[robotkilla]

I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame the agricultural industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for deforestation or lack of fresh water every time I eat a cheesburger, nor am I going to assume blame for pollution when I drive my car. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change.

Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely).

[azakai]

I understand the hopeless feeling of "what can one person do." But the individual actions of individuals do add up.

We are seeing right now a trend towards better farming practices, with large chains like Chipotle going antibiotic-free. They are doing that, in part, because enough individuals made the choice to look for antibiotic-free food. In other words, individuals drove corporations to act.

Individual actions also add up directly, even without influencing corporations. If you eat even a little less of a harm-causing food, that's an actual impact on the market. Less of the product is being bought, and less will (eventually) be produced. It's a small effect, hard to see, but it is definitely there - it has to be.

And even if you think "oh, it rounds off", then yes, maybe they can produce 1,000 or 2,000 but not 1,001, so most likely reducing 1 won't affect production. But that just means that a single individual going from 1,001 to 1,000 will reduce 1,000, and that averages out - the probabilistic effect of an individual remains the same, and again, it has to be, assuming reasonable rational production.

Finally, there are indirect effects: If you eat less of a harmful product, your coworkers, friends, and family might notice. It might lead them to make a similar positive change. Hard to measure, but we do know this is an important factor.

I do agree we shouldn't "blame the general public" in the sense of blame/shame/etc. But at the same time, we can't give up and say we can't do anything, because our individual actions definitely do have an effect. To some extent, we can make things better.

[robotresearcher]

final edit: I withdraw the comment below since the analogy is too inflammatory and I certainly don't intend to accuse the parent poster of racism. That's not cool or helpful. I'll leave it up so the replies make sense.

How about this quote from Ghandi instead:

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.”

withdrawn original post:

----------

Your position transposed 50 years back in time:

"I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for racism every time I discriminate against a person for being non-white, nor am I going to assume blame when I promote a man over a better qualified woman. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change. Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely)."

edit: replies below are furious that I equated racism with factory meat. This misses the point completely. They are not the same at all. The point is that industry and government follow popular sentiment and not the other way around. Corporations will sell you what you will buy. Stop buying it and they will offer you an alternative.

If you buy an disproportionately polluting product, you are polluting. You can't avoid that by saying 'everyone else is doing it, I have no choice'. When racism was institutionalized, you had a choice to go along with it or not. You had, and have, personal responsibility independent of everyone else.

[robotkilla]

I'd like to preface this response by making it clear that I personally avoid eating animals that were raised on antibiotics, however the argument that the onus must be placed on the individual is absolutely ridiculous.

Even though this is a "hot button topic", I don't think eating meat that you can afford (IE antibiotic raised meat) can possibly be compared to race or gender inequalities.

Eating a factory cheeseburger is akin to racism? Seriously? This is a logic fallacy.

Racism comes from the individual. It stems from stupidity and hatred and is directed against people who don't have the same nationality or skin color as you. Eating an antibiotic laden slab of beef due to lack of finances cannot possibly be placed on the same level as this.

I'll also point out that the only way to real change in gender and race inequalities have come about is through government or self-regulation in industries... the same thing I'm arguing for when it comes to the agricultural industry.

Go ahead and switch to all natural blah blah blah... you can now sleep at night knowing you're no longer part of the problem. But when you wake up in the morning, the problem is still there. You have accomplished nothing. But hey, when the world burns at least you can say "I told you so".

[jMyles]

> Eating a factory cheeseburger is akin to racism? Seriously? This is a logic fallacy.

Do you realize that there are several religions that hold this exact tenet? And that it's one of the central tenets of Rastafari?

Maybe these people all live their lives based on a logical fallacy, but I don't think it's so far wrong. Both racism and factory farming come down to disrespect for 'the other.'

> Racism comes from the individual.

Most people who study racism regard it as an institution, separate but related to bigotry, which is a quality of an individual.

> I'll also point out that the only way to real change in gender and race inequalities have come about is through government or self-regulation in industries... the same thing I'm arguing for when it comes to the agricultural industry.

Go propose a talk at any Black Studies department in the country with this as your thesis and let us know how it goes.

[robotkilla]

> Do you realize that there are several religions that hold this exact tenet? And that it's one of the central tenets of Rastafari?

A central tenet of rastafari is to abstain from antibiotic raised meat? Can you cite a source on this?

Even if this is true, why do you think that the religious beliefs of this or other religions holds any sort of sway over people who are not in those religions? For example, you do realize that it is a core religious tenet of the Westboro Baptist Church and many other Christian religions that homosexuals will burn in hell, but this doesn't mean it is true... in fact most educated people would argue that hell doesn't even exist.

> Maybe these people all live their lives based on a logical fallacy, but I don't think it's so far wrong

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point then.

> Go propose a talk at any Black Studies department in the country with this as your thesis and let us know how it goes.

So the progress we've made in the United States through laws and regulations regarding race and gender is a lie then? Those laws exist because of special interest groups, protesters etc. sure -- but you do realize that laws surrounding these issues exist now that didn't exist before, don't you?

This is a very foolish argument and I have no more to say on the matter.

[gugagore]

> So the progress we've made in the United States through laws and regulations regarding race and gender is a lie then?

It's a very misleading sort of progress. It helps many people believe that we're post-racial and that sexism doesn't happen.

[robotkilla]

What on earth would be a less misleading progress? This comment seems to imply that separate but equal is a better solution.

I think that many people have confused "changing minds and hearts" with "forcing the public to accept and integrate". The laws and regulations I'm referring to are about enforcing rights, often times basic human ones.

[robotkilla]

> personal responsibility is the basis of good society-wide behaviour

I actually agree with this statement, however the problem of cheap meat can't be solved with good societal behavior unless its enforced on a global scale starting with the united states and that's simply not going to happen unless it is enforced by regulations placed on the out of control agricultural industry.

shaming individuals (which is what the original parent thread was all about) isn't a good plan -- it won't work.

[rnovak]

Please explain how a direct action (racism/sexism/discrimination) is even somewhat close to the indirection required for "eating a cheesburger => deforestation"?

As Bill Engval says: Evel Knievel couldn't have made that jump.

How about focus on your own ethics instead of SHAMING people for eating for christ's sake.

[jMyles]

If people eat factory farmed meat, they are acting in a shameful way. If they don't feel shame, they have no shame.

[robotresearcher]

I edited to explain. If you don't like something, stop doing it. Don't wait for someone to stop you doing it. Stick up for yourself.

[OldSchoolJohnny]

Ridiculous

[austinjp]

Be the change you want to see in the world. Hopefully it will catch on. Certainly I think that giving up on a cause sends a powerful message that hope is lost.

[jMyles]

I don't mean to discount your worldview, because I think that you are correct in your basic assessment (massive change is required, not just you), but this comment reads like a giant excuse.

It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill. It's not some strange economic abstraction, but an easy-to-see, real world example.

[robotkilla]

> It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill

I'm very confused by your plan of action... shame the general public until they stop eating meat saturated by antibiotics?

In your plan, how many people will you need to deter in order to make a difference? Will the agricultural industry suddenly stop using antibiotics because a hundered thousand people stop eating at McDonnalds? Two million people?

Will your plan be able to get enough people to stop eating meat so that the agricultural industry notices and stops deforestation or other unethical practices? If they do, will it happen before global warming (caused mostly by the agricultural industry) becomes irreversible?

My comment might read like an excuse to you, but to me your comments read like someone who is very naive to the ways of the world.

[noondip]

Perhaps it is you who is naive to the so-called nirvana logical fallacy?

> Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.

Indeed, absolving oneself of personal responsibility, especially when direct harm is so apparent, is sad to see. I think it is a form of apathy and not conducive to an actually better world. How can you honestly, "blame the industry" yet the very same day, support it with your money? It's simply hypocrisy.

[robotkilla]

> Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one

Now government regulations placed on the agricultural industry are idealistic?

> dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution

I am strongly encouraging the more realistic solution, not dismissing or discounting it. How is expecting an impactful number of people to discontinue antibiotic meat usage more realistic than expecting government to step in?

> absolving oneself of personal responsibility

As I stated above, I personally avoid antibiotic raised meat, but I simply don't think shaming or blaming low income families is the right move here.

[noondip]

Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man. We both know how little gets done unless money is involved, and unfortunately for us all, the animal agriculture business has incredible political power.

I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics. If you are serious, consider how purchasing meat, etc. directly leads to "deforestation ... lack of fresh water" without bias. Shaming isn't necessary, just educate yourself and others.

[robotkilla]

> Holding the government to such optimistic standards is blatantly a straw man

No, it isn't. From wikipedia:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

> I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics

I'm arguing for government regulation -- I agree that regulating yourself is an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of anitbiotics, as is discontinuing the consumption of meat for the same purpose.

> Shaming isn't necessary

Again, the same thing I'm saying -- glad we could agree with each other.

[isolate]

When people try this kind of thing on me (frequently it happens if I mention that I shop at Walmart on occasion), I just ask if they own any mutual funds (including pension funds). If they don't, I ask if they pay taxes. If they don't, I ask if they ever give money to someone who might own mutual funds or pay taxes. If they don't, I ask if they ever give money to homeless people.

I understand the general argument about taking a bit of personal responsibility, even if it's basically just symbolic. Rather, it's the absolutism that irritates me. In my opinion, eating less at McDonald's and shopping less at Walmart is about as good as never going to those places.

Besides, if you're really a loving, compassionate, open-minded citizen of the planet, wouldn't it be good to spend some time in these places next to the most downtrodden members of our society?