>

This. Couldn't agree more. Although it might seem little at home, how much would it be collectively? Also if we cook only what we need, we end up having to buy less. It translates into less demand which could result in lower prices as well. Hmm that went too far probably but idk.
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

But those fat stores could potentially allow the person to survive eating much less food (or even no food at all for an extended time). So you can’t count the food as wasted until the person dies fat. >

But most food you can keep outside of your body as long as it takes for your body to burn it. So instead of eating this frozen or canned food id wait a year and then eat it but if i eat it now the food is burnt in like a few days. >

It's even worse than thrown out because: (1) it's harming the person who ate it, and (2) if it's thrown out there's still a chance it will be scavenged >

Love you bro >

Food provides humans with so much more than survival. I think you need to adjust your perspective a bit >

I know but your saying wasting food if you buy to much is worse. While i could also argue i could get a sense of security and ease when i make to much food. Its not about wether its good or not it just about the ethical view of wasting food. The question im really asking is if the shape in wich food is wasted matter for it to be called wasted food. >

If you strip people's quality of living down to just survival, is that a world you want to survive in? >

Zoom out just a tad and the problem starts with cooking to much in the first place