Replacements
tg
Free market solves the problem of effective antibiotics.
-tg
Zerkon
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/29/us/AP-When-Drugs-Stop-
Working-The-Meat-We-Eat.html?_r=1
>
> Free market solves the problem of effective antibiotics.
>
> -tg
Old thought turning a profit so old thought gets dug in.
ta
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/29/us/AP-When-Drugs-Stop-Work...
>
> Free market solves the problem of effective antibiotics.
>
> -tg
''Now the public doesn't see that,'' he said. ''They're only concerned
about resistance, and they don't care about economics because, 'As
long as I can buy a pork chop for a buck 69 a pound, I really don't
care.' But we live in a world where you have to consider economics in
the decision-making process of what we do.''
Most people have never been to a concentrated animal factory, where
most of the meat they buy comes from, and so they are removed from the
consequences of their purchasing decisions.
We have "cheap" pork, only in terms of the price tag. When you
consider the long-term health issues, environmental consequences, and
the cruelty issues, they ain't so "cheap".
Ask the people who live in some parts of Eastern North Carolina or
Iowa how "cheap" those pork chops are, or ask the people in West
Virginian mining towns how "cheap" coal is.
tg
And then there's this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=ammonia%20beef&st=cse
But remember, we always find 'replacements' and 'substitutes' for
everything, and it is just the same as the thing that is being
'replaced'. That pork that destroys the efficacy of antibiotics if
you get sick is just the same as the pork that doesn't, only cheaper.
Sigh.
I really wonder how much more pork or McDonald's hamburgers would cost
without these technologies. Would the pork be 2.10 a pound? Would that
'destroy the economy'? Would people be starving?
-tg
ta
> On Dec 30, 5:24 pm, ta <tapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 8:19 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/29/us/AP-When-Drugs-Stop-Work...
>
> > > Free market solves the problem of effective antibiotics.
>
> > > -tg
>
> > ''Now the public doesn't see that,'' he said. ''They're only concerned
> > about resistance, and they don't care about economics because, 'As
> > long as I can buy a pork chop for a buck 69 a pound, I really don't
> > care.' But we live in a world where you have to consider economics in
> > the decision-making process of what we do.''
>
> > Most people have never been to a concentrated animal factory, where
> > most of the meat they buy comes from, and so they are removed from the
> > consequences of their purchasing decisions.
>
> > We have "cheap" pork, only in terms of the price tag. When you
> > consider the long-term health issues, environmental consequences, and
> > the cruelty issues, they ain't so "cheap".
>
> > Ask the people who live in some parts of Eastern North Carolina or
> > Iowa how "cheap" those pork chops are, or ask the people in West
> > Virginian mining towns how "cheap" coal is.
>
> And then there's this:
>
>
> But remember, we always find 'replacements' and 'substitutes' for
> everything, and it is just the same as the thing that is being
> 'replaced'. That pork that destroys the efficacy of antibiotics if
> you get sick is just the same as the pork that doesn't, only cheaper.
> Sigh.
Yeah, and drinking chlorine water from your tap is a replacement for
sipping water that came from a pristine stream. The list goes on.
> I really wonder how much more pork or McDonald's hamburgers would cost
> without these technologies. Would the pork be 2.10 a pound? Would that
> 'destroy the economy'? Would people be starving?
>
> -tg
Doesn't matter. As long as there is no shortage of individuals who
will put their own narrow selfish financial interests ahead of the
community at large -- and as long as we have a consumer culture filled
with individuals who would choose to eat cheap, crappy food so they
can afford unlimited text messaging on their iphones -- then the point
is moot.
tg
Hey, I think we may be on to something here. How about we give carbon
credits in the form of 'minutes' to people who use less fossil fuel?
And as an extra incentive, you accumulate points towards a shopping
spree in the Walmart sneaker department.
We could get China to finance it eh.
-tg
ta
lol!