understand it, most of them are basically cups to hold alcohol with holes for air poked in them--there's no pump or pressurization like in liquid-fuel stoves, for instance. So it's not that hard to make your own to try it out.

>>1051179
>Pretending you meant climatic events when you really meant individuals killing individuals of another species, suggests you aren't really serious.

i'm not pretending that i meant anything. i said "culling or the circle of life". you said wild animals survived long before the practice of culling was made up. i point out that extinctions occur, which are part of the "circle of life".

>Cooking is practiced exclusively by man, and it is very much a modern invention. I never described it as artificial just that it is of man and stands apart from nature.

cooking isn't a modern invention, and "artificial" literally means "made of or by humans".

>>1051178
>this board is now cancer tier because somebody made some light-hearted green text

i think the real cancer her is your egotistically driven self-righteous indignation.

>>1051185
I don't see the parallels between an individual killing cooking and eating an individual of another species as a means of subsistence, and 20-30 million year extinction events.

Please expound.

And yes cooking is a modern invention. Humans are too, thus cooking is necessarily.

>>1051190
i didn't make a parallel between an individual killing, cooking, and eating an individual of another species as a means of subsistence, and 20-30 million year extinction events. you made the claim that wild animals survived long before the practice of culling was made up, and i countered that claim with a catastrophic example of mass extinction from < 13,000 years ago.

>And yes cooking is a modern invention. Humans are too, thus cooking is necessarily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking
>Preparing food with heat or fire is an activity unique to humans. It may have started around 2 million years ago, though archaeological evidence for it reaches no more than 1 million years ago.

>>1051190
a catastrophic extinction & migratory period that resulted in a boom in the population of various smaller species, such as deer and coyote, i might add.

the main point being that your fawning commentary about the purity of nature is nonsense. destruction is a primary component of nature, and even facilitates growth.

>>1051124
The only way to truly eliminate your individual human impact is to stop breathing.