Nostr Web Client

This abuse is the price of your bacon. Is it worth the taste?

https://file.nostrmedia.com/p/4eb88310d6b4ed95c6d66a395b3d3cf559b85faec8f7691dafd405a92e055d6d/5f45e59d891d38bcc1e09ebd56b20f6afe8a5c079fcbfa3b4b65e9b8aa31127f.mp4

#IKITAO #AnimalWelfare #AnimalRights #GoVegan

Guy Swann 8mo ago

Eating meat and supporting corporate farms are not equivalent. The meat from an animal treated like this isn't nearly as healthy as meat from a well raised outdoor animal, its full of antibiotics, bad hormonal balances, and very low quality fats. How our food lives does in fact go up the chain and create very different nutritional profiles.

Corporate farms are a fiat phenomenon caused by financing price misallocation. You might really enjoy the book "The Unsettling of America" by Wendell Barry. HE doesn't talk about financing much specifically because he doesn't seem to see the money side of things, but you'll hear him bring it up multiple times without him realizing what a critical piece of the puzzle it is.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Vincent 8mo ago

“Corporate farms are a fiat phenomenon”- What the fuck that even means? Everything you don’t like is fiat phenomenon?

Please walk me through how there would be no corporate farms in hyperbitcoinized world.

The Pentographer 8mo ago

That's Bitcoin shorthand for "of low quality or of little care or consideration for key factors."

He's saying that corporate farming cares more for profit than for quality and it shows right down to the currency being used to fund it.

Vincent 8mo ago

So in sound money world people won’t sell “low quality items for cheaper prices” anymore? That’s the rationale?

The Pentographer 8mo ago

The incentive of holding a high quality currency that gains value over time as opposed to losing value is the key factor at play, yes. In an ideal world, yes it would eliminate this kind of thing.

Bitcoin will not remove all evil from the world, but it's a positive measure that may help, and it has.

Guy Swann 8mo ago

The dynamics of access to money directly influences the tendency of markets to consolidate. It’s one of the most core ways that debt from thin air has a lasting trend towards consolidation and centralization.

I’m sure from your perspective it sounds like “everything I don’t like is fiat.” But ask yourself why these didn’t exist in the early 1940s but things changed dramatically in the market models in the 70s.

A good start would be to check out the book I’ve mentioned. But this kind of market change toward efficiency and size over robustness and resilient is exactly what money printing detached from actual resource creation fundamentally does.

Vincent 8mo ago

>> Please walk me through how there would be no corporate farms in hyperbitcoinized world - would like a more direct answer to this question.

Centralization has many reasons beyond the soundness of the money or the politics of it. It’s called economy of scale. Many costs go down in mass production.

Guy Swann 8mo ago

I’ve talked about it in a number of episodes, I’ll try to dig one up. But maybe this would make a fun video by itself. I’ll try to boil it down to as simple an explanation as I can if I do.

But exploring the effects are fascinating and this isn’t even one of the crazy ones. Due to 30 year financing being below the cost of its resources, actually alters how cities grow and migrate. It’s a huge part of the flow of wealth from the center to the outskirts of the city in suburbs and the like. A great book that talks about how and why the model for these is based on misinformation (ironically an author who also didn’t quite understand how potent a role money was playing) is “Strong Towns” by Charles Marohn. Another fun read about this type of topic if it interests you.

Vincent 8mo ago

“Centralization has many reasons beyond the soundness of the money or the politics of it. It’s called economy of scale. Many costs go down in mass production. “

Won’t you agree about that?

Guy Swann 8mo ago

It is not the only factor, there are millions. But there is none more foundational than the access to capital. Economies of scale always exist, but fiat unnaturally subsidizes it to an enormous degree regardless of what proportion of influence it has on any particular production hierarchy or market.

supermass 8mo ago

it’s not that there wouldn’t be any corporate farms.

it’s that the economic value of running a farm at scale and consolidating enterprise value through land grabbingi and monopolistic practices would no longer dominate (because of debt and inflation) small family farms with community or slightly larger focus and a good business model.

good money renormalizes the incentives of scale vs local and at least doesn’t make the difference insurmountable

Vincent 8mo ago

You sound pretty confident. Sounds like wishful thinking and optimistic bias more than anything.

The more probable answer is we don’t know.

Maybe sounder money make economy of scale less of a benefit, maybe not, maybe the opposite.

supermass 8mo ago

debt and inflation are systemic drivers of economies of scale.

without cheap debt to access, and inflation to take the sting of repayment off, there is factually less incentive to leverage up business models beyond certain points.

i’m drawing logical conclusions and yes, until presented with counter evidence I will hold 100% confidence (or at least some maximum).

you can also see historically that this is the case, with farms collapsing in amount and expanding in size massively since the World Wars (money printers brrrrr). that’s just a glance at data from the usda tho.

yeah let’s have confidence that we can draw logical conclusions regardless of “peer-reviewed” proof or whatever else

Vincent 8mo ago

You don’t demonstrate logical reasoning imo. Only wishful thinking. Economy of scale goes beyond the soundness of the money. Costs go down at mass production. Big market entities will outcompete/swallow small ones over time. You haven’t addressed that. The fact that there are no 100- men company competing with Apple in the smartphones market is because economy of scale and the productiveness it creates. This is beyond “debt” and “inflation”.

You won’t be able to create better iPhones than Apple or more cost-effective food than Wallgreen in your local farm.

supermass 8mo ago

if I am not demonstrating logical reasoning then neither are you!

“costs go down at mass production”

disagree for the reasons I’ve stated, debt and inflation drive this.

only idea you’ve introduced is potentially that novel technology such as apple smartphone requires economy of scale.

totally different thing and idk. how big was apple when they first made the smartphone?

Vincent 8mo ago

“disagree for the reasons I’ve stated, debt and inflation drive this”. Suit yourself.

supermass 8mo ago

that is what is called logical reasoning friend, unless you can debunk it?

Vincent 8mo ago

No. That what’s called putting time and effort where it is worth. Sorry.

If you don’t get it I just won’t put my effort in convincing you.

supermass 8mo ago

I feel the same, but seemingly my outlook on the future here is much more positive than yours..

have a great night!

Vincent 6mo ago

positive ain't go nothing to do with anything, we are talking about what is not what ought to be

supermass 6mo ago

so answer the questions, retard.

how big was apple when they invented the iphone?

how does inflation not contribute to debt arbitrage which allows the haves to outpace the have-nots in capital accumulation?

glad it took you a month to recoup enough energy to type words!

Vincent 6mo ago

Do you think the only reason for large corporations is the lack of sound money?

supermass 6mo ago

no.

now answer my questions.

Vincent 6mo ago

Ok. So there may be other factors that incentivize scaling of corporations. Seems we agree

supermass 6mo ago

jfc retard, bye 👋

Vincent 6mo ago

You seem angry

Ava 8mo ago

Thank you. I am familiar with the book.

Meat is murder (unless it is lab-grown), whether it comes from a factory farm or a local pasture. Unless you're an obligate carnivore, it's a senseless death.

Yes, industrialized farming is typically more abusive to both animals and the environment, and I appreciate your point about nutritional differences. But that is where the overwhelming population gets their meat from, and the ethical question remains the same—a life is still taken unnecessarily, regardless of how "well" the animal lived before slaughter.

For those with access to food choices, ethical considerations should guide our decisions. Some might argue about survival situations, but these represent extreme edge cases that don't reflect the reality of modern food systems. In our daily lives with abundant food choices, we're not facing life-or-death decisions that force such ethical dilemmas.

You wouldn't eat a dog or a cat, would you? Why do they get a cultural pass while others are raised to be slaughtered?

The financing and corporate structure problems you mention are real, but they don't change the fundamental moral issue at hand.

Laser 8mo ago

I've eaten dolphin and horse. 🤷

royster⚡️ 8mo ago

Would you support rounding up all the carnivorous animals to put them in zoos so we can feed them soy burgers and keep them from murdering their fellow animals?

Guy Swann 8mo ago

Eating plants is just as much murder as eating meat. Vast amounts of animals have to die, be displaced, and get farmed for their fertilizer in order to make any crop viable.

You cannot extract yourself from the natural world and the life cycle.

hello 🪺 8mo ago

maybe a significant point that everyone could agree on is that animal cruelty is barbaric.

it is also unnatural & not part of “the cycle of life.”

Guy Swann 8mo ago

Completely agree

hello 🪺 8mo ago

id feel so much better about eating meat if i knew, for example, before eating her that betsy the cow grew up and lived on a beautiful farm at least—not tortured for her whole life.

ignorance is bliss for sure 🙈🙉🙊

Ava 8mo ago

The principle of ahimsa (non-violence) reminds us that while we cannot completely avoid causing harm, we have a moral responsibility to minimize suffering wherever possible. Yes, it is correct that we cannot extract ourselves from even accidentally killing others like ants or flies. The idea is to reduce this harm to the greatest extent possible while acknowledging the impossibility of causing zero harm.

Regarding plant sentience—while plants have remarkable communication abilities through chemical signals, electrical impulses, and underground fungal networks, they fundamentally lack the biological structures necessary for experiencing suffering: no pain receptors, no nervous system, and no brain to process pain or emotions.

Modern growing methods like aquaponics create closed systems where fish provide natural fertilizer for plants, eliminating the need for external inputs. Even conventional hydroponics significantly reduces land use and can operate without animal-derived fertilizers.

Furthermore, animal agriculture requires vastly more plant cultivation than direct plant consumption, multiplying the harm to both plants and animals. By choosing plant-based foods, we minimize our impact on all living beings, and the environment.

Check out Murray Hallam's videos on YouTube. His work in the field of aquaponics is wonderful, and the fish do not have to be eaten, but can be raised and released, or maintained as part of the ecosystem.

https://file.nostrmedia.com/p/4eb88310d6b4ed95c6d66a395b3d3cf559b85faec8f7691dafd405a92e055d6d/30be6ab53a3a214f295c55f2c2eded6cc92d59286850a93bec6b62f253c457d5.mp4

https://youtu.be/kwOGkcFpNPY

OTI 8mo ago

It starts small

Laser 8mo ago

Ethical meat still exists.

https://nourishcooperative.com/