3 ms·
What article were you reading? The entire point of this was to connect the fact that antibiotics enable unusual animal growth to the possibility that antibiotic
by tgb 13y ago
What article were you reading? The entire point of this was to connect the fact that antibiotics enable unusual animal growth to the possibility that antibiotics were enabling the unusual human growth that has been occurring these past few decades. This is a reasonably hypothesis that I, at least, had never considered but in retrospect seems like something that obviously should be investigated further. There is nothing moralistic about this. Sure, the article mentions in passing about drug-resistant strains but this was not about painting farmers as greedy dumb and evil. If this is a click-bait link it's one that feeds on our self-image issues and on passing the blame to others and things like that, not on some morality play environmentalism. You can find that in other articles if you want.
- graycat 13y agoYou are very carefully, rationally, and objectively taking the article at face value; I'm not granting that the article deserves to be taken at face value. One reason is, the article is from the NYT which has burned me too often in the past. Another reason is that this thread did a really good job showing some of the severe rational weaknesses in the article -- the writing and thought here were much better than from the NYT. So, I reject that the article from tbe NYT was just an effort at rationalism and information. That hypothesis rejected, I look for another explanation -- the NYT is trying to jerk me around. Do I have solid proof? No, but doing some beautiful rationalism in the face of some low grade rationalism from the NYT begins to look like here at HN we are being manipulated and are being foolish.