The Disappointment Of Blind Consumerism

[Inkachu]

I love watching the realization in the audiences' faces.

No One Applauds This Woman Because They're Too Creeped Out At Themselves To Put Their Hands Together

Thoughts?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pigs taste good. Chicken tastes good. Cows taste good. I suppose if the problem were about more than cruelty, I'd be more understanding. I just don't understand why my food needs a happy, fulfilling life before I eat it.

 

[Inkachu]

Pigs taste good. Chicken tastes good. Cows taste good. I suppose if the problem were about more than cruelty, I'd be more understanding. I just don't understand why my food needs a happy, fulfilling life before I eat it.

Not necessarily "happy and fulfilling" in human terms, lol. But at least it should be humane and free from cruelty.

The point of the video isn't about whether eating meat is OK or not. It's not vegetarians vs carnivores. It's about how blindly we accept what is marketed to us as consumers, and how willing we are to look the other way and not ask questions or discover where our products come from.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not necessarily "happy and fulfilling" in human terms, lol. But at least it should be humane and free from cruelty.

The point of the video isn't about whether eating meat is OK or not. It's not vegetarians vs carnivores. It's about how blindly we accept what is marketed to us as consumers, and how willing we are to look the other way and not ask questions or discover where our products come from.

Is it blind though? Is there anyone who doesn't know that's how we get meat now?

People don't think of rape and murder all day but I'm sure they know it's happening somewhere...I don't think that makes them blind to it. I think it's about the same for farm animals.

"Humane and free from cruelty"...what exactly does that mean? Probably more than just enough room to turn around, right? We're talking grass under their feet...space to move and live and such. Any idea what that would do to the price of meat and vegetables?

Let's say you spend 10% of your budget on food...could you suddenly switch to 30%? I'm sure a lot of people can't...what do you think they'll be eating? What do you think that will cost in health problems and human misery?

 

[LionL]

Any idea what that would do to the price of meat and vegetables?

Well the price of vegetables would probably come down as farmers, seeing less profit in meat, grew more vegetables instead. The price of meat would go up though.

Let's say you spend 10% of your budget on food...could you suddenly switch to 30%? I'm sure a lot of people can't...

As the price of vegetables came down then eating less meat would balance the budget

what do you think they'll be eating?

More veg and less meat.

What do you think that will cost in health problems and human misery?

Health would improve as eating too much meat is associated with obesity and certain cancers. Misery (of humans) would not be affected, but would be greatly decreased in animals.
.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well the price of vegetables would probably come down as farmers, seeing less profit in meat, grew more vegetables instead. The price of meat would go up though.

As the price of vegetables came down then eating less meat would balance the budget

More veg and less meat.

Health would improve as eating too much meat is associated with obesity and certain cancers. Misery (of humans) would not be affected, but would be greatly decreased in animals.
.

The price of meat would skyrocket...leaving more people to buy veggies. This would also increase the price of veggies... until the very poorest are left with few options aside from what we kindly call "empty calories".

The epidemic of health problems like diabetes would only increase...possibly quite dramatically. There's no reason to think that a pig farmer is going to start growing cabbage...he can simply raise less pigs at a higher/equal profit. Also...it's just unrealistic. Most farmers wouldn't be able to simply "switch" as easily as you describe. A man who has grown corn all his life doesn't necessarily know the first thing about cattle or chicken.

 

[Inkfingers]

Life is busy, and despite claims of a "leisure society" it is getting busier so that people cannot escape the rush and bustle.

So they look for things they can put out of their minds, and shopping is an easy one to do that with.

50 years ago chicken was a luxury, now "thanks" to battery farming, its the ultimate cheap meat.

Would the poor suffer if we only had free-range and organic meat? Maybe. Or maybe people would start growing their own food and keeping chickens instead of creating bland laws in their gardens (most people have gardens - only a small minority do not).

 

[LionL]

The price of meat would skyrocket...leaving more people to buy veggies. This would also increase the price of veggies... until the very poorest are left with few options aside from what we kindly call "empty calories".

Meat has always been expensive, up until intensive farming came along anyway. If the price of meat did 'skyrocket' as you say then people would buy less of it. Fewer farmers would breed animals. They would probably sell their land to an arable farmer.

The epidemic of health problems like diabetes would only increase...possibly quite dramatically.

If less meat was eaten then the opposite would happen.

There's no reason to think that a pig farmer is going to start growing cabbage...he can simply raise less pigs at a higher/equal profit.

If people can't afford meat they will stop buying it. He would make no profit and probably sell his land to a cabbage farmer.

Also...it's just unrealistic. Most farmers wouldn't be able to simply "switch" as easily as you describe. A man who has grown corn all his life doesn't necessarily know the first thing about cattle or chicken.

That's why he'd most likely sell his land.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Life is busy, and despite claims of a "leisure society" it is getting busier so that people cannot escape the rush and bustle.

So they look for things they can put out of their minds, and shopping is an easy one to do that with.

50 years ago chicken was a luxury, now "thanks" to battery farming, its the ultimate cheap meat.

Would the poor suffer if we only had free-range and organic meat? Maybe. Or maybe people would start growing their own food and keeping chickens instead of creating bland laws in their gardens (most people have gardens - only a small minority do not).

Where do most people have gardens? Are we talking about the whole world? Or just the US? Is this a real statistic or just made up?

 

[LionL]

Where do most people have gardens? Are we talking about the whole world? Or just the US? Is this a real statistic or just made up?

Most people who buy intensively farmed meat live in Europe or North America. Most people on both continents have gardens.

It's not often I agree with Inkfingers but this time he is correct.

 

[Inkfingers]

There's hope for you yet then LionL.

Where do most people have gardens? Are we talking about the whole world? Or just the US? Is this a real statistic or just made up?

Firstly, I live in England and not America (the flag should give that away...).

Secondly, the vast majority here have gardens in which there is space to grow vegetables and keep chickens for eggs.

This includes much of our cities as well, and certainly the vast majority of suburbia.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Meat has always been expensive, up until intensive farming came along anyway. If the price of meat did 'skyrocket' as you say then people would buy less of it. Fewer farmers would breed animals. They would probably sell their land to an arable farmer.


If less meat was eaten then the opposite would happen.

If people can't afford meat they will stop buying it. He would make no profit and probably sell his land to a cabbage farmer.

That's why he'd most likely sell his land.

I'm not sure where you studied economics...but your description is so far from reality it's hard to know where to begin....

Ask yourself why the cost of meat would go up? It's one of two reasons. 1. The pig farmer has to use more space...meaning more labor...meaning more cost. 2. The pig farmer uses the same space...but less pigs...meaning lower supply, meaning higher cost.

The demand for meat hasn't changed...it's just that less people can afford it as often. The pig farmer won't go broke or have to sell his land, he either does more or less work and raises prices. My guess would be in the worst case scenario, he settles for slightly less profit.

Those people who can't afford to eat meat however, they are buying a lot more produce...and that will cause it's cost to rise with the increase in demand. The notion that every produce farmer is suddenly going to buy more land and grow more crops is overly optimistic... chances are, they'll just raise prices too.

So now meat is rarer and more expensive...and produce is rarer and more expensive. What's the alternative? Mass processed junk foods. Everything where the main ingredient is high fructose corn syrup because that's one thing that we have more than enough of. I'm not saying this scenario wouldn't change over generations... it would...but the misery inflicted upon people during that time would be pretty horrendous.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's hope for you yet then LionL.



Firstly, I live in England and not America (the flag should give that away...).

Secondly, the vast majority here have gardens in which there is space to grow vegetables and keep chickens for eggs.

This includes much of our cities as well, and certainly the vast majority of suburbia.

Gotcha...well perhaps it's a possibility in england. It's not here in the U.S. To my knowledge, most people don't have gardens, nor do they have the resources or time for them.

Also I just looked up the price of chicken here in the U.S. 60 years ago (1950) and I'm seeing it at 14 cents a pound. I'm not sure why that's a "luxury" where you're from...but maybe it's because of the blitz?

 

[Inkfingers]

So now meat is rarer and more expensive...and produce is rarer and more expensive. What's the alternative?

That does not follow. Prices would rise and wages would rise with them as happens now, until a new stability is reached just as this one was reached after the arrival of mass cheap chicken and pork.

Mass processed junk foods. Everything where the main ingredient is high fructose corn syrup because that's one thing that we have more than enough of. I'm not saying this scenario wouldn't change over generations... it would...but the misery inflicted upon people during that time would be pretty horrendous.

That simply is nonsense.

There is no reason to think more people will be eating that rubbish than do now. It will just be the proportion of meat/veg eaten changes so that its less meat and more veg as the market re-balances.

All of which can be lessened if all the people with gardens grew food rather than grassy deserts.

 

[Inkfingers]

perhaps it's a possibility in england. It's not here in the U.S. To my knowledge, most people don't have gardens, nor do they have the resources or time for them.

Given the spread and sprawl of suburbia I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That does not follow. Prices would rise and wages would rise with them as happens now, until a new stability is reached just as this one was reached after the arrival of mass cheap chicken and pork.



That simply is nonsense.

There is no reason to think more people will be eating that rubbish than do now. It will just be the proportion of meat/veg eaten changes so that its less meat and more veg as the market re-balances.

All of which can be lessened if all the people with gardens grew food rather than grassy deserts.

"As the market rebalances"...you mean as growers figure out how to grow enough crops to feed about 200 million people who are buy 4-5 times as much produce?

Explain this magical market rebalancing to me.

 

[Inkfingers]

"As the market rebalances"...you mean as growers figure out how to grow enough crops to feed about 200 million people who are buy 4-5 times as much produce?

Explain this magical market rebalancing to me.

You mean where they use land to grow veg for human consumption rather than for animal consumption?

What part of that do you need explaining?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Given the spread and sprawl of suburbia I find that very hard to believe.

It's the suburban sprawl that's exactly the problem. 2 hours of commute every day (and that's generous), plus 8+ more hours of work and that leaves people with a choice of family/fun/or garden.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You mean where they use land to grow veg for human consumption rather than for animal consumption?

What part of that do you need explaining?

How that happens... why do the animal farmers sell their land? Especially when they can make more profit than ever.

Demand hasn't decreased...prices increase. It means less meat is produced...not that they get less profit. Are we just going to take their land?

Who is farming all this new land? Do you expect our current group of farmers to suddenly increase their workloads 400-500% for fun? Why do that when they can raise prices?

England sounds magical.

 

[LionL]

"As the market rebalances"...you mean as growers figure out how to grow enough crops to feed about 200 million people who are buy 4-5 times as much produce?

Livestock is fed on grown crops. Less livestock = more crops for human consumption. Also, less livestock = more land for the growing of crops.

To address your earlier point; if the price of meat goes up less people will buy it. If all farmers who produce meat continued to do so then they could not sell it and so would go out of business. Supply and demand. The few farmers whose businesses survived would continue to produce meat for a smaller market and would indeed see a rise in their profits.