Comment on Maybe this is better for everyone
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year 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 1 year agoif it’s free, then throwing it out and acquiring plants is more expensive.
archomrade@midwest.social 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago
It acknowledges the material conditions of production
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago
I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
this subthread was about beaver’s misleading link.