5 ms·

Maybe take a break from the conspiracy theory blogs? You have everything here so completely backwards it's going to be tricky to unwind. Meat production has be

by Siddarth1977 4y ago

Maybe take a break from the conspiracy theory blogs? You have everything here so completely backwards it's going to be tricky to unwind. Meat production has been massively subsidized in America for decades, resulting in terrible outcomes in every way- massive emissions contributing to climate change, polluted rivers and lakes, antibiotic resistant bacteria development, obesity, heart disease, colon cancer. As people have become aware of all these negatives, more people are choosing to eat less meat. There have been no meaningful regulatory changes to feed crops, although the world would surely be a better place if some of the existing subsidies were removed. The meat industry has long relied on (often illegal) immigrants to work in butchering and meat packing plants, under unsafe conditions for low pay. Covid and increased border patrolling have disrupted this labor supply, making them cut back even further on safety, resulting in a couple plants experiencing predictable problems from years of cutting-corners. Finally, Americans drastically overestimate their need for protein, due to decades of marketing campaigns, going back to steroid-injecting bodybuilders & athletes claiming that their muscles were due to "eating protein" because they couldn't publicly admit it was due to injecting anabolic drugs.

fullshark 4y ago
So you put down OP saying their post is conspiracy theory nonsense, then support pretty much the premise of their post by outlining that you hope US gov't regulations change to point that meat becomes harder to access and consume. There is pretty clearly a desire to cut overall consumption X% among the proles to fight climate change, meat and transportation in particular. There's some effort to come up with technological substitutes but at the end of the day, this desire is strong enough that a "war" is being fought culturally, politically, economically with subsidies, whatever it takes to make it happen without causing a revolt among the working class, cause as of today the substitutes are too expensive or inadequate and quality of life will take a hit as a result.
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  The premise of GP was that it already happened. OP said it didn't, but they think it should. I don't think that supports the premise really.
- giantg2 4y ago
  The question in my mind is should we restrict quality of life, or restrict population to allow for individuals to live the quality of live they desire? We have limited resources and I think we're overpopulated. I wonder what the morality/ethics are of bringing more people into the world while restricting their quality of life and freedom to make choices.
  - tomp 4y ago
    The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed. Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      "The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed." Which premise, and how so? "Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem." I fail to see how this solves all our problems. How does this replace things like metals, plastics, all agricultural products, over fishing, deforestation, etc?
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Implying eating non-meat proteins is a de facto reduction in quality of life, while limiting other people’s birth rates is not… uh huh…
    - giantg2 4y ago
      That wasn't the implication. Limiting birth rates would be a reduction in quality of life. However, there's a trade off. If there are multiple daily quality of life restrictions, then those could outweigh the singular restriction on reproduction. Also, the reproductive choice has consequences, potentially negative ones, on the others who are already living. If we want to discuss limiting diets, vehicles, housing, and all other things that are tied to consumption, then perhaps reasonable limits on reproduction should be discussed as well.
TrispusAttucks 4y ago
You can't just drop the word "conspiracy theory" on everything as a means of dismissing it's foundations. There is certainly a lot of change happening around the meat sector and supporting supply chains. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23156862/meat-dairy-egg-prices-inflation-plant-based-diet-costs-affordability https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23156862/meat-dairy-egg-p... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/21/emotion-and-pain-as-dutch-farmers-fight-back-against-huge-cuts-to-livestock https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/21/emotion-... https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220720-why-insects-are-the-sustainable-superfood-of-the-future https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220720-why-insects-are-...
- tommit 4y ago
  But isn't "war on protein" different from "let's change up the meat sector"? Maybe I'm missing something, but the former sounds far more like a conspiracy theory to me, while the latter can be stated pretty matter-of-fact-ly, like your links prove. "War on protein" sounds so dramatic, like there are people in the background scheming, wanting to deprive us of certain nutrition and subsequently rule over us. But perhaps I'm reading too much into this. Personally, protein-deprivation is not really that far up on my list of fears. And for the record, I'm not against eating meat (or animal based protein, for that matter) per se. We're just eating far too much of it.
0xBombadilo 4y ago
We will not eat the bugs.
Analemma_ 4y ago
One of the worst things about subsidies is that once they have been around for long enough, they become invisible and get perceived as normal, while trying to get rid of them and restore actual fairness and market functioning is seen as an attack. Multiple people on this thread are demonstrating exactly this.

fullshark 4y ago

So you put down OP saying their post is conspiracy theory nonsense, then support pretty much the premise of their post by outlining that you hope US gov't regulations change to point that meat becomes harder to access and consume. There is pretty clearly a desire to cut overall consumption X% among the proles to fight climate change, meat and transportation in particular. There's some effort to come up with technological substitutes but at the end of the day, this desire is strong enough that a "war" is being fought culturally, politically, economically with subsidies, whatever it takes to make it happen without causing a revolt among the working class, cause as of today the substitutes are too expensive or inadequate and quality of life will take a hit as a result.

iforgotpassword 4y ago
The premise of GP was that it already happened. OP said it didn't, but they think it should. I don't think that supports the premise really.
giantg2 4y ago
The question in my mind is should we restrict quality of life, or restrict population to allow for individuals to live the quality of live they desire? We have limited resources and I think we're overpopulated. I wonder what the morality/ethics are of bringing more people into the world while restricting their quality of life and freedom to make choices.
- tomp 4y ago
  The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed. Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed." Which premise, and how so? "Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem." I fail to see how this solves all our problems. How does this replace things like metals, plastics, all agricultural products, over fishing, deforestation, etc?
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Implying eating non-meat proteins is a de facto reduction in quality of life, while limiting other people’s birth rates is not… uh huh…
  - giantg2 4y ago
    That wasn't the implication. Limiting birth rates would be a reduction in quality of life. However, there's a trade off. If there are multiple daily quality of life restrictions, then those could outweigh the singular restriction on reproduction. Also, the reproductive choice has consequences, potentially negative ones, on the others who are already living. If we want to discuss limiting diets, vehicles, housing, and all other things that are tied to consumption, then perhaps reasonable limits on reproduction should be discussed as well.

TrispusAttucks 4y ago

You can't just drop the word "conspiracy theory" on everything as a means of dismissing it's foundations. There is certainly a lot of change happening around the meat sector and supporting supply chains. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23156862/meat-dairy-egg-prices-inflation-plant-based-diet-costs-affordability https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23156862/meat-dairy-egg-p... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/21/emotion-and-pain-as-dutch-farmers-fight-back-against-huge-cuts-to-livestock https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/21/emotion-... https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220720-why-insects-are-the-sustainable-superfood-of-the-future https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220720-why-insects-are-...

tommit 4y ago
But isn't "war on protein" different from "let's change up the meat sector"? Maybe I'm missing something, but the former sounds far more like a conspiracy theory to me, while the latter can be stated pretty matter-of-fact-ly, like your links prove. "War on protein" sounds so dramatic, like there are people in the background scheming, wanting to deprive us of certain nutrition and subsequently rule over us. But perhaps I'm reading too much into this. Personally, protein-deprivation is not really that far up on my list of fears. And for the record, I'm not against eating meat (or animal based protein, for that matter) per se. We're just eating far too much of it.

0xBombadilo 4y ago

We will not eat the bugs.

Analemma_ 4y ago

One of the worst things about subsidies is that once they have been around for long enough, they become invisible and get perceived as normal, while trying to get rid of them and restore actual fairness and market functioning is seen as an attack. Multiple people on this thread are demonstrating exactly this.