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
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.
so the headline that is used on the site, and the excerpt used to create the link in this thread both need some heavy caveats. without proper context, both the claims made by them are actually false.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
and it did so misleadingly, as being in teh position to always pay full price for food at a store is a luxury.
Not if by ‘cost’ they meant ‘cost’, and not ‘what they get from the state at no cost’
regardless of what would be a good decision for the state, the 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
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.
so the headline that is used on the site, and the excerpt used to create the link in this thread both need some heavy caveats. without proper context, both the claims made by them are actually false.
Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose.
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.
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.
this smacks of bad faith.
Lmao I thought that’s what you were doing
foraging for plants is a lot less calorie efficient than hunting or fishing.
Lmao not if you’re hunting with spears!
Or are we allowed to use tools in this hypothetical digression?
you’re the one obsessed with defending a paper whose scope was too limited to cover any of these scenarios so do what you want i guess
You’re the one obsessed with dismissing the paper based on qualifiers beyond the scope of the research, so you do you I guess.
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.
that’s not what the vegan society says about animal exploitation.