Fish farms are concentration camps for fish, same goes for the rest of the meat industry. The reason they need all the antibiotics is because the animals are so sick they just wouldn't survive without. Many still don't, it's just more effective to let 20% or so die if it allows stuffing more animals in the same space. Did anyone really think we would get away with treating animals like that and not have to face the c…
It's worse than that - the meat industry uses antibiotics on perfectly healthy animals as a growth enhancer. This is pure profit motive, nothing to do with veterinary care.
Do you feel helpless to stop the problem of antibiotics use in the meat industry? You’re not! Here’s a simple easy trick you can use to reduce its impact on the world: eat less meat. You don’t need meat in 3 meals a day. Reduce it to 1 meal a day and you’ve already reduced your antibiotics impact by 2/3. Cut down to one meat meal a week and that’s a 96% reduction. You’re not powerless. Vote with your wallet and your…
Do you feel helpless to stop the problem of antibiotics use in the meat industry? You’re not! Here’s a simple easy trick you can use to reduce its impact on the world: eat less meat. You don’t need meat in 3 meals a day. Reduce it to 1 meal a day and you’ve already reduced your antibiotics impact by 2/3. Cut down to one meat meal a week and that’s a 96% reduction. You’re not powerless. Vote with your wallet and your…
What if I'd rather eat meat all day? Is there any way to stop the antibiotics use without eating like a rabbit?
Lab grown meat and genetically modified plant based meat substitute with blood seem to be the two most likely examples.
We do that, but with laws and signs and police and stuff. Not with stern admonition.
so if there would be a law restricting meat consumption then everything would be fine?
It's been done in the past. Church laws forbidding the eating of meat on certain days have been a thing. Of course, most people who have the means would choose to eat meat as often as possible, and so you get things like fish not being classed as meat (leaving aside other considerations like these sorts of restrictions acting as subsidies to merchant fishing fleets, with knock-on effects for early modern naval preparedness).
Or people just ignore stupid, unenforceable laws and net respect for the law as an absolute is decreased.
When has this attitude _ever_ been the solution to a shared-resource problem? I'm not being snarky, I want to know. It feels like solving traffic mortality by pasting a "drive carefully"-sticker inside the windshield, doing nothing other than establishing who is morally responsible.
your analogy would work if parent comment would say “just eat meat carefully”. overall it makes sense to reduce meat consumption, because if you look deeper in reasons for antibiotics use in meat industry, mainly it is used as a consequence of high demand for meat, to reduce risk of diseases in overpopulated farms, while feeding animals growth hormones and stuffing as much food as possible to ensure quick growth, so…
I believe you're reading something else out of my analogy than what I tried to say; I was making a point about the effectiveness of the method, not the message as such.
Everybody agrees we should drive carefully, and everybody agrees we should not revert to pre-antibiotic treatment of infections. How did we address the former? Through moral admonition and personal prudence? (That was a rhetorical question)
Do you feel helpless to stop the problem of antibiotics use in the meat industry? You’re not! Here’s a simple easy trick you can use to reduce its impact on the world: eat less meat. You don’t need meat in 3 meals a day. Reduce it to 1 meal a day and you’ve already reduced your antibiotics impact by 2/3. Cut down to one meat meal a week and that’s a 96% reduction. You’re not powerless. Vote with your wallet and your…
When has this attitude _ever_ been the solution to a shared-resource problem? I'm not being snarky, I want to know. It feels like solving traffic mortality by pasting a "drive carefully"-sticker inside the windshield, doing nothing other than establishing who is morally responsible.
Note that it wasn't proposed as a solution.
Are you saying that no one should do anything good, or encourage others to do anything good, unless it fully solves a problem? I suspect that's not the point you were trying to make, but it sure sounds like that if you read your words.
Do you feel helpless to stop the problem of antibiotics use in the meat industry? You’re not! Here’s a simple easy trick you can use to reduce its impact on the world: eat less meat. You don’t need meat in 3 meals a day. Reduce it to 1 meal a day and you’ve already reduced your antibiotics impact by 2/3. Cut down to one meat meal a week and that’s a 96% reduction. You’re not powerless. Vote with your wallet and your…
When has this attitude _ever_ been the solution to a shared-resource problem? I'm not being snarky, I want to know. It feels like solving traffic mortality by pasting a "drive carefully"-sticker inside the windshield, doing nothing other than establishing who is morally responsible.
Look at how popular organic, ethical and local food has become in the last few years. You have restaurant chains based on these ideas, supermarkets like Whole Foods, and food processors like Amy’s. This is because consumers are voting with their wallet. I like to think it’s been inspired in part by documentaries like Fast Food Nation, What The Health and Supersize Me, certainly that’s how I became a more conscious consumer.
Do you feel helpless to stop the problem of antibiotics use in the meat industry? You’re not! Here’s a simple easy trick you can use to reduce its impact on the world: eat less meat. You don’t need meat in 3 meals a day. Reduce it to 1 meal a day and you’ve already reduced your antibiotics impact by 2/3. Cut down to one meat meal a week and that’s a 96% reduction. You’re not powerless. Vote with your wallet and your…
Since this article talk about fish farms there is very obvious solution and that is eat wild caught fish, preferable from places where there is either a overpopulation or where there are invasive species. Plenty of such meat in the world where eating it would have a net-positive on the environment. Know one lake where the price of the overpopulated fish species in it is so low that just transporting it to a cat food…
eat wild caught fish
But how does the consumer know the true origin of a product?
"Wild-caught" claims are only as reliable as the least honest entity in the supply chain.
They're not people. Concentration camps are for people. At least we don't eat them alive, like their other natural predators.
At least they have a chance to fight for their survival, which makes all the difference. If it's horrible when done to humans, it's horrible when done to animals. And as long as we keep doing it to animals, we shouldn't expect to escape the same fate ourselves; Karma 101.
Fair enough, if you fear karmic retribution that makes sense. I don't, so for me the shoe remains on the same foot. Other people are more valuable to me than animals, and also more dangerous. The stakes are higher and therefore the moral considerations are more prudent (or karmic, if that's your bag).