5 ms·

No, the implications are even bigger than that, because the normalization and adoption will drive costs down. And when meat-substitute burgers are cheaper than

No, the implications are even bigger than that, because the normalization and adoption will drive costs down. And when meat-substitute burgers are cheaper than meat burgers, and taste as good, they will become the default, and that is going to make a huge dent in the animal industry, which is all sorts of awesome, because the animal industry is all sorts of terrible. Right now, I'm seeing Beyond and Impossible substitutes at burger restaurants, and it always comes with a couple of dollars surcharge, because it is more expensive. Imagine the day when the meat patty comes with a surcharge, because the substitute is cheaper! I am always soapboxing about this, but the only way we can meaningfully address environmental or ethical concerns, is by doing it through the economy. The "best" choice has to also be the cheapest choice, because then people will as if by magic choose that most of the time, unlike when you only have people's conscience to motivate them, then the wallet still rules most of the time.

TOGoS 8y ago
> the only way we can meaningfully address environmental or ethical concerns, is by doing it through the economy. Well, that or by abolishing capitalism. Which we'll have to do anyway, given that "there's no competitive advantage in not wrecking the planet." But yeah if we can get everyone to switch to Impossible burgers that could definitely buy us some time. :)
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  Or you can tax the negative externalities to account for environmental damage and still allow people to be free.
  - kjdndisneinj 8y ago
    Nothing about abolishing capitalism implies that people will not be free. Arguably they could be more free. Not every socialist state needs to (or should) emulate the USSR. You should try reading The Conquest of Bread.
    - erulabs 8y ago
      Everything about abolishing capitalism implies that people will be "less free". All capitalism means is ownership and voluntary exchange. Not allowing ownership or making exchange involuntary can _only_ be accomplished via coercion. I want to be very clear - this is not a matter of opinion but of tautology - capitalism requires freedom and freedom implies capitalism. In no way is this countered by comparing hypothetical systems with the USSR.
      - kjdndisneinj 8y ago
        This is absolutely not true, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialist systems of government. There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... That is, acquiring enough capital to run a personal business. What is not allowed is owning collective means of production, and the consequential rent-seeking and extraction of surplus value that business owners and landlords engage in. Your comment is obviously propaganda, so I doubt this will help, but I strongly recommend reading some anarchist literature before making claims like that. The Conquest of Bread is a good starting point, but a bit outdated at this point.
        erulabs 8y ago
        You're confusing two topics. I'm not talking about "socialism", and I don't want to get into definitions of that word, and frankly I don't disagree with anything you've said at all regarding socialism. However, I wasn't talking about socialism. Rather, the OC said "abolishing capitalism". Abolishing capitalism _means the same thing_ as abolishing voluntary activity. In order words, limiting individual freedom. So there is no way to construct "abolishing capitalism" as to not meant "violent coercion". None of this has anything to do with socialism or social programs or anything like that. I've read plenty of anarchist literature, and studied economics extensively. I would, ironically, label myself something of an anarchist as well. You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. You're confusing my tautological deduction for ideology. That's fine, but golly does it make me sad. You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. Edit: Also, none of this even makes a value judgement about the worthiness of abolishing capitalism or infringing on personal freedoms. Perhaps it's a worthwhile calculation? That's not an opinion I'm bringing up - but the word "capitalism" has a simple meaning: trade and property. Abolishing the ability of humans to own things or do certain categories of things _is exactly the definition of limiting freedom_. Socialist philosophers are not unaware of this and their entire philosophy is built upon the calculation of limited personal freedoms to enable potentially greater net happiness. This is not a controversial opinion, is my point.
delfinom 8y ago
You forget that in America, we'll just bail the farmers out and start shoveling subsidized overproduced meat everywhere we can.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  That cuts both ways. Corn farmers get massive subsidies which amount to subsidies for soy as well due to the popularity of corn/soy rotation (soy, being a legume, has nitrogen fixation properties that improves soil quality.)
  - danans 8y ago
    There aren't really "both ways" in the sense that the subsidy is equivalent between meat and other uses. 97% of soy meal (itself 80% of the soybean mass) produced in the US is used to feed animals for meat, not for making soy-based meat substitutes: https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/ https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Cheap soybeans makes meat cheaper, but the production of meat is inherently inefficient. If the production of meat substitutes from soy could be made more efficient than the production of meat from soy, then de facto soy subsidies would disincentivize the consumption of meat.
      - Thorrez 8y ago
        I wouldn't say subsidies would disincentivize meat. I would say they would incentivize both meat substitutes and meat, in an equally proportional amount.
        tfehring 8y ago
        They distort the prices of both soy products and meat, but not by equal proportions - the reduction depends on the distribution of cost components. Say it takes 50 cents' worth of soy and 50 cents' worth of other expenses to produce $1 worth of beef, and it takes 90 cents' worth of soy and 10 cents' worth of other expenses to produce $1 worth of meat substitute. If the effective price of soy falls by 10% due to subsidies (and other costs remain the same), the cost of beef will fall by 5%, while the cost of meat substitute will fall by 9%.
the8472 8y ago
I for one welcome the looming cow genocide.
Wheaties466 8y ago
Since you're on your soap box i'll add a talking point. The number one reason for deforestation in the Amazon is to provide space and resources to farm cattle for beef. My point is, switching to a non animal based burger has larger implications that the overall health of the people eating the burger.
loco5niner 8y ago
> and taste as good [as meat burgers] This is a wonderful goal, but I highly doubt this will happen in my lifetime.

TOGoS 8y ago

> the only way we can meaningfully address environmental or ethical concerns, is by doing it through the economy. Well, that or by abolishing capitalism. Which we'll have to do anyway, given that "there's no competitive advantage in not wrecking the planet." But yeah if we can get everyone to switch to Impossible burgers that could definitely buy us some time. :)

ahmedalsudani 8y ago
Or you can tax the negative externalities to account for environmental damage and still allow people to be free.
- kjdndisneinj 8y ago
  Nothing about abolishing capitalism implies that people will not be free. Arguably they could be more free. Not every socialist state needs to (or should) emulate the USSR. You should try reading The Conquest of Bread.
  - erulabs 8y ago
    Everything about abolishing capitalism implies that people will be "less free". All capitalism means is ownership and voluntary exchange. Not allowing ownership or making exchange involuntary can _only_ be accomplished via coercion. I want to be very clear - this is not a matter of opinion but of tautology - capitalism requires freedom and freedom implies capitalism. In no way is this countered by comparing hypothetical systems with the USSR.
    - kjdndisneinj 8y ago
      This is absolutely not true, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialist systems of government. There are even variants of socialism that embrace markets and competition, and almost all allow ownership of _personal_ means of production... That is, acquiring enough capital to run a personal business. What is not allowed is owning collective means of production, and the consequential rent-seeking and extraction of surplus value that business owners and landlords engage in. Your comment is obviously propaganda, so I doubt this will help, but I strongly recommend reading some anarchist literature before making claims like that. The Conquest of Bread is a good starting point, but a bit outdated at this point.
      - erulabs 8y ago
        You're confusing two topics. I'm not talking about "socialism", and I don't want to get into definitions of that word, and frankly I don't disagree with anything you've said at all regarding socialism. However, I wasn't talking about socialism. Rather, the OC said "abolishing capitalism". Abolishing capitalism _means the same thing_ as abolishing voluntary activity. In order words, limiting individual freedom. So there is no way to construct "abolishing capitalism" as to not meant "violent coercion". None of this has anything to do with socialism or social programs or anything like that. I've read plenty of anarchist literature, and studied economics extensively. I would, ironically, label myself something of an anarchist as well. You've called my individual thoughts, constructed by myself alone, after careful and considerable study, propaganda. You're confusing my tautological deduction for ideology. That's fine, but golly does it make me sad. You're seeing what you want to see, my friend. Edit: Also, none of this even makes a value judgement about the worthiness of abolishing capitalism or infringing on personal freedoms. Perhaps it's a worthwhile calculation? That's not an opinion I'm bringing up - but the word "capitalism" has a simple meaning: trade and property. Abolishing the ability of humans to own things or do certain categories of things _is exactly the definition of limiting freedom_. Socialist philosophers are not unaware of this and their entire philosophy is built upon the calculation of limited personal freedoms to enable potentially greater net happiness. This is not a controversial opinion, is my point.

delfinom 8y ago

You forget that in America, we'll just bail the farmers out and start shoveling subsidized overproduced meat everywhere we can.

darkpuma 8y ago
That cuts both ways. Corn farmers get massive subsidies which amount to subsidies for soy as well due to the popularity of corn/soy rotation (soy, being a legume, has nitrogen fixation properties that improves soil quality.)
- danans 8y ago
  There aren't really "both ways" in the sense that the subsidy is equivalent between meat and other uses. 97% of soy meal (itself 80% of the soybean mass) produced in the US is used to feed animals for meat, not for making soy-based meat substitutes: https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/ https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Cheap soybeans makes meat cheaper, but the production of meat is inherently inefficient. If the production of meat substitutes from soy could be made more efficient than the production of meat from soy, then de facto soy subsidies would disincentivize the consumption of meat.
    - Thorrez 8y ago
      I wouldn't say subsidies would disincentivize meat. I would say they would incentivize both meat substitutes and meat, in an equally proportional amount.
      - tfehring 8y ago
        They distort the prices of both soy products and meat, but not by equal proportions - the reduction depends on the distribution of cost components. Say it takes 50 cents' worth of soy and 50 cents' worth of other expenses to produce $1 worth of beef, and it takes 90 cents' worth of soy and 10 cents' worth of other expenses to produce $1 worth of meat substitute. If the effective price of soy falls by 10% due to subsidies (and other costs remain the same), the cost of beef will fall by 5%, while the cost of meat substitute will fall by 9%.

the8472 8y ago

I for one welcome the looming cow genocide.

Wheaties466 8y ago

Since you're on your soap box i'll add a talking point. The number one reason for deforestation in the Amazon is to provide space and resources to farm cattle for beef. My point is, switching to a non animal based burger has larger implications that the overall health of the people eating the burger.

loco5niner 8y ago

> and taste as good [as meat burgers] This is a wonderful goal, but I highly doubt this will happen in my lifetime.