The first paragraph of this post is just top notch. Snappy, justifiably angry, but not over the top, hits all the points, while still being laconic and appeals to people regardless of party affiliations. Reading it I can feel you grieve about this lab meat ban and I empathize.
Let's hope that stupid politicians banning lab meat will have the eventual effect of lab meat becoming more popular.
1) Some people from around the society wanting a thing, or even just being more ready to accept this thing as a compromise, thinking, that it's a better alternative than the status quo, because there are actually good cost/benefit reasons for why this thing is superior. And therefore these people openly work on making the thing more available and popular through market economy and marketplace of ideas
2) Elites conspiring for a power grab, tricking and manipulating the ignorant masses in order to force their despotic and meritless will onto society.
Your statement seems obviously ambiguous. When peoole say that they are usually much more presice.
For example financiers might purposefully choose such projects after being egged on by these people.
Are financiers global? Yes. Are they sometimes forcing taxpayers to finance these things? Yes. Is that global conspiracy to force? Seems like word games.
They’re not doing it with taxpayer money to my knowledge , and if they were, it would be good. At best that would be a reason to end the subsidy not ban it. No compulsion is happening.
You can also draw indirect links. For example the state finances some projects which make Bill Gates x amount of cash. Then he uses that cash to push these projects. Whether it's direct or indirect is not the point.
The point is that if the state selected their beneficiaries in a different way, these projects would not get off the ground.
This is a very easy argument to steelman. You should try it sometime instead of just making straw man allegations nobody holds to.
The second statement is simply assuming your view. "Even if they are doing it, its good". Sorry but that's your view, I would probably disagree with it, as would 90% of people. Which is why the reflexive thing to do is deny the descriptive causal mechanism behind it.
If anyone wants to hear the best arguments on the other side, check out my defence of DeSantis here: https://open.substack.com/pub/wollenblog/p/meatball-ron?r=2248ub&utm_medium=ios
The first paragraph of this post is just top notch. Snappy, justifiably angry, but not over the top, hits all the points, while still being laconic and appeals to people regardless of party affiliations. Reading it I can feel you grieve about this lab meat ban and I empathize.
Let's hope that stupid politicians banning lab meat will have the eventual effect of lab meat becoming more popular.
the argument is that the left is trying to manipulate everyone into replacing meat with lab meat.
this might sound conspiratorial. but such happened already.
efficient dishwashers has been banned and replaced with joke "eco" mode enforced on us. no choice.
we don't have normal working plastic straws anymore.
and many of our deliveries and packaging come with cardboard/paper bloated junk. instead of legit plastic bags.
I'm not saying animal pain is irrelevant. but DeSantis fear that lab meat will eventually be forced in unwilling users isn't unreasonable
There is an important difference between
1) Some people from around the society wanting a thing, or even just being more ready to accept this thing as a compromise, thinking, that it's a better alternative than the status quo, because there are actually good cost/benefit reasons for why this thing is superior. And therefore these people openly work on making the thing more available and popular through market economy and marketplace of ideas
2) Elites conspiring for a power grab, tricking and manipulating the ignorant masses in order to force their despotic and meritless will onto society.
I agree that without the risk of forcing everyone into it, DeSantis ban will be absurd.
but this isn't obvious. I have examples how what was originally voluntary (plastic) got enforced in everyone. so this is not a crazy fear.
I'm generally for no regulation. I'm only noticing that DeSantis wasn't crazy in fearing the creeping process
If this happened with factory - farmed meat it would be a great thing.
legitimate view.
my argument was only against the thesis "crazy DeSantis regulates for no reason".
if you think the morality is against meat, your perfectly consistent. and you're the one DeSantis fears and legislates against!
We have not to wait for lab meat to optimize lifestock farming for suffering reduction.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/L6wdRBCh3izCD244t/farmers-in-the-animalist-coalition
That's a fair point, I think you're right. I hope I get to be one of the global elites now.
It very easy to see clips of WEF people saying they want us to transition to lab grown meet.
There’s a difference between some person supporting something and there being a nefarious global conspiracy to force everyone to do that thing.
Your statement seems obviously ambiguous. When peoole say that they are usually much more presice.
For example financiers might purposefully choose such projects after being egged on by these people.
Are financiers global? Yes. Are they sometimes forcing taxpayers to finance these things? Yes. Is that global conspiracy to force? Seems like word games.
They’re not doing it with taxpayer money to my knowledge , and if they were, it would be good. At best that would be a reason to end the subsidy not ban it. No compulsion is happening.
Funds like Blackrock are 90% pension funds which is something like 90% state customers, which are taxes.
Blackrock is in the top 5 owners of every one of these initiatives.
https://www.zonebourse.com/cours/action/BEYOND-MEAT-INC-57878377/societe/
You can also draw indirect links. For example the state finances some projects which make Bill Gates x amount of cash. Then he uses that cash to push these projects. Whether it's direct or indirect is not the point.
The point is that if the state selected their beneficiaries in a different way, these projects would not get off the ground.
This is a very easy argument to steelman. You should try it sometime instead of just making straw man allegations nobody holds to.
The second statement is simply assuming your view. "Even if they are doing it, its good". Sorry but that's your view, I would probably disagree with it, as would 90% of people. Which is why the reflexive thing to do is deny the descriptive causal mechanism behind it.
And what moral right does DeSantis have to stop these contracts between consenting adults?