“Lab grown meat” Boring! Also it’s Florida, their whole job is to create dumb laws. Wait until rain becomes illegal. . “There is no woke rain allowed in Florida, it’s a climate change hoax!!1!!!1!” /s
There are several other states considering bans too. Here we finally have a viable way of ending the suffering we inflict on nonhuman animals and it’s facing so much resistance. Pisses me off. Things like this shouldn’t even be part of a discussion if it’s determined to be safe through rigorous testing, they should just be straight up promoted and implemented immediately.
So many things society could massively benefit from are constantly held back by a minority group of hardheaded, self-centered, unscientific, anti-intellectual morons.
Well, if these same interests could have headed off all the various milk substitutes, not to mention mushroom/soy/pea/etc substitutes for meat, they likely would have, as well. Some are trying rear-guard actions against milk substitutes even now.
I bet even the dumb phrases like “soy boy” were workshopped by moneyed interests. Trying to portray plant-based as “unmanly” has the earmarks of moneyed interests all over it.
There will be a time in the future where we must rely on this type of technology to feed humanity. If we can’t stop the destruction of the Earth our future survival will be indoor food growth. Thankfully it’s unlikely we would see this in our lifetimes.
I am not fully vegetarian, but I like the thought of eating meat that does not include animal suffering. Florida can, once again, go fuck itself.
Because republicans are dumber than dogshit?
I think we have the answer.
What a stupid headline. Isn’t law not keeping up with technology a common issue? And so creating legislation around something before it becomes commercially available a good thing?
Of course this law is stupid and shouldn’t exist, but “creating a law for something that doesn’t exist yet” is not a negative in itself, like the headline tries to imply.
That’s actually a good point, yeah
Please explain when creating a law for something that does not exist yet could be a good thing?
This sounds like a perversion of how law should work. Opinions and ideology should not be dictating policy. It should be based on evidence and produce the desired results while limiting negative externalities.
Please explain when creating a law for something that does not exist yet could be a good thing?
Sure, here are a few examples I can think of:
- A new type of fuel for cars is being worked on. It works by a chemical reaction that isn’t combustion. The law is updated to make sure it has to adhere to emission requirements, as currently this is only required for combustion products. Doing it before the new cars exist and are on the road is a good thing.
- Some space exploration companies announce their asteroid mining plans. The law is updated to define how ownership and mining rights of asteroids work. This prevents legal issues before they happen.
- A new battery technology is being worked on. The law is updated to regulate the disposal of them, as this is currently only defined for existing battery types.
- Lab-grown meat is being worked on. The law is updated to make sure it’s considered meat so that meat storage and refrigeration safety requirements apply to it, as otherwise stores could argue they don’t.
This sounds like a perversion of how law should work. Opinions and ideology should not be dictating policy. It should be based on evidence and produce the desired results while limiting negative externalities.
Absolutely
While I appreciate your hypothetical answers they only highlight why creating a preemptive law for a supposed problem without considering the consequences is a bad idea.
Trying to write new laws based on emerging technology is perhaps not the best example because of its hypothetical nature and the reality that our laws are generally reactive and not proactive.
Laws should be written generally to apply to many situations. For instance emission laws already cover new technology because they simply regulate what comes out of the tailpipe rather than how it is created.
Creating niche specific laws is fraught with problems because when new laws are custom tailored to specific situations the chances of negative externalities begin to skyrocket. The concept of writing preemptive laws is much like the concept of preemptive crime prevention.
It is definitely a situation of putting the cart before the horse. The kind of situation where special interests are pulling the strings to write a bad law. For instance the law in Florida banning artificial meat is an example of a preemptive and poorly devised one.
First the product has not even reached the market place. Second this laws bans it rather than just requiring proper labeling. It is not based on facts and likely is unnecessary and merely a partisan act to gather goodwill from entrenched industries.
I am sure there may be a good or even real example of a preemptive law but I am not coming up with one right now.
Laws should be written generally to apply to many situations.
Yeah, so when they don’t, it would be a good thing to update them, no? Especially when it looks like new things in the world are going to skirt around them?
For instance emission laws already cover new technology because they simply regulate what comes out of the tailpipe rather than how it is created.
If your hypothetical country has laws that define what comes out of the tailpipe, and my hypothetical new engine generates emissions in the form of solid dust that accumulates in a container, then how is preemptively updating the law so that the container cannot be emptied onto the road as you drive a bad thing, as opposed to creating that law after the fact, in response to people getting poisoned?
Creating niche specific laws is fraught with problems because when new laws are custom tailored to specific situations the chances of negative externalities begin to skyrocket.
Yes. That’s why when niche specific laws don’t cover new technology, they should be updated to be more general, so that they also apply to the new situation. For example if my hypothetical country has meat storage safety laws, that define meat as coming from a dead animal, then how is making them more general so that they also apply to lab-grown meat a bad thing?
The concept of writing preemptive laws is much like the concept of preemptive crime prevention.
Yes, what’s wrong with it? I put a lock on my front door as preemptive crime prevention. Do you only put a lock on your front door after some opportunist already stole something?
It is definitely a situation of putting the cart before the horse. The kind of situation where special interests are pulling the strings to write a bad law. For instance the law in Florida banning artificial meat is an example of a preemptive and poorly devised one. First the product has not even reached the market place. Second this laws bans it rather than just requiring proper labeling. It is not based on facts and likely is unnecessary and merely a partisan act to gather goodwill from entrenched industries.
You are bringing up an example of a bad law to suggest preemptive laws are bad. Tell me, would you agree with this law if it was made after artificial meat was already established in the market? If not, then it seems being preemptive is not the problem here, but all the other problems you yourself mentioned.
There are a lot of people worked up over the use of the word “milk” in reference to oat, soy, almond milk and want to force it to be labeled something else. Many of the same refuse to even consider the consequences of the suburbia-SAD complex in this country, much less change it one iota, including their high meat intake, so…not unexpected to see this from reactionaries.
I swear they’d much rather have something like bird flu as a consequence rather than changing literally anything they consider “normal”.
Because it’s easy to take a pointless stand as a political “statement”.
Oh and because Rhonda Sandtits is a douchebag.
Well at this point I think you just need some real world preemptive laws that are not just reactionary garbage. If you can find some examples rather than hypotheticals then perhaps you could convince me how writing laws to preemptively prevent problems could be good.
I think it is hogwash and ripe for abuse hence why all the real world examples of this kind of policy making stink. The entire premise of getting ahead of a problem or issue that does not even exist seems to be a big stretch.
