Date: 2031/08/23
Project: 4957dbfj (Group #1)
Introduction:
The focus group consists of six millennials; three males, two females, and one nonbinary. Presurvey data indicate other elements of diversity represented include one LGBTQ2+ individual and two BIPOC individuals. All members of the focus group are volunteers, recruited through posters put up in nearby condo lobbies and local social media groups. The host has been given a prescribed list of statements and told to project warmth and friendliness.
Record of events:
9:01 – The group enters the interview room. After acknowledging the host, the subjects sit and look at their hand-held devices. There is little curiosity exhibited about the room or about the other subjects.
9:03 – The host explains the purpose of the focus group – to provide feedback about potential features of a new 5-star hotel.
Reaction: All subjects nod. Subjects E and A smile at each other. The facial expressions and body language of the group suggest that the subjects are comfortable with the task and with each other.
9:08 – The host presents concept #1: “In this new hotel, the staff is trained and certified to provide the highest level of personalized service for each customer. Would this appeal to you?”
Reaction: Positive; all heads nodding, several smiles. There are a few positive comments.
9:10 – Concept #2 presented: “This hotel has state-of-the-art environmental controls; full climate control, filtered air, and daily sanitation. Does this give you comfort?”
Reaction: Positive; the discussion centers around recent experiences in which hotels are eschewing daily cleaning. The subjects are looking at each other and smiling. Their body language is relaxed. Subject B reacts to the word sanitation; widened eyes and lifted eyebrows. He does not speak.
9:14 – Concept #3 presented: “This hotel only serves healthy nutritional food in calculated portions. The diet is personalized for every individual.”
Reaction: Several widened eyes and raised eyebrows; subjects B and D exchange glances. Subject B appears ready to speak but stops. Subject E says that it sounds great because he is used to seeing unhealthy choices on hotel menus. The others nod but stay quiet. Subject A remarks that they can always order a pizza which triggers some smiles. The host does not correct her.
9:17 – Concept #4 presented: “This hotel always has a doctor on call. The staff checks in on customers’ well-being twice every day.”
Reaction: More signs of surprise; the subjects are looking at each other while leaning back from the table. Subject A enquires how the check-in occurs, and the host confirms that it is an actual physical check and not merely a text. This prompts more exchanged glances, lifted eyebrows, and furrowed brows. Subject B is obviously uncomfortable, grimacing and shaking his head. Subject F states that having a doctor available is a good thing, but her head remains tilted, and one eyebrow stays lifted.
9:20 – Concept #5 presented: “This hotel focuses on sustainability. Everything that can be reused or recycled, is reused or recycled.”
Reaction: The faces and bodies of the subjects relax. There are smiles and nods.
9:22 – The reveal: “Would you be surprised to learn that we are talking about a modern pig barn?” Video #ST8954 plays on the walls. “Does this make you feel better about how livestock is raised in this country?”
Reaction: Positive in 4/6 subjects; Subjects A, D, E, and F are smiling and nodding as they look at the video. Their shoulders are relaxed. Subject A notes that the pictures are very different from videos that she has often seen before. She likes the colors – whites, and grays – and the bright lighting. Subject B shows signs of possible anger – tight jaw, and furrowed brows. He glares at the host and states that pigs are not guests, and pig barns are not hotels. Subject C also seems distressed and enquires about the funder of the experiment. When told that that information is not available, they state that they cannot believe the pictures without knowing if pork producers have paid for the experiment. Subject D says this makes him feel better about eating meat. Subjects E and F agree with Subject D’s statement.
9:28 – The host thanks the subjects and they exit.
Conclusions:
This study supports the hypothesis of the livestock industry – people will respond positively when they are presented with visual evidence of modern swine facilities along with key messages on how the animals are raised.
More relevant to this study is that the subjects appeared to readily adopt the premise that humans would appreciate living conditions similar to those of swine. Any existing discomfort appeared to be about whether or not the scenario was real and not in opposition to the conditions under consideration. This provides early evidence that it would be possible to get the human population habituated to confined housing, controlled diets, and ongoing surveillance.
The acceptance of confined living and ongoing surveillance appears extremely viable given the current movement towards more high-density housing and the ever-increasing people tracking. The acceptance of standardized living environments might be accelerated by starting with a certain segment of society, for example, the segment of refugees and those without homes.
The anomalous variable is food/diet. Humans have been able to remove all non-nutritional elements from the diets of livestock, although not without negative consequences. It will be more difficult to obliterate the social and cultural aspects of food in humans. Much more research is required in this area.
As the statements of subject B indicate, the element of choice will require further study. How much control over the day-to-day decisions of humans can be removed? The 2020 and 2028 pandemics and the way they were managed serve as natural experiments and should be carefully examined. It is to be kept in mind that there are already important regional differences. For example, countries like China and Russia are more advanced in terms of citizen control than countries in North America.
Additional Comments:
This study was funded by the pork industry in an attempt to justify its production methods. Such projects can provide a good cover to study potential human domestication. The strongest evidence is provided by Subject D in his closing comment – “The pigs are treated better than us.”
Signed:
Nevaeh Hassan, Registered Lab Technician,
Centre for the Study of Global Resilience,
Interspecies Learning Division
Learn more about Deb on our Contributors’ Page.
Looking for more to read? Check out the Largest List of Independent Publishers.
(Photo: janneke staaks/flickr.com/ CC BY 2.0)
*
Introducing the 2023 Best in Rural Writing Contest. $300 in prizes, as well as great exposure for shortlisted authors. Deadline: September 30th, 2023. For more details go here.
We’re grateful to partner with AcresUSA, who is North America’s oldest publisher on production-scale organic and regenerative farming. AcresUSA regularly organizes events to benefit farmers and ranchers who are actively improving soil health, agronomists breaking new ground in soil and plant science, and livestock managers cultivating holistic systems. Browse their events page to see what they have planned for 2023.
- Of Farm and Family by Deb Stark - March 28, 2024
- Lab Notes by Deb Stark - July 13, 2023
- This Day by Deb Stark - March 10, 2022