Comment on Maybe this is better for everyone

• archomrade@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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?

  source

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Wouldn’t it be cheaper to the state to subsidize a plant-based diet instead?

    regardless of what would be a good decision for the state, the oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people.

    source

    • archomrade@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people

      It acknowledges the material conditions of production

      source

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If it’s free then throwing it out costs nothing though, right?

    but replacing it would cost something. throwing away perfectly good food isn’t something most people think is a moral good.

    source

    • archomrade@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?

      source

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        this subthread was about beaver’s misleading link.

        source

        • -> View More Comments