6 ms·

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 la

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.
    - robotkilla 11y ago
      > Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one Now government regulations placed on the agricultural industry are idealistic? > dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution I am strongly encouraging the more realistic solution, not dismissing or discounting it. How is expecting an impactful number of people to discontinue antibiotic meat usage more realistic than expecting government to step in? > absolving oneself of personal responsibility As I stated above, I personally avoid antibiotic raised meat, but I simply don't think shaming or blaming low income families is the right move here.
      - noondip 11y ago
        Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man. We both know how little gets done unless money is involved, and unfortunately for us all, the animal agriculture business has incredible political power. I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics. If you are serious, consider how purchasing meat, etc. directly leads to "deforestation ... lack of fresh water" without bias. Shaming isn't necessary, just educate yourself and others.
        robotkilla 11y ago
        > Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man No, it isn't. From wikipedia: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent." > I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics I'm arguing for government regulation -- I agree that regulating yourself is an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of anitbiotics, as is discontinuing the consumption of meat for the same purpose. > Shaming isn't necessary Again, the same thing I'm saying -- glad we could agree with each other.
robotresearcher 11y ago
final edit: I withdraw the comment below since the analogy is too inflammatory and I certainly don't intend to accuse the parent poster of racism. That's not cool or helpful. I'll leave it up so the replies make sense. How about this quote from Ghandi instead: “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” withdrawn original post: ---------- Your position transposed 50 years back in time: "I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for racism every time I discriminate against a person for being non-white, nor am I going to assume blame when I promote a man over a better qualified woman. 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)." edit: replies below are furious that I equated racism with factory meat. This misses the point completely. They are not the same at all. The point is that industry and government follow popular sentiment and not the other way around. Corporations will sell you what you will buy. Stop buying it and they will offer you an alternative. If you buy an disproportionately polluting product, you are polluting. You can't avoid that by saying 'everyone else is doing it, I have no choice'. When racism was institutionalized, you had a choice to go along with it or not. You had, and have, personal responsibility independent of everyone else.
- rnovak 11y ago
  Please explain how a direct action (racism/sexism/discrimination) is even somewhat close to the indirection required for "eating a cheesburger => deforestation"? As Bill Engval says: Evel Knievel couldn't have made that jump. How about focus on your own ethics instead of SHAMING people for eating for christ's sake.
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    I edited to explain. If you don't like something, stop doing it. Don't wait for someone to stop you doing it. Stick up for yourself.
azakai 11y ago
I understand the hopeless feeling of "what can one person do." But the individual actions of individuals do add up. We are seeing right now a trend towards better farming practices, with large chains like Chipotle going antibiotic-free. They are doing that, in part, because enough individuals made the choice to look for antibiotic-free food. In other words, individuals drove corporations to act. Individual actions also add up directly, even without influencing corporations. If you eat even a little less of a harm-causing food, that's an actual impact on the market. Less of the product is being bought, and less will (eventually) be produced. It's a small effect, hard to see, but it is definitely there - it has to be. And even if you think "oh, it rounds off", then yes, maybe they can produce 1,000 or 2,000 but not 1,001, so most likely reducing 1 won't affect production. But that just means that a single individual going from 1,001 to 1,000 will reduce 1,000, and that averages out - the probabilistic effect of an individual remains the same, and again, it has to be, assuming reasonable rational production. Finally, there are indirect effects: If you eat less of a harmful product, your coworkers, friends, and family might notice. It might lead them to make a similar positive change. Hard to measure, but we do know this is an important factor. I do agree we shouldn't "blame the general public" in the sense of blame/shame/etc. But at the same time, we can't give up and say we can't do anything, because our individual actions definitely do have an effect. To some extent, we can make things better.
austinjp 11y ago
Be the change you want to see in the world. Hopefully it will catch on. Certainly I think that giving up on a cause sends a powerful message that hope is lost.

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.
  - robotkilla 11y ago
    > Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one Now government regulations placed on the agricultural industry are idealistic? > dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution I am strongly encouraging the more realistic solution, not dismissing or discounting it. How is expecting an impactful number of people to discontinue antibiotic meat usage more realistic than expecting government to step in? > absolving oneself of personal responsibility As I stated above, I personally avoid antibiotic raised meat, but I simply don't think shaming or blaming low income families is the right move here.
    - noondip 11y ago
      Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man. We both know how little gets done unless money is involved, and unfortunately for us all, the animal agriculture business has incredible political power. I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics. If you are serious, consider how purchasing meat, etc. directly leads to "deforestation ... lack of fresh water" without bias. Shaming isn't necessary, just educate yourself and others.
      - robotkilla 11y ago
        > Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man No, it isn't. From wikipedia: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent." > I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics I'm arguing for government regulation -- I agree that regulating yourself is an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of anitbiotics, as is discontinuing the consumption of meat for the same purpose. > Shaming isn't necessary Again, the same thing I'm saying -- glad we could agree with each other.

robotresearcher 11y ago

final edit: I withdraw the comment below since the analogy is too inflammatory and I certainly don't intend to accuse the parent poster of racism. That's not cool or helpful. I'll leave it up so the replies make sense. How about this quote from Ghandi instead: “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” withdrawn original post: ---------- Your position transposed 50 years back in time: "I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for racism every time I discriminate against a person for being non-white, nor am I going to assume blame when I promote a man over a better qualified woman. 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)." edit: replies below are furious that I equated racism with factory meat. This misses the point completely. They are not the same at all. The point is that industry and government follow popular sentiment and not the other way around. Corporations will sell you what you will buy. Stop buying it and they will offer you an alternative. If you buy an disproportionately polluting product, you are polluting. You can't avoid that by saying 'everyone else is doing it, I have no choice'. When racism was institutionalized, you had a choice to go along with it or not. You had, and have, personal responsibility independent of everyone else.

rnovak 11y ago
Please explain how a direct action (racism/sexism/discrimination) is even somewhat close to the indirection required for "eating a cheesburger => deforestation"? As Bill Engval says: Evel Knievel couldn't have made that jump. How about focus on your own ethics instead of SHAMING people for eating for christ's sake.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  I edited to explain. If you don't like something, stop doing it. Don't wait for someone to stop you doing it. Stick up for yourself.

azakai 11y ago

I understand the hopeless feeling of "what can one person do." But the individual actions of individuals do add up. We are seeing right now a trend towards better farming practices, with large chains like Chipotle going antibiotic-free. They are doing that, in part, because enough individuals made the choice to look for antibiotic-free food. In other words, individuals drove corporations to act. Individual actions also add up directly, even without influencing corporations. If you eat even a little less of a harm-causing food, that's an actual impact on the market. Less of the product is being bought, and less will (eventually) be produced. It's a small effect, hard to see, but it is definitely there - it has to be. And even if you think "oh, it rounds off", then yes, maybe they can produce 1,000 or 2,000 but not 1,001, so most likely reducing 1 won't affect production. But that just means that a single individual going from 1,001 to 1,000 will reduce 1,000, and that averages out - the probabilistic effect of an individual remains the same, and again, it has to be, assuming reasonable rational production. Finally, there are indirect effects: If you eat less of a harmful product, your coworkers, friends, and family might notice. It might lead them to make a similar positive change. Hard to measure, but we do know this is an important factor. I do agree we shouldn't "blame the general public" in the sense of blame/shame/etc. But at the same time, we can't give up and say we can't do anything, because our individual actions definitely do have an effect. To some extent, we can make things better.

austinjp 11y ago

Be the change you want to see in the world. Hopefully it will catch on. Certainly I think that giving up on a cause sends a powerful message that hope is lost.