Speaking locally to me, chicken is half the price per gram of protein compared to vegan proteins. It might be different if I could digest wheat. Beans are closest in price, but I can’t physically consume enough beans for that to work alone. Vegan options need to be subsidized to encourage wider adoption.
Regarding vegetarianism specifically, anyone who thinks they aren’t hurting animals by consuming commercial eggs and dairy are kidding themselves. Chicken is also (again, local to me) cheaper than dairy-based proteins. (Not sure about the cost of eggs since I can’t digest those either.)
I think it’s accurate to say that meat is a luxury in the sense that we collectively are paying environmental and ethical costs for the farming industry.
e: Another consideration is the support of healthcare providers. Only an omnivorous diet is supported by the Swedish healthcare system. I was just in the hospital and had no option for protein other than pork and yogurt. When attempting to meet my dietary needs on a vegan diet, I have received no professional help.
I think it’s accurate to say that meat is a luxury in the sense that we collectively are paying environmental and ethical costs for the farming industry.
I’d like to see us factor in the bio-availability of nutrients from both plant and animal sources when considering the costs, as well.
Yes it is, sometimes, based on the criteria in the post you are replying to.
They even give examples of why this is and point out not everyone has the same circumstances you , but you still somehow read it as your own personal position being the only correct one.
To be clear, that’s vegetarianism, not vegetables.
Access and “cost effectiveness to nutrition ratios” are skewed towards meat in some places, especially when looked at from a socio-economic point of view.
Per calorie, meat or “meat” can be cheaper, especially when you factor in time/effort taken for purchase, storage, prep and cooking.
That’s almost certainly because of the focus on meat production in some countries and you could argue that it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s a different conversation.
That’s almost certainly because of the focus on meat production in some countries and you could argue that it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s a different conversation.
That is, in fact, this conversation. That’s what I mean by “we need to start acting like it”.
If you want to change conversations then indicate that that is what’s happening , because the post you are replying to clearly stated the context in which that statement was made.
If you want to reply to that statement in an entirely different context and then don’t mention that that is happening you’re going to get confusion.
There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual. She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables. We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
You have to be doing it on purpose at this point, nobody accidentally misses the context with that amount of pinpoint accuracy.
You’re even including partial sentences and specifically leaving out the part that gives the context.
OK so I’ll do this one line by line and then you’re on your own.
There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual.
The whole line was
Veganism is a luxury of modern times and certain social economic circles.
As for “patently counterfactual” that’s a strong phrase for zero supporting arguments.
She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables.
Yes, as a supporting argument that the current conditions mean that it’s not universally economically viable to subsist on vegetables.
We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
It was mentioned yes, but in the context of current conditions.
I’ll simplify for you.
As things currently are it is not always economically viable to subsist on vegetables alone.
There was no argument that it isn’t possible for the world to get to a point where this is possible, just that it’s not the current world.
Do you know what the word is for an item that is possible to obtain with an expenditure of wealth, while a less costly viable alternative exists?
There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
No, they describe many reasons aside from just the purchase price, if you haven’t seen them i suggest you back and re-read the post, it’s like 3 small paragraphs.
In case you are still struggling. I’ll bullet point them for you.
Purchase price
Availability
Quality
Accessibility
Opportunity/Prep Time Cost
Overall your replies imply a lack of ability to empathize with another persons circumstances and not a small amount of (let them eat cake) entitlement.
it’s great that you are in a financial situation, physical location and with enough free time to make vegetarianism viable.
Declaring that it’s not possible to be in a situation worse than the one you are in, especially when realistic potential reasons for the differences are offered, is tone-deaf and frankly disgusting.
I’m done with this, if you can’t figure it out from the above that’s a you problem, and i suppose anyone who has to deal with you on a regular basis.
I totally understand why the word luxury can sound off here. I just meant that being vegan or vegetarian often takes extra time, knowledge, and access. Things that aren’t always easy for everyone.
I think it’s great when people can make it work, but not everyone has the same options or support. It’s less about right or wrong choices and more about recognizing that everyone’s circumstances are different.
I’m trying to be empathetic, because it really feels like lashing out at the wrong targets here. Hopefully we can agree society is the problem, not the people in the society who can’t access these choices.
Vegetarianism is a luxury? Meat is a luxury, and we need to start acting like it.
Speaking locally to me, chicken is half the price per gram of protein compared to vegan proteins. It might be different if I could digest wheat. Beans are closest in price, but I can’t physically consume enough beans for that to work alone. Vegan options need to be subsidized to encourage wider adoption.
Regarding vegetarianism specifically, anyone who thinks they aren’t hurting animals by consuming commercial eggs and dairy are kidding themselves. Chicken is also (again, local to me) cheaper than dairy-based proteins. (Not sure about the cost of eggs since I can’t digest those either.)
I think it’s accurate to say that meat is a luxury in the sense that we collectively are paying environmental and ethical costs for the farming industry.
e: Another consideration is the support of healthcare providers. Only an omnivorous diet is supported by the Swedish healthcare system. I was just in the hospital and had no option for protein other than pork and yogurt. When attempting to meet my dietary needs on a vegan diet, I have received no professional help.
I’d like to see us factor in the bio-availability of nutrients from both plant and animal sources when considering the costs, as well.
Yes it is, sometimes, based on the criteria in the post you are replying to.
They even give examples of why this is and point out not everyone has the same circumstances you , but you still somehow read it as your own personal position being the only correct one.
To be clear, that’s vegetarianism, not vegetables.
Access and “cost effectiveness to nutrition ratios” are skewed towards meat in some places, especially when looked at from a socio-economic point of view.
Per calorie, meat or “meat” can be cheaper, especially when you factor in time/effort taken for purchase, storage, prep and cooking.
That’s almost certainly because of the focus on meat production in some countries and you could argue that it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s a different conversation.
That is, in fact, this conversation. That’s what I mean by “we need to start acting like it”.
If you want to change conversations then indicate that that is what’s happening , because the post you are replying to clearly stated the context in which that statement was made.
If you want to reply to that statement in an entirely different context and then don’t mention that that is happening you’re going to get confusion.
There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual. She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables. We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.
There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.
You have to be doing it on purpose at this point, nobody accidentally misses the context with that amount of pinpoint accuracy.
You’re even including partial sentences and specifically leaving out the part that gives the context.
OK so I’ll do this one line by line and then you’re on your own.
The whole line was
As for “patently counterfactual” that’s a strong phrase for zero supporting arguments.
Yes, as a supporting argument that the current conditions mean that it’s not universally economically viable to subsist on vegetables.
It was mentioned yes, but in the context of current conditions.
I’ll simplify for you.
As things currently are it is not always economically viable to subsist on vegetables alone.
There was no argument that it isn’t possible for the world to get to a point where this is possible, just that it’s not the current world.
Do you know what the word is for an item that is possible to obtain with an expenditure of wealth, while a less costly viable alternative exists?
No, they describe many reasons aside from just the purchase price, if you haven’t seen them i suggest you back and re-read the post, it’s like 3 small paragraphs.
In case you are still struggling. I’ll bullet point them for you.
Overall your replies imply a lack of ability to empathize with another persons circumstances and not a small amount of (let them eat cake) entitlement.
it’s great that you are in a financial situation, physical location and with enough free time to make vegetarianism viable.
Declaring that it’s not possible to be in a situation worse than the one you are in, especially when realistic potential reasons for the differences are offered, is tone-deaf and frankly disgusting.
I’m done with this, if you can’t figure it out from the above that’s a you problem, and i suppose anyone who has to deal with you on a regular basis.
I totally understand why the word luxury can sound off here. I just meant that being vegan or vegetarian often takes extra time, knowledge, and access. Things that aren’t always easy for everyone.
I think it’s great when people can make it work, but not everyone has the same options or support. It’s less about right or wrong choices and more about recognizing that everyone’s circumstances are different.
I’m trying to be empathetic, because it really feels like lashing out at the wrong targets here. Hopefully we can agree society is the problem, not the people in the society who can’t access these choices.