I think we do! I think reducing meat eaten by 25% in 14 years will require active intervention or it won’t happen. That’s my prediction
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Representative|Republican|Oklahoma District 1
Kevin Hern
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 535
Yes77%
No20%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align97%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Congressional District 1
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Kevin Hern
U.S. RepresentativeRepublicanOklahoma District 1
SoupScore
Kevin's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 16 sponsored · 30 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Right so we’re just disagreeing which is fine. Very happy to bet that meat eating will not fall 25% unless the government takes more coercive measures than an information campaign. You can take me for a steak for my 50th birthday when I win
You explicitly said it was “within the limits of a good public information campaign”! I’d have stayed in bed if it were just “it’s not going to take rationing”
It feels like we’re all agreeing “they’re going to blow past their carbon targets because they’ve got a wildly unreasonable goal for cutting meat eating”
We’re living in a golden age of people taking the government to court and winning over dumb shit like this. But yeah, fine, if “they can do it with a campaign” just means “they can effect a small reduction in meat eating with a campaign” then probably, yes
If we’re saying “they’ll fail but it’ll still make progress in the right direction” then sure, we agree, but I question whether that’s compatible - in principle - with the idea of a legally binding target
I thought what was being asked was a legally binding commitment to reduce meat eaten by 25%. That’s what I think is unachievable through a simple comms campaign
We have absolutely stonking taxes, strict bans on consumption in all kinds of environment, and it kills you
I think achieving this for everyone in Britain - or turning a quarter of Brits from daily meat eaters into vegetarians - is absolutely out of the realm of what an information campaign can achieve
Stunned to learn that when people move into expensive flats they don’t blow up their own homes in turn
I reckon he’s just really annoyed because every time he tries to use Claude he says “I’m the pope” and Claude says “no, the pope is Pope Leo XIV, I’m afraid I can’t help you write letters under fraudulent pretences”
I mean isn’t the banal point here just that a house is valued on the product of floor space and amenities. Everyone correctly pointing out that as one half of the multiplication tends to zero the overall tends to zero.
I’m paying £400k to move across the road for more floor space, I should have got you in for the negotiations
All of these things have an appreciable fraction of their cost attributed to management and office overheads!
One-day old chicks know bouba and kiki www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Downside I guess is there’s no real need for the costly-signalling part to be linked to useful or interesting work. The future is AI agents sending meat puppets to stand in physical queues for things
One of the key things humans will always have versus intelligent machines is limited time, which is useful from a signalling view. No matter how good an AI agent becomes at sales pitches, a human calling you is an incredible signal that a machine can’t easily replicate
old.knees
“All of the people I love hate this stuff, and all the people I hate love it. And yet, likely because of the same personality flaws that drew me to technology in the first place, I am annoyingly excited.” www.nytimes.com/2026/02/18/o...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History535 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
535 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-31 | H.R. 997 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-31 | H.R. 517 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-27 | H.R. 1048 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-27 | H.R. 1048 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-03-27 | H.R. 1048 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-03-27 | H.R. 1048 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Failed |
| 2025-03-27 | H.R. 1048 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-03-27 | H.J. Res. 75 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-27 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-25 | H. Res. 242 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-25 | H. Res. 242 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-25 | H.R. 1534 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-24 | H.R. 1326 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-24 | H.R. 359 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-11 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-11 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-11 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-03-11 | H.R. 1156 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-11 | H. Res. 211 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-11 | H. Res. 211 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-10 | H.R. 993 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-10 | H.R. 901 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-10 | H.R. 495 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-06 | H. Res. 189 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-06 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-05 | H. Res. 189 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-03-05 | H.J. Res. 42 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-05 | H.J. Res. 61 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-04 | H. Res. 177 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-04 | H. Res. 177 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-04 | H.R. 758 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-03-03 | H.R. 856 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-27 | H.J. Res. 20 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-26 | H.J. Res. 35 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-26 | H.R. 695 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-26 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-26 | H.R. 804 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-26 | H.R. 788 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-25 | H. Res. 161 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-25 | H. Res. 161 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-25 | H.R. 818 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-25 | H.R. 832 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-24 | H.R. 825 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-13 | H.R. 35 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-12 | H.R. 77 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-12 | H.R. 77 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-02-11 | H. Res. 122 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-11 | H. Res. 122 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-10 | H.R. 736 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-02-10 | H.R. 692 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.