Of the total area that is used by humans (Agriculture, Urban and Built-up Land),
- urban and built-up land is 1m km²,
- agriculture is 48m km²,
so agriculture is 48 of 49 millions km² used, that’s 98%. The remaining 2% are all streets and housing and other infrastructure together.
I fail to see how your counterproposal to outright ban meat would not lead to this same scenario (probably faster).
Also, you’re ignoring the option to provide a divedend (monthly, if you like) to citizens from the tax revenue to offset increased meat prices. With the dividend, the poor would be largely unaffected, and mostly the result would be the middle class reducing their meat consumption from excessive to moderate.
Also also, you keep talking about how this scheme bans poor people from eating meat. But I have to say, this reminds me of the criticism that gas taxes hurt poor people since now they have to pay more for gas - ignoring the fact that many poor people simply don’t drive cars, because they are too poor to afford them. And so a gas tax spent on improving transit ends up helping the poorest, because what people need is transportation, not cheap gas.
Also also also, if this sort of scheme were ever implemented, I highly doubt it would result in widespread food riots like you see in a developing nation when they are literally starving in the streets. Worst case, it would result in the people who implemented it being voted out of office and having the policy rolled back. And with a dividend program and a gradual pricing rollout, this would be even less likely.
Meatless Mondays happened. It’s definitely possible to ration meat.
Now, see my other reply to you for why I think rebates are workable, but complicated.
Confused. I remember this being a volutary phenomenon with individual participation. Maybe a few university cafeterias participated. Not a government mandate for no meat sales on Mondays.
It was more voluntary during WW1.
In WW2 there was an explicit food rationing program, and though there were voluntary elements the Red Stamp program allotted a certain number of points for meats/fat/butter. Each person was allowed a certain amount of points weekly in the form of war ration stamps, and the points expired if they weren’t used. This was done not only to help feed the war effort, but also to prevent the riots that would have happened if meat became too expensive for poor people to eat.
WWII rationing wasn’t meatless mondays, I don’t… buddy.
Whelp, I made a mistake, now nothing I say matters and you automatically win the conversation.
Come on. my point still stands even if I misremembered the exact name of the program. Rationing works, when it’s fair.
Why not just own the mistake, instead of presenting a totally separate concept as though you were correct in the first place? That would be fine, we all screw up. Getting hostile when someone gets exasperated because you’re trying to cover for a mistake in a clunky way is the opposite of productive.
(edit: You’ve edited your comment since I wrote this to include the second line. No, the two are extremely different programs that are not at all comparable and your meaning changes completely when moving between the two.)
Why not just point out that I made a mistake, instead of making-
-snide comments like that? It was clearly meant to humiliate me for making a mistake.
You mocked me, so I got hostile.
No that was meant to criticize your behavior. If you want to be treated with respect, reciprocate in kind. Seriously, that was an insulting thing for you to have done in the first place. People were engaging with you more or less from an assumption that you were serious, even though what you’re saying is pretty absurd - but you’re not going to give them credit for being sincere with you, and now you’re trying to present like I did a bad thing?
Buddy.