5 ms·

It sounds cruel, but I think we need to call people out when they eat factory meat.

by jMyles 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago
So, basically, shame low-income people?
- arethuza 11y ago
  Having had my son suffer from an antibiotic resistant eye infection, if its a choice between low cost meat and useful antibiotics I'll go for the latter every time. It's not like anyone in Europe or the US is actually suffering from a lack of meat is it? [He's fine - but we were terrified he might lose the sight in one eye for a while].
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I am not suggesting that antibiotics in meat are a good thing, but I am pointing out the reality that antibiotic-free meat is a luxury item.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - jMyles 11y ago
      <strike>antibiotic-free</strike> meat is a luxury item. Unless you hunt.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        If you're proposing a law that allows the people who buy chicken at Aldi to hunt people who want to shame them for doing it, I'm right there with you.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        It's not a sustainable solution... wait, scratch that. Factory farming is not a sustainable solution, hunting is not even in the same ballpark as any viable solution to providing as much people as we have with regular meat meals. And then even if, you'd have a resurgence of people sick and dying from parasites and other stuff you catch from improperly handled meat.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- jMyles 11y ago
  Come on now. Don't make it about that. If you can't afford real meat, then you can't afford meat. Nobody says that people who can't afford a catalytic converter deserve an exemption allowing them to spew more carbon from their cars. This is the same dynamic, but far, far worse.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I see the isomorphism between catalytic converters and animal protein, but there's a pretty big difference between requiring people to pay more for cars and telling them they can't buy chicken at Aldi anymore. I think shaming people for buying cheap meat is a terrible strategy that will backfire. What needs to change are the regulations. When antibiotics are banned from the food supply, the market will discover other ways to regain the efficiencies.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      tptacek, It seems to me that, in every thread, you find a way to dream that more "regulations" will solve all of the social ills of the US and beyond. The agri-industrial complex is perhaps the clearest example that the powerful among the regulated will find a way to be the regulators. What more needs to happen to clarify this for you?
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Regulations are a right tool for the job here. What would be a non-regulatory approach? Let the market decide? The market decided; it doesn't give a flying damn about things like loss of antibiotics for human healthcare; people want their cheap meat, the market delivers. If it involves overusing antibiotics, so be it.
        Houshalter 11y ago
        The problem I think he is trying to point out, is that the regulatory agencies are controlled by those businesses in the first place. The FDA tried to regulate antibiotics in farm use decades ago, and the industry threw a fit until it stopped. They tried again awhile ago, and they fought against them until they made compliance voluntary. If the only regulations you can have are ones which benefit big businesses, then no regulations at all might be better. You can't have a political ideology based around the idea that the government is perfectly competent and incorruptible. Instead another alternative might be to get rid of the FDA entirely so new antibiotics can be developed faster, and we can genetically modify animals to breed them to grow bigger without antibiotics. Well that only might work, and only in this one specific case. In general regulations can definitely be necessary. But they've proven they can't solve this problem, or at least not until the last minute when it might be too late. And even if we were successful, you can't stop other countries from doing it.
robotkilla 11y ago
I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame the agricultural industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for deforestation or lack of fresh water every time I eat a cheesburger, nor am I going to assume blame for pollution when I drive my car. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change. Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely).
- jMyles 11y ago
  I don't mean to discount your worldview, because I think that you are correct in your basic assessment (massive change is required, not just you), but this comment reads like a giant excuse. It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill. It's not some strange economic abstraction, but an easy-to-see, real world example.
  - robotkilla 11y ago
    > It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill I'm very confused by your plan of action... shame the general public until they stop eating meat saturated by antibiotics? In your plan, how many people will you need to deter in order to make a difference? Will the agricultural industry suddenly stop using antibiotics because a hundered thousand people stop eating at McDonnalds? Two million people? Will your plan be able to get enough people to stop eating meat so that the agricultural industry notices and stops deforestation or other unethical practices? If they do, will it happen before global warming (caused mostly by the agricultural industry) becomes irreversible? My comment might read like an excuse to you, but to me your comments read like someone who is very naive to the ways of the world.
    - noondip 11y ago
      Perhaps it is you who is naive to the so-called nirvana logical fallacy? > Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason. Indeed, absolving oneself of personal responsibility, especially when direct harm is so apparent, is sad to see. I think it is a form of apathy and not conducive to an actually better world. How can you honestly, "blame the industry" yet the very same day, support it with your money? It's simply hypocrisy.
refurb 11y ago
I agree! The best way to have someone stop doing something is to shame them publicly and paint them as a bad person. It really motivates the person to change and doesn't cause them to become more resistant to doing what you want.

It sounds cruel, but I think we need to call people out when they eat factory meat.

by jMyles 11y ago

It sounds cruel, but I think we need to call people out when they eat factory meat.

tptacek 11y ago

So, basically, shame low-income people?

arethuza 11y ago
Having had my son suffer from an antibiotic resistant eye infection, if its a choice between low cost meat and useful antibiotics I'll go for the latter every time. It's not like anyone in Europe or the US is actually suffering from a lack of meat is it? [He's fine - but we were terrified he might lose the sight in one eye for a while].
- tptacek 11y ago
  I am not suggesting that antibiotics in meat are a good thing, but I am pointing out the reality that antibiotic-free meat is a luxury item.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - jMyles 11y ago
    <strike>antibiotic-free</strike> meat is a luxury item. Unless you hunt.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      If you're proposing a law that allows the people who buy chicken at Aldi to hunt people who want to shame them for doing it, I'm right there with you.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      It's not a sustainable solution... wait, scratch that. Factory farming is not a sustainable solution, hunting is not even in the same ballpark as any viable solution to providing as much people as we have with regular meat meals. And then even if, you'd have a resurgence of people sick and dying from parasites and other stuff you catch from improperly handled meat.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
jMyles 11y ago
Come on now. Don't make it about that. If you can't afford real meat, then you can't afford meat. Nobody says that people who can't afford a catalytic converter deserve an exemption allowing them to spew more carbon from their cars. This is the same dynamic, but far, far worse.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I see the isomorphism between catalytic converters and animal protein, but there's a pretty big difference between requiring people to pay more for cars and telling them they can't buy chicken at Aldi anymore. I think shaming people for buying cheap meat is a terrible strategy that will backfire. What needs to change are the regulations. When antibiotics are banned from the food supply, the market will discover other ways to regain the efficiencies.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    tptacek, It seems to me that, in every thread, you find a way to dream that more "regulations" will solve all of the social ills of the US and beyond. The agri-industrial complex is perhaps the clearest example that the powerful among the regulated will find a way to be the regulators. What more needs to happen to clarify this for you?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Regulations are a right tool for the job here. What would be a non-regulatory approach? Let the market decide? The market decided; it doesn't give a flying damn about things like loss of antibiotics for human healthcare; people want their cheap meat, the market delivers. If it involves overusing antibiotics, so be it.
      - Houshalter 11y ago
        The problem I think he is trying to point out, is that the regulatory agencies are controlled by those businesses in the first place. The FDA tried to regulate antibiotics in farm use decades ago, and the industry threw a fit until it stopped. They tried again awhile ago, and they fought against them until they made compliance voluntary. If the only regulations you can have are ones which benefit big businesses, then no regulations at all might be better. You can't have a political ideology based around the idea that the government is perfectly competent and incorruptible. Instead another alternative might be to get rid of the FDA entirely so new antibiotics can be developed faster, and we can genetically modify animals to breed them to grow bigger without antibiotics. Well that only might work, and only in this one specific case. In general regulations can definitely be necessary. But they've proven they can't solve this problem, or at least not until the last minute when it might be too late. And even if we were successful, you can't stop other countries from doing it.

robotkilla 11y ago

I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame the agricultural industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for deforestation or lack of fresh water every time I eat a cheesburger, nor am I going to assume blame for pollution when I drive my car. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change. Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely).

jMyles 11y ago
I don't mean to discount your worldview, because I think that you are correct in your basic assessment (massive change is required, not just you), but this comment reads like a giant excuse. It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill. It's not some strange economic abstraction, but an easy-to-see, real world example.
- robotkilla 11y ago
  > It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill I'm very confused by your plan of action... shame the general public until they stop eating meat saturated by antibiotics? In your plan, how many people will you need to deter in order to make a difference? Will the agricultural industry suddenly stop using antibiotics because a hundered thousand people stop eating at McDonnalds? Two million people? Will your plan be able to get enough people to stop eating meat so that the agricultural industry notices and stops deforestation or other unethical practices? If they do, will it happen before global warming (caused mostly by the agricultural industry) becomes irreversible? My comment might read like an excuse to you, but to me your comments read like someone who is very naive to the ways of the world.
  - noondip 11y ago
    Perhaps it is you who is naive to the so-called nirvana logical fallacy? > Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason. Indeed, absolving oneself of personal responsibility, especially when direct harm is so apparent, is sad to see. I think it is a form of apathy and not conducive to an actually better world. How can you honestly, "blame the industry" yet the very same day, support it with your money? It's simply hypocrisy.

refurb 11y ago

I agree! The best way to have someone stop doing something is to shame them publicly and paint them as a bad person. It really motivates the person to change and doesn't cause them to become more resistant to doing what you want.