🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4tcg55$lth@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Patrick Lee  <plee31@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>2. Do you think that McDonalds keeps an on-call staff of cowboys to run 
>down to South America and exploit the rainforest?  Who do you think cuts 
>down forests to raise cattle?  Its the citizens of these poor countries 
>trying to make a living. They're doing the same thing with the natural 
>resources at hand that industrialized western countries have always done. 
>They exploit them for industry. You said yourself these countries are 
>poor. What do you expect them to do? Turn the place into a national park 
>and starve?  You live in a nice, safe, fat country. Most people don't. 
>They're working with what they have. 

The problem, Patrick, is that people in third world countries starve anyway.
They're not in the same position as the western nations were a few centuries
ago, because the western nations weren't saddled with huge levels of overseas
debt.  Since economic affairs have become internationalised, rich people and
institutions in first world countries (such as McDonalds) have been able to
outbid people in third world countries for the use of their own resources.
The result is that third world countries are forced to grow crops and cattle
for overseas consumption rather than feed their own people.  If third world
farmers really had a choice in the matter, they'd be raising crops to feed
themselves rather than raising cattle to feed McDonalds' customers.

>[snip again]
>
>5. Is McDonalds food bad for you?  Of course! But you're missing the 
>point. People like it. They want to eat greasy, sugary, salty food. They 
>also want to smoke, drink, dope, and engage in risky sex. So what?  Who 
>are you to tell people how to live?  You can try to educate them. If they 
>don't listen, its their problem. 

I think educating people is precisely what the post you're replying to was
hoping to achieve.  Is this a misguided effort?

>6. Only people who live in nice, safe, fat countries cop a moral attitude 
>to killing animals and eating them. What if you didn't have an 
>industrialized food supply?  What if you weren't able to purchase a 
>multitude of vegetarian PRODUCTS, and 10 types of tofu?  What if you were 
>hungry? You'd kill, skin and devour the first cute fuzzy thing you could 
>trap, spear, or shoot. Your moral stand towards killing animals is one of 
>convenience.

Given scarce resources, people generally would prefer to thrive on a
vegetarian (or at least mostly vegetarian) diet rather than subsist on diets
with a higher proportion of meat.  Vegetarian diets simply require far less
resources than meat-based diets.

>7. Does McDonalds pay low wages?  Of course. How much do you think 
>low-skill kitchen work should pay?

Well, someone has to do the work.  Would you penalise those who are forced
into such jobs because they made the mistake of choosing the wrong parents?

>[snip]
>
>8. I don't buy your argument that McDonalds is somehow the Great Satan. 
>They're just another aggressive, pushy, business trying to expand.

Fine if you see nothing wrong with that.  Some of us do, however; I've given
some of the reasons above.

>Why do 
>you think McDonalds is so successful? They provide something that people 
>want. You may have a problem with the product, but the  fact is people 
>want to buy it. If they didn't, McDonalds wouldn't exist. 

I'm sure McDonalds would really prefer not to spend billions of dollars each
year on advertising to attract customers who'd buy their food anyway.  The
fact is that far less people would eat at McDonalds were it not for their
aggressive marketing.  I think it's important that people who are saturated
with McDonalds advertising in the mainstream media are also treated to an
opposing point of view - even if it's one I don't entirely agree with myself.

>        OK I'm done. 

Me too  :-)


-- 
Tony Morton
University of Melbourne