It is not that we have forgotten, the social and governmental structures have been for a long time pushing for dependence upon corporations / government and less self reliance.
Self Reliance is something that is to be socially mocked, "survivalist", "prepper", etc are seen as derogatory terms.
Even community level reliance has systemically been rejected in favor of top down corporate and/or national government level programs to provide for people.
In the context here specialization means people are not sustenance farming working 16 hours a day creating 100% of their food themselves, however the other extreme of this is total dependence of your food from outside of your region, and the ability to prep, cook, etc you food to others.
There is a balance there, where by a person may not grow all of their food, but has a garden (even in indoor garden) to grow some things... Or buys from local farms, and learns how to cook their own meals instead of total dependence on prepared meals either from the store (i.e tv dinners etc) or from restaurants / fast food...
I know a lot of people where more than 80% of their food intake is cooked prepared for them, and the 20% that is "from scratch" cooking is like bacon and eggs level cooking...
That is with out getting into direct dependency on government...
Because specialization gave up autonomy, with zero corresponding accountability in return, so capital holders got most of the upside with none of the downside once positioned as too big to fail, and dependent stakeholders got short-term time resource benefits while their grandchildren onwards got exposed to oligopolistic pricing power, and externalities like fragile supply chain ramifications pushed upon them. Snarking like this in shallow analyses is exactly what Soros warned about with reflexivity.
So blaming "capitalism" for anything likely means the person is ignorant on the topic of economics, or is speaking about one type of capitalism (say corporatism, or crony capitalism)
capitalism as an economic system is a foundation for liberty, one can not have a free society with out capitalism in some form.
I would argue that this misses the point. Capitalism isn't just a pile of physical capital. If it was, it would be impossible to result in oppression since physical capital must be maintained and it can be reproduced. Nobody would have any right to complain. Just think about it, would you be jealous of Jeff Bezoz' maintenance bill for his mega yacht? No, you are "jealous" that he has exclusive monopoly rights that restrict your own rights and perhaps even doom you to poverty.
It would be more appropriate to call "capitalism" the obsession to put the interests of capital and its owners above all other interests. This means, capital should be allowed to override the basic needs of other humans. Capital should have the right to deny others the ability to obtain shelter or food. Because of capital it should be possible to deny others the ability to trade or be employed.
>capitalism as an economic system is a foundation for liberty, one can not have a free society with out capitalism in some form.
Now you have trapped yourself inside a network of contradictions. If capital overrides all your decisions, how can you consider yourself free? How can a society where only one special groups interests are being heard, call itself free?
No, instead of doubling down on taking ever more people's rights away, we should be doing the opposite. We should be striving to give everyone the ability to help themselves, decide for themselves and to live their lives according to the best of their abilities.
This is where the paths diverge. You are confusing market economies with capitalism, which is merely a perversion of market economies. A free market is inherently anti-capitalist because it values the freedoms of its participants over any special interest groups. A free market inherently denies capital the ability to deny other people the ability to obtain shelter or food. It inherently denies capital the ability to prevent others from trading and forcing them into unemployment.
No, a free market isn't free as in gratis. It's free as in freedom.
Completely incorrect, unless you completely perverse the idea of capitalism which I suspect you are attempting with disingenuous argumentation and emotional rhetoric
Capitalism, on its own, does not result in "oppression" as that requires external non-economic factors often based around government for oppression to occur.
Also I am not jealous Jeff Bezoz, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or any other rich person at all, in either strawman you have presented here
>>If capital overrides all your decisions, how can you consider yourself free? How can a society where only one special groups interests are being heard, call itself free?
I have not contradicted myself at all, you have massively over reached and attributed positions to me well outside that of my comment. Further you have now confused capitalism, an economic system, with government power.
The only way for "only one special groups interests are being heard" would be for government to impose that restriction upon the population, that has nothing to do with capitalism.
>>You are confusing market economies with capitalism
Market economies, including Free Market Economies are part of a capitalist economic system, so if you believe they are not I point you back to my original comment. A Free Market is capitalism, So is Crony Capitalism, but Crony Capitalism is not a Free Market.
Stated Differently, All free markets are capitalist economies, but not all capitalist economies are Free Markets.
I support free market capitalism
There was a large drop in infant mortality in the US about the time commercial baby formula caught on. Draw your own conclusions.
This is overlooking an incredibly important piece - composition and reliability. Infants, particularly those under 6 months, have very specific nutritional needs. A subset of that population has extremely strict nutritional needs. Even in a health baby, "stretching" the formula with too much water can cause a dangerous drop in electrolyte levels.
For the average person, it's going to be extremely difficult to source, process, mix, and hydrate ingredients (and test it all) to properly feed their baby.
----
To put things in perspective, toddler formula is _extremely_ similar to infant formula, but the ratios are slightly different. This slightly difference means you cannot safely use toddler formula as a replacement for infant formula.
That's the weird thing about these interactions. If someone's asking for an alternative to infant formula - because they can't get any - the situation is already unsafe. Starvation has a 100% fatality rate.
Infant formula isn't part of the scenario being discussed. Alternatives are to be compared against starvation, as that is part of the scenario being discussed. Do alternatives have a 100% fatality rate? No. So why all the weird 'there's just no viable alternative' comments?
This thread is in the context of "why isn't the media providing alternatives". I'm refuting the point that "it's simple and easy to replace baby formula" - which supports your argument, highlighting the severe and dire consequences of this situation.
I'm making an argument that highlights the severity of this situation for parents with young infants.
Yes. That's the issue we're having here. People are encountering that situation of being unable to find formula, meaning that their children are literally at risk of starving, asking for alternatives and being told 'there's just no viable alternative' by the media as though that information will make formula appear out of thin air. They are looking for that less than ideal short term solution from the media, which is responding oddly.
It is quite simple to provide short-term replacements for infant formula. Famine relief, missionary and other charities do have reliable and nutritious recipes for baby formula alternatives that can be made in bush conditions and over open fires in metal pots.
This isn't the media's job. Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad.
> Famine relief, missionary and other charities do have reliable and nutritious recipes for baby formula alternatives that can be made in bush conditions and over open fires in metal pots.
Please, please, please, cite your source on this. I have a really hard time believing this as simple as "this one trick from Africa". I believe what you're referring to is literally infant formula. You're simply describing the process of sanitizing water then mixing in standard, powdered infant formula.
The introduction of formula to impoverished regions was extremely controversial. As mother's used formula, their milk production decreased. This forced them into a dependency on formula manufacturers or milk-donors (wet-nurses, milk-banks, etc). This would not be a problem if there were viable solutions.
------
EDIT: Lastly, I would like to point out that this isn't an argument about "feed the baby" or nothing. If you are that desperate to feed your baby, go to a fucking hospital. They _will_ be able to help you.
I wish people would lay this blanket advice to rest, unless they are doctors themselves and can give relevant advice immediately. I live in Germany, a country that everyone praises for its healtcare system and it is incredibly hard to get a doctor's appointment here that is not months down the road. Sure there are emergency options, like the hospitals that you mention, but imagine what happens if millions of deperate people try to tap into the strategic formula reserves of hospitals...
During a catastrophic event, I absolutely expect the media to spread ideas for creative solutions. You can always say that talking to an expert is the best option, but what is plan B if plan A is no realistic option?
I think maybe this is the problem both specifically here and more widely, there's a major outbreak of 'not their jobitis' going on. The media are 'not my jobbing' this and ignoring the fact that distributing health information has very much been the job of the media in the past.
Maybe a similar issue with the FDA who 'not my jobbed' the inspections of the facility and 'not my jobbed' the reopening inspections of the facility and 'not my jobbed' other things they could have been doing, such as distributing safe formula-replacement recipes.
Maybe - to take a tangent - a similar issue with the Uvalde police who 'not my jobbed' actually interacting with a scenario. Seems to be a whole rash of people forgetting you have to actually interact with the world and take actions if you want things to happen, not just observe and write reports.
> Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor.
That's purely because of liability.
> This is realistically the only safe suggestion
No, that's point of the contention here.
> Please, please, please, cite your source on this.
The recipes for infant milk start on page 93.
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
What exactly do you think we did before baby formula even existed? Or doctors, for that matter? This absolute dependence on systems is disheartening. We need a drastic reconnection with nature.
Well, we breastfed.
Problem is that isn't actually a reliable solution since not all mothers produce milk at the quantities their child needs. This is particular true as a child grows, many mothers grow tired of breastfeeding and look to formula as an alternative. Problem is this deteriorates their milk production since the child is eating less breastmilk.
-----
The reality is this situation is primarily dangerous for mother's who cannot breastfeed or lack sufficient production - and require formula. There is no go, safe, reliable option because Option A (Breastmilk) is gone and Option B (Formula) is as well.
People keep acting like there _should_ be a backup to formula, without understanding that humans are the only animals on earth that have created an alternative to their naturally produced milk.
There are backups, which are safer than the alternative of starvation, which has a 100% fatality rate.
A homemade formula which killed 25% of children would still be 400% safer than the alternative of giving them nothing and having them all die.
This needs to be repeated. Do not swap them.
My wife and I were trying to help a family by buying them formula - and we bought the wrong age range. It makes a big difference. Don't do it.
On a side note, we are going to donate the formula we can't use to a stranger. So. There's that.
I'll summarize some of the cool points. Breast milk changes to respond to 3 distinct ages of the baby. Newborn to 3ish days. 3ish days to 1 year. 1 year to "the end".
Milk changes to respond to growth spurts of your baby!
Milk changes to provide antibodies. Not covered in this article: it is hypothesized that kissing your baby can give the mom bacteria on the baby - and then the mom makes the antibodies for bacteria the baby was exposed to.
Milk changes throughout the day!
Milk changes in the middle of breast feeding
That's it. Those are the ones I enjoyed. Here is the link!!
[0] https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways...
This situation primarily impacts 0 to 4 months olds and secondarily 4 to 6 months old. It's less than ideal fora 6 to 12 month old to use a sub-par diet, but it's much less critical than in a newborn.
Basically, the newborn range is growing so quickly that small deficiency can have huge cascading effects. Old babies are a bit more resilient because they're growing a bit slower (relatively) and have more buffer in their reserves for certain things.
In my opinion, what you're arguing is equivalent to saying "children should be allowed to drink alcohol. If it's safe for adults, it's safe for children".
Do you have a citation for that? I see all these articles that just say "don't try it yourself, it's too hard", but I'd like to know which specific ingredients are impossible to obtain.
Looks like osmolality is a major concern. Good luck explaining that in a 30 second clip on CNN.
That's pretty much exactly my point, as I mentioned in another comment.
I'm having a difficult time believing that the ingredients or measuring devices are so difficult to replicate at home that it would be impossible to do. I think the more likely explanation is a large portion of the population, put generously, "lacks attention to detail", and so homemade formula would be dangerous for them.
Here's a good analogy. Saline solution (not disinfecting solution, just normal saline) for contact lenses is not complicated. It's salts and water. At one point it was possible to buy salt packets and mix it with water to make contact lense saline solution. However, it was critical the water be purified, distilled water.
Of course, a decent portion of the population thought plain tap water was good enough and ended up going blind, so the FDA banned the salt packets, and you can now only buy premixed saline.
So the FDA went out and said "Mixing your own saline solution can be really dangerous, don't do it." And they're right, mixing your own saline can be really dangerous, if you can't follow directions.
Caffeine powder is also illegal these days.
The problem with baby formula is that it needs to contain precise balances of nutrition in specific forms that can be absorbed by the body in specific ways. Much in the way that a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie, a nutrient is not a nutrient is not a nutrient.
Water down your baby formula? Now it’s different. Babies are sensitive. This could be dangerous.
This took such little effort to research on my own. The bar is so low.
Breast milk is unique. In the past kids had wet nurses as a backup. And when they didn’t, infant mortality was very high.
If you just tel people you can go make this shit at home, a lot of babies will likely die.
I 100% disagree. I'm not an idiot. I can read a recipe, even a complicated recipe. And I'm not even saying they're wrong. I'm just asking for some simple example of why, for someone capable of following the instructions exactly, this would be too difficult to do at home. Not the right equipment? Fine. Ingredients that are not readily available? Fine.
But to go with some hand wavy bullshit, basically saying "Sorry stupid peon, this is just too complicated for you", is just dumb. On a site called "Hacker News" I think it's incredibly sad that a request for a more detailed explanation is met with "I think that's crazy".
You do not have the ingredients. It’s not just foods. You cannot make safe baby formula from foods. You don’t have the equipment to produce it. It requires specific mixing and heating and what not to arrive at specific consistencies and sterility so that it is absorbable by the body correctly. You don’t have the measurement equipment to get the ratios correct to the margins needed. You don’t have the quality controls to check that they are ok for things like acidity. You don’t have the expertise to evaluate outcomes. You apparently don’t have the inclination to research it on your own either so it’s triply dangerous.
In the 20s people started using milk based formula. Babies got scurvy and rickets. They threw in orange juice. They got bacterial infections.
If you want to roll the dice with your baby’s health because you think you’re smarter than the government go ahead. Here’s Wikipedia, the simplest lowest bar of research you were unwilling to do but complain about either way. It has the basic progression. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_formula
Flour and milk mostly. Go nuts.
This thread has shown me how many people think baby formula is just some complex recipe that requires pureeing the correct vegetables in the correct ratios.
Making infant formula is more akin to making medicine/drug than table food.
We have home drugs (meth, heroin, cocaine, etc). Yes, they can be made safely, but they often not.
Brown Rice contains selenium. Even when not breastfeeding, real foods contain micro and macro nutrients that are beneficial for babies.
Slight variation in too little nutrients, or too much, or in forms that aren’t absorbed at the intended rate can be very dangerous. Throw in some rice? Ok now there’s extra sodium in there. The milk does too. Uh oh. Suddenly this is a complicated optimization problem requiring fine measurements and specific blending techniques.
Basically there are viral recipes going around, and this supports that formula in particular is something that we cannot trust the average person to diy. Infants are extremely vulnerable and have unusual dietary requirements.
People will die due to this.
EDIT: I see this is contentious. Check the reddit post and go argue with them: https://old.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/v07nh0/tiktok_...
But could easily attempt anyway and fuck up
The reason to not put out a set of instructions that people cannot follow is because they cannot follow it, and those that attempt to follow it will likely make serious mistakes. It would do more harm than good to put out a government sanctioned recipe, no matter how many warnings.
However, it's also extremely easy to mess it up and kill yourself.
The first part is obviously wrong. You can provide good instructions for things that need a high level of control. Baby formula is not made by magic and I doubt very much that it needs some impossible level of precision to create.
The second part of your comment is simply a false dichotomy. Releasing high quality instructions would not affect the rate at which the baby formula shortage is addressed.
Some of it is for those with metabolic problems. Abbott makes one type which very recently the government has taken action about, but each recipient has be vetted to get it, I believe it's from non-FDA regulated production in Europe.
If you Google "how to make homemade baby formula", basically every article is how experts strongly recommend against it. And there are articles like "Why following TikTok influencers' baby formula recipes is a terrible idea."
No shit following TikTok baby formula recipes is a horrible idea. But if a detailed recipe for age-appropriate "standard" baby formula were published by experts, my guess is that it wouldn't contain fairy dust.
I can commiserate somewhat with these "experts", though, because this is a fairly common case where what is good advice for an individual can be bad advice for the masses. That is, if you're a reasonably intelligent person, it's probably not that hard to make your own baby formula. But if, say, at least 20% of people are not reasonably intelligent, experts will err on the side of "lowest common denominator" advice.
"Often has a dangerously different osmolality. Infants eat whatever they are given and have dumb kidneys, so are prone to hyponatremia or hypernatremia and every pediatrician has seen a baby die this way. Don’t do it."
See that and other discussions here about the differences between infant (above) and toddler formula.
That makes sense, but again, for anyone who has ever taken a chemistry class, creating a solution with a known osmolality is not difficult - basically all you need is a scale. But I also don't doubt that rando TikTok recipes are wildly dangerous.
And the age range argument doesn't really make sense if there were a standard recipe for "human breast milk replacement". I'm pretty sure human breast milk doesn't change composition as a child ages, and no one is arguing you can't breast feed toddlers because the milk is for the wrong age.
"Goat's milk contains very little folate and its use as a primary calorie source causes megaloblastic anemia."
Cows milk over 32 oz/day will cause iron deficiency, and "In children this is a hypercoagulable state and can cause cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. I have see this."
Substitutes for human milk designed for human consumption turn out not to be trivial.
I've seen people here say they have learned how to feed their babies on tiktok. For a place better than tiktok, there is a ton of information on WebMD showing how to quickly and safely make baby food.
google.com/search?q=webmd+baby+food+recipes
I'm not sure what you saw, but I never posted a webmd link.
> google.com/search?q=webmd+baby+food+recipes
Extremely likely that the first hit will be: https://www.webmd.com/baby/how-to-make-baby-food
Even if you’re going to pretend this isn’t what you meant, the claim that web md has a ton of information on how to make baby food is false, in the context of formula.
I'm not pretending anything. Look at what I wrote (which you actually quoted). "For a place better than tiktok, there is a ton of information on WebMD showing how to quickly and safely make baby food."
I put the link for a google search and referenced the list of results. You chose to only look at the first result to feed a baby. Did you click the button, "I'm Feeling Lucky" that automatically takes you to the first link? That's completely unreasonable and not why I posted that search.
Furthermore, I never said that WebMD shows how to make baby formula.
I like to bring it up whenever I run out of dishwasher soap: "I ran out of dishwasher soap so I used some liquid dish soap." I do it because it's always followed up with "Did it make a giant mess in your kitchen?" "No, I put a few drops of it in with a bunch of baking soda, worked like a charm!"
I had wondered what I would MacGyver for baby formula, if it were at all relevant to my life right now.
Thanks for pointing this out. It's like we've forgotten how to function as humans in some respect.
Baby formula isn't some magical combination of ingredients. And I get it, authorities are wary to recommend recipes because of the risk of people fucking it up. But when people are out of options they'll likely make worse decisions, like watering down formula.