3 ms·

Horrible argument. You make it sound like you stopping is going to cause more people to start eating, when in fact you know that's not the case. Perhaps you're

by yboris 5y ago

Horrible argument. You make it sound like you stopping is going to cause more people to start eating, when in fact you know that's not the case. Perhaps you're trying to articulate that it's futile - since "there are many people who do not care", but that's like stabbing a baby saying "well, in our culture many people do this already". Individual choices matter: buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) - your supermarket will buy less meat when you stop consuming it, and that propagates up the chain. If not 1-to-1, it may be 1/1000 chance of reducing the next 1000 lb order - which is basically equivalent to 1-to-1 response (especially in the long run). And finally, with all the alternatives of substitute meats (on the market now) and cultured meats (coming to market soon), you have numerous options to reduce your meat consumption. So don't hide behind panic to do something bad - that's like seeing looting in the store and saying "well, I want some of that free stuff I haven't earned - at someone else's expense, and others are doing it".

MR4D 5y ago
> buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) Uhhhh, buying less meat will reduce price, not supply.
- yboris 5y ago
  You're just claiming things based on theory you remember. I'm going by research: > "If someone gives up 1 lb of chicken, total consumption falls by 0.76lb in expectation." https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the-pound/#Elasticities https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the...
  - MR4D 5y ago
    How rude - especially since you don't understand the article you just quoted. Of course consumption falls if I give something up. That's not Supply. Your original statement was "buying less meat reduces supply", while the quote you just gave as evidence talked about "consumption", which is the demand side of the equation (technically "quantity demanded", but I'm simplifying). If you don't like my knowledge, maybe this will help [0]. Please don't tell me I'm "just claiming things based on theory I remember" - or anyone else on HN - it's rude. [0] - https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/price-elasticity-of-demand-and-price-elasticity-of-supply-cnx https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...
    - yboris 5y ago
      Sorry it was rude of me to assume what the source of your claim was. It is inappropriate of me to make it sound like I have a deep understanding of economics - I certainly don't. If you have the patience, perhaps you can explain to me where the mechanism I describe fails. If in a town 10% of people stop buying beef, grocery store will stop stocking their shelves as much as they did prior. Going up the supply chain, when more stores do this, the supplier will decrease production. Of course this takes time, but given a few-years time horizon, the effects of lower consumption do propagate to the supply. Is your comment just a nitpick with my misunderstanding the technical language economists use? Perhaps you're commenting with an assumption of a shorter time horizon than what I have in mind?
      - MR4D 5y ago
        Thank you - I appreciate your comments. I wasn't nitpicking. This is actually a confusing part of economics, and the language of economics (which I'm trying to avoid) makes it worse. :) Let me give you a few real examples, but with contrived numbers for illustration. 1 - Suppose you can buy either chicken or beef. Both cost $1. Now, due to some reason, the price of beef rises. What will happen, is that some people will buy more chicken, even though the price of that didn't change. (Maybe they can't afford the beef now, maybe they're frugal, etc.) 2 - Next, suppose the same $1 for each, but the price of beef drops. Now, since it is the cheaper source of protein, some people will buy the beef instead of the chicken, simply because it's cheaper. 3 - Third example (a bit more involved): The prices of both are again $1. You and a bunch of friends decide to go without beef for a month. The price of beef will drop. Now (and this is the key part), because the price of beef is now cheaper, some number of people will buy it instead of chicken. What has happened in example 3, is that the second half of that example is actually the same as example 2. In your example of the town buying 10% less beef, then supply will eventually self-correct, but only if nothing else (prices, prices of substitutes, supply of substitutes) changes. This push-pull action on prices and quantities tends to bounce around - that's why prices of beef, chicken, oil, timber, etc tend to change frequently. I hope this helps.
        yboris 5y ago
dm319 5y ago
Can I also add that one person doing something has a knock on effect on other people's behaviour. Similar to the drink-drive argument before which was 'everyone does it' whereas these days, where I live, it absolutely isn't. If I drive at 30mph through a residential road that most people speed through, I might actually influence other people's behaviour who may feel it isn't appropriate to speed if other people aren't. I guess I'm trying to say individuals can help normalise things that previously wasn't normal.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  But meat is a primary food source for humans. I went through the whole cowspiracy, went vegetarian for 2-3 years thing and I commend it, but it's pretty hard to get enough protein without being starving and vegetarian cooking takes way longer. Idealy, you'd like to think that we can all just quit meat, but IMO it's for poeple who can afford the time and money to do so.

by yboris 5y ago

MR4D 5y ago

> buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) Uhhhh, buying less meat will reduce price, not supply.

yboris 5y ago
You're just claiming things based on theory you remember. I'm going by research: > "If someone gives up 1 lb of chicken, total consumption falls by 0.76lb in expectation." https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the-pound/#Elasticities https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the...
- MR4D 5y ago
  How rude - especially since you don't understand the article you just quoted. Of course consumption falls if I give something up. That's not Supply. Your original statement was "buying less meat reduces supply", while the quote you just gave as evidence talked about "consumption", which is the demand side of the equation (technically "quantity demanded", but I'm simplifying). If you don't like my knowledge, maybe this will help [0]. Please don't tell me I'm "just claiming things based on theory I remember" - or anyone else on HN - it's rude. [0] - https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/price-elasticity-of-demand-and-price-elasticity-of-supply-cnx https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...
  - yboris 5y ago
    Sorry it was rude of me to assume what the source of your claim was. It is inappropriate of me to make it sound like I have a deep understanding of economics - I certainly don't. If you have the patience, perhaps you can explain to me where the mechanism I describe fails. If in a town 10% of people stop buying beef, grocery store will stop stocking their shelves as much as they did prior. Going up the supply chain, when more stores do this, the supplier will decrease production. Of course this takes time, but given a few-years time horizon, the effects of lower consumption do propagate to the supply. Is your comment just a nitpick with my misunderstanding the technical language economists use? Perhaps you're commenting with an assumption of a shorter time horizon than what I have in mind?
    - MR4D 5y ago
      Thank you - I appreciate your comments. I wasn't nitpicking. This is actually a confusing part of economics, and the language of economics (which I'm trying to avoid) makes it worse. :) Let me give you a few real examples, but with contrived numbers for illustration. 1 - Suppose you can buy either chicken or beef. Both cost $1. Now, due to some reason, the price of beef rises. What will happen, is that some people will buy more chicken, even though the price of that didn't change. (Maybe they can't afford the beef now, maybe they're frugal, etc.) 2 - Next, suppose the same $1 for each, but the price of beef drops. Now, since it is the cheaper source of protein, some people will buy the beef instead of the chicken, simply because it's cheaper. 3 - Third example (a bit more involved): The prices of both are again $1. You and a bunch of friends decide to go without beef for a month. The price of beef will drop. Now (and this is the key part), because the price of beef is now cheaper, some number of people will buy it instead of chicken. What has happened in example 3, is that the second half of that example is actually the same as example 2. In your example of the town buying 10% less beef, then supply will eventually self-correct, but only if nothing else (prices, prices of substitutes, supply of substitutes) changes. This push-pull action on prices and quantities tends to bounce around - that's why prices of beef, chicken, oil, timber, etc tend to change frequently. I hope this helps.
      - yboris 5y ago

dm319 5y ago

Can I also add that one person doing something has a knock on effect on other people's behaviour. Similar to the drink-drive argument before which was 'everyone does it' whereas these days, where I live, it absolutely isn't. If I drive at 30mph through a residential road that most people speed through, I might actually influence other people's behaviour who may feel it isn't appropriate to speed if other people aren't. I guess I'm trying to say individuals can help normalise things that previously wasn't normal.

bamboozled 5y ago
But meat is a primary food source for humans. I went through the whole cowspiracy, went vegetarian for 2-3 years thing and I commend it, but it's pretty hard to get enough protein without being starving and vegetarian cooking takes way longer. Idealy, you'd like to think that we can all just quit meat, but IMO it's for poeple who can afford the time and money to do so.