You're viewing a single thread.
My biggest gripe with vegan communities is that a lot of them have an "All or Nothing" mentality, going fully vegan is a luxury not everyone can afford, and yet I find mainly malice when trying to talk about reducing ones own reliance on meat and other animal products in online communities.
And veganism, if taken to the "no suffering of sentient beings" full extreme, forbids buying things (not just food) produced by slavery. And those things, especially electronics and clothes, are not financially viable for most to be bought without any slavery involved in any step whatsoever.
Unsolicited advice: Your goal is to do no more or less than the best you can. If you're doing that, no one got shit on you.
Which is precisely why they will get along with the tankies so well. Both treat the very idea of nuance as an existential threat to the point where everything much be driven by the most extreme degree of moral panic or nothing at all.
Vegan diets are popular in third world countries because they're considerably cheaper. Meat is cheap in western countries because it's very often subsidized by governments. Meat consumption by wealth proves eating animals is a luxury.
Also veganism mantras always have "as far as is practicable". I bought a Samsung phone because Fairphones don't work here in Australia.
vegan diets in third world countries are cheaper because they generally just end up being 90% filler starches and still have woefully bad nutrition outside of being calories
Save animals and switch to orphan-meat
your oxford study doesn't account for anyone who gets free or subsidized meat, or who catches, raises, or hunts their own. so it excludes basically all of the working poor, which is basically everyone.
or who catches, raises, or hunts their own.
How does catching, raising, or hunting meat compare to planting or gathering their own plant-based food?
Or how does 'free or subsidized meat' compare with free or subsidized plant based food?
How does catching, raising, or hunting meat compare to planting or gathering their own plant-based food?
as the deer spends all year gathering nutrients, and they can spend one morning gathering the deer, it seems to me it's highly effective.
Most vegans would allow an exception for certain lifestyles. People hunting for their homestead aren't going to cause a global issue like is currently happening.
Ideally we wouldnt hunt at all but thats like some sort of futuristic goal. Noones going to tell you to starve your family to appease veganism, thats not the point.
The point is to reduce suffering and abuse wherever possible. Sometimes its not possible.
People hunting for their homestead aren’t going to cause a global issue like is currently happening.
that's not what the vegan society says about animal exploitation.
Lol, ok so you're including labor cost?
A couple years of a dear 'gathering nutrients', vs a summer of cultivating a garden and harvesting? Or do I need to include the energy expenditure (energy ingested by the dear minus energy lost to biological processes, vs solar energy collected minus energy expended on building plant mass and energy expended in harvest)?
I was really just pointing out the absurdity of your complaint about the study but you're making this into a fun little digression.
it costs us almost nothing to take down a deer. it costs us a great deal to raise a garden.
Costs nothing to harvest a plant, too.
Costs a great deal to own a gun and ammunition, a truck to haul, tools and labor to clean and butcher, and more to store and prepare it. To speak nothing of the labor of the dear to produce the biomass.
Lol we can keep going with this if you want, it's pretty fun.
Costs nothing to harvest a plant, too.
foraging for plants is a lot less calorie efficient than hunting or fishing.
Lol we can keep going with this if you want, it’s pretty fun.
this smacks of bad faith.
Lmao I thought that's what you were doing
if it's free, then throwing it out and acquiring plants is more expensive.
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?
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.
oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people
It acknowledges the material conditions of production
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.
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.
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.
I thought your point was to disregard the morality of the diet and focus on the economics?
this subthread was about beaver's misleading link.
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.