Comment on Maybe this is better for everyone
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months 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 10 months agoif it’s free, then throwing it out and acquiring plants is more expensive.
archomrade@midwest.social 10 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?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months 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 10 months ago
It acknowledges the material conditions of production
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 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.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months 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 10 months ago
I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
this subthread was about beaver’s misleading link.