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.
Comment on Maybe this is better for everyone
archomrade@midwest.social 2 weeks agoIf 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
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.
archomrade@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
Their link was addressing the claim that eating vegan is a luxury.
For what the comment was responding to I think it was perfectly well framed, but you can extrapolate anything you want from it if that’s your thing.
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.
archomrade@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
The paper is discussing the cost of the diet, not the safety net programs that are built around the american diet.
A paper that analyses the consumer choices and systemic hurtles to eating a vegan diet it would be a different paper, and it would be making a different point than this one.