Comment on Maybe this is better for everyone
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks agoif it’s free, then throwing it out and acquiring plants is more expensive.
Comment on Maybe this is better for everyone
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks agoif it’s free, then throwing it out and acquiring plants is more expensive.
archomrade@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
If it’s free then throwing it out costs nothing though, right? Or are you talking about the cost of the state subsidy?
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to the state to subsidize a plant-based diet instead?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
regardless of what would be a good decision for the state, the oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people.
archomrade@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
It acknowledges the material conditions of production
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
i don’t see what your point could possibly be. most people will not find it cheaper to be vegan without significant changes to both their own lifestyle and systemic change. the oxford paper completely ignores anyone who isn’t paying full price at the supermarket.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
but replacing it would cost something. throwing away perfectly good food isn’t something most people think is a moral good.
archomrade@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
this subthread was about beaver’s misleading link.