• Grimpen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I don’t disagree. If there were agricultural subsidies that let me eat more delicious hamburgers for less money, and those delicious burgers just happened to be plant based, I’d be happy eating more burgers for less bucks.

    The specifics are beyond me though, and there are already so many agricultural subsidies targeting so many different products.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      So you won’t pay a single cent so that intelligent creatures don’t have to suffer atrocity?

      • Grimpen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 minutes ago

        Doesn’t pay the mortgage, my man.

        Although I would pay a single cent, but I also grew up on a farm, and know hunters… so I’m not exactly PETA material. I do hate wasting meat, a creature died so that I may eat, and one day we all shall be food for others (classic worm meat). Still, the sheer scale of industrial agriculture when it comes to the meat industry is staggering.

        Overall though, we are all cogs in this machine, and we need to recognize the levers and control inputs of this machine and use them. Just like “carbon footprint”, good feelings for consumers is something that can be sold at a premium. This is why I reject the premise of your question. I shouldn’t have to pay an extra cent to reduce suffering, We should structure our markets so that there is less suffering.

        This concept is one of the reason why meat substitutes probably aren’t widespread, because by using it as some virtue signal it is able to be sold at a premium. Beyond Meat and Impossible burgers should be cheaper because the fundamental inputs are cheaper and we haven’t skewed the market to make them more expensive.