Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

oceana.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 187 posts

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#71

Post by enord »

greglindahl wrote: post #47
enord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did interpret it as a solution proposal in order to address a specific issue: The effectiveness of voluntary activism to address shared-resource problems(specifically).

Of course people should do good things, but in some cases this can lead to a false sense of security ("I'm doing the Right Thing and spreading the good word. Next issue, please!")

Where I live, we used to have signs inside the buses that read "Wait until the buss has left the station to cross the road". This was an effort to prevent accidents, but had no measurable effect other than to take the problem of the agenda for public transport officials.

With shared resource-problems, voluntary action can lead to a prisoners dilemma, where you can get ahead by _not_ doing the right thing, even though everyone is individually better off by doing the right thing.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#72

Post by megaman22 »

efrafa wrote: post #66
sifoo wrote: post #12

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…

Imagine the day you was born, somebody already planned your death. Because this is how it is for pig, cow, chicken on this planet.

Everyone and everything dies in the end. It's fairly common among religions to presume that fate is inexorable and already written, with free-will being only an illusion working towards the predestined plan of god(s).

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#74

Post by make3 »

bastawhiz wrote: post #54
swombat wrote: post #6

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…

A personal anecdote: I've tried cutting my meat consumption many times in the past, but I ultimately fail to keep up a low-meat diet for the following reasons: - Vegetarian food is really not that tasty in my opinion. (edit: the kind I can reasonably prepare myself) - It's very difficult to eat enough vegetarian food for me to meet my Calorie requirements (I target 3500/day). - Eating a balanced diet of vegetarian fo…

wtf 3500 calories a day. are you a professional athlete? I'm a grown man and that many calories would have me take two pounds a week (assuming stability at 2500 cal and 3500 cals extra per pound)

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#75

Post by supermarine »

greglindahl wrote: post #63
sergiotapia wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What's the safest way to go skiing? Don't ski!"

Skiing isn't the only sport. Meat isn't the only food. In economics, this situation is called "substitute goods".

You missed his point. Of course skiing isn't the only sport, but if you love skiing, why snowboard?

Of course meat isn't the only food, but it's delicious and a great source of protein. Sure antibiotics are bad for the system as a whole, but why not go after that instead of boycotting altogether?

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#76

Post by greglindahl »

enord wrote: post #71
greglindahl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did interpret it as a solution proposal in order to address a specific issue: The effectiveness of voluntary activism to address shared-resource problems(specifically). Of course people should do good things, but in some cases this can lead to a false sense of security ("I'm doing the Right Thing and spreading the good word. Next issue, please!") Where I live, we used to have signs inside the buses that read "Wait…

Ah. Well, then I don't think we have anything to discuss; you're either introducing a non-sequitur, or you're shitting on someone who is taking personal responsibility for their actions.

And yes, a person who eats less meat eats less meat, which is another way to say that you're introducing a non-sequitur about something which is nothing like your bus example.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#77

Post by greglindahl »

supermarine wrote: post #75
greglindahl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skiing isn't the only sport. Meat isn't the only food. In economics, this situation is called "substitute goods".

You missed his point. Of course skiing isn't the only sport, but if you love skiing, why snowboard? Of course meat isn't the only food, but it's delicious and a great source of protein. Sure antibiotics are bad for the system as a whole, but why not go after that instead of boycotting altogether?

No, I got his point.

Of the people who ski, some would be happy to substitute another winter sport if skiing became less desirable (more expensive or less fashionable). Some would substitute non-winter sports (e.g. go to the California coast instead of Tahoe.)

That's the 'substitute goods' that I mentioned.

If you really love skiing, you're still a part of that economic theory, you're just the inelastic part. You might still substitute something else if skiing became 10x more expensive.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#78

Post by linkmotif »

i_feel_great wrote: post #23
linkmotif wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you need to invoke concentration camps here, true as it may be in some cases. They use antibiotics to make them grow faster. That’s half the reason.

They grow faster because they are less sick. Antibiotics are not like growth hormones.

No, antibiotics make animals like chickens and pigs (and humans) actually grow much faster and bigger.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#79

Post by Retric »

barrkel wrote: post #55
Retric wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works very well for moderate changes. Look into the history of Boycotts and they have actually changed quite a bit about how several industries work. Antibiotics is actually a fairly minor benefit to the meat industry, so it's a winning strategy assuming significant popular support.

Boycotting isn't individual choice, however; boycotts, when they work, usually work due to PR and reputational effects rather than market effects.

A call to action on a public forum might not mean much on it's own, but it's still advertising the idea.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#80

Post by linkmotif »

sifoo wrote: post #20
linkmotif wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you need to invoke concentration camps here, true as it may be in some cases. They use antibiotics to make them grow faster. That’s half the reason.

What's the difference then? Piling up living beings in awful conditions to kill them in the most cost-effective way is pretty much the definition of a concentration camp. And making them grow faster than they're supposed to at the expense of everything isn't very nice either.

A big difference is that humans in concentration camps generally don’t get antibiotics, not for disease or for accelerated growth, and their bodies are generally not used as food.

Also, animals kept not in high concentrations have often been given antibiotics since the 50s. It’s not all about supporting concentration.

I understand that animals suffer in mass farming conditions—which is why I don’t buy mass produced meat or eggs or milk—but concentration camps are for people. You cans say animals are just like people, and I may even agree with you mostly, but to me and most people they’re not entirely like people. I understand if they are to you.

Post reply on HN