4 ms·

Makes sense to me. At a minimum people should know how reality looks.

eindiran 6y ago
Would it work like the warning labels on cigarettes in Europe with diseased lungs on them? Show what a factory farm looks like on the package and if you still want it go for it.
samatman 6y ago
Strikes me as a great way to harden opposition. Meat eaters are going to want the nasty images taken off of packaging, and the cheaper option is to lobby to remove them, not pay substantially more for an idyllic, pasture-raised, humane future. Congratulations, you now have a pro-factory-farming lobbying group with actual grassroots support. Might also have more people on your side; might not. Worth considering the adversary in any move of this nature.
- eindiran 6y ago
  I don't think this is true. I think many people who eat meat do it because they enjoy it and in most cultures, eating meat is the default thing to do; most don't actually approve of factory farming conditions. If the pictures actually depicted animals in the conditions they were raised (humanely raised meat could depict something more humane than something factory-farmed on the packaging), many people would try to eat more humanely raised meats. There will of course be people who don't care, and people who revel in the pictures, and people that lobby to have them removed, but overall I think those groups would be in the minority. Many people would slowly (and unconsciously) improve their consumption habits, in the same way that people didn't really notice that the tides turned on issues like gay marriage and marijuana consumption. Part of the knee-jerk antagonism by people who eat meat to posts like this one is that most vocal vegetarians/animal activists are absolutists: eg there is no desirable path forward for most Animal Liberationists where a greater percentage of animals are raised humanely but people keep eating meat. As is often the case, everyone could benefit from agreeing to a compromise where we improve animal farming conditions but don't vilify people who choose to continue eating meat. Another element here is that eating meat is integral to many cuisines and is extremely culturally important to most people - stating that your goal is to remove it wholesale feels like a direct attack. Claiming that people who enjoy eating meat are your adversaries seems like exactly the wrong thing to do. It's as unhelpful as saying that everyone who owns a car is contributing to climate change is therefore the enemy of environmentalism.
  - samatman 6y ago
    Consider that taxing factory meat and putting the proceeds into a subsidy of humane meats would accomplish the policy goal without the tedious social shaming. The problem that faces is that it looks and feels more like an animal-lib play than an animal-welfare one. As you point out, the animal liberationist faction will not stop pushing until there's no meat at the market, and raising and slaughtering your own is as illegal as slavery. Since I don't want that, I'm obliged to oppose anything that gives them power and influence. A lot of people would implicitly come to the same conclusion.
    - Ididntdothis 6y ago
      That’s a very convenient but not very ethical conclusion. You are basically saying “I believe some people will try to go further than I like,I conclude it’s best to do nothing”. I can’t agree with that but it’s a common political trick to mark things you don’t like as too extreme and therefore nothing should be done.

Would it work like the warning labels on cigarettes in Europe with diseased lungs on them? Show what a factory farm looks like on the package and if you still want it go for it.

samatman 6y ago

Strikes me as a great way to harden opposition. Meat eaters are going to want the nasty images taken off of packaging, and the cheaper option is to lobby to remove them, not pay substantially more for an idyllic, pasture-raised, humane future. Congratulations, you now have a pro-factory-farming lobbying group with actual grassroots support. Might also have more people on your side; might not. Worth considering the adversary in any move of this nature.

eindiran 6y ago
I don't think this is true. I think many people who eat meat do it because they enjoy it and in most cultures, eating meat is the default thing to do; most don't actually approve of factory farming conditions. If the pictures actually depicted animals in the conditions they were raised (humanely raised meat could depict something more humane than something factory-farmed on the packaging), many people would try to eat more humanely raised meats. There will of course be people who don't care, and people who revel in the pictures, and people that lobby to have them removed, but overall I think those groups would be in the minority. Many people would slowly (and unconsciously) improve their consumption habits, in the same way that people didn't really notice that the tides turned on issues like gay marriage and marijuana consumption. Part of the knee-jerk antagonism by people who eat meat to posts like this one is that most vocal vegetarians/animal activists are absolutists: eg there is no desirable path forward for most Animal Liberationists where a greater percentage of animals are raised humanely but people keep eating meat. As is often the case, everyone could benefit from agreeing to a compromise where we improve animal farming conditions but don't vilify people who choose to continue eating meat. Another element here is that eating meat is integral to many cuisines and is extremely culturally important to most people - stating that your goal is to remove it wholesale feels like a direct attack. Claiming that people who enjoy eating meat are your adversaries seems like exactly the wrong thing to do. It's as unhelpful as saying that everyone who owns a car is contributing to climate change is therefore the enemy of environmentalism.
- samatman 6y ago
  Consider that taxing factory meat and putting the proceeds into a subsidy of humane meats would accomplish the policy goal without the tedious social shaming. The problem that faces is that it looks and feels more like an animal-lib play than an animal-welfare one. As you point out, the animal liberationist faction will not stop pushing until there's no meat at the market, and raising and slaughtering your own is as illegal as slavery. Since I don't want that, I'm obliged to oppose anything that gives them power and influence. A lot of people would implicitly come to the same conclusion.
  - Ididntdothis 6y ago
    That’s a very convenient but not very ethical conclusion. You are basically saying “I believe some people will try to go further than I like,I conclude it’s best to do nothing”. I can’t agree with that but it’s a common political trick to mark things you don’t like as too extreme and therefore nothing should be done.