Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
I would happily eat an Impossible Burger or Beyond Burger, they’re pretty decent burgers! I’m also a cheapskate, and don’t like paying extra for essentially the same thing.
Considering that the inherent resources it takes to make a meat patty are in theory greater than resources it takes to make a vegetable based patty, why am I expected to pay a premium for the vegetable based patty?
There are some factors such as scaling and capital costs, but fundamentally, I think they charge more the vegetable based patties because it’s some sort of “virtue”. Be that as it may, virtue doesn’t pay my mortgage.
If vegetable based patties were even 10¢ cheaper than an equivalent meat patty, I’m thinking they’d be much much more popular. Times are tough, people got to pay rent, these Impossible Meat/Beyond Meat burgers are delicious, and less resource intensive. Let’s get this sorted! Do we really need some government interference in the market?
We already have government interference. Meat, dairy and eggs receive MASSIVE subsidies and marketing aids from the government. That’s a big part of the reason why it can be sold so cheaply to the consumer.
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.
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.
I would happily eat an Impossible Burger or Beyond Burger, they’re pretty decent burgers! I’m also a cheapskate, and don’t like paying extra for essentially the same thing.
Considering that the inherent resources it takes to make a meat patty are in theory greater than resources it takes to make a vegetable based patty, why am I expected to pay a premium for the vegetable based patty?
There are some factors such as scaling and capital costs, but fundamentally, I think they charge more the vegetable based patties because it’s some sort of “virtue”. Be that as it may, virtue doesn’t pay my mortgage.
If vegetable based patties were even 10¢ cheaper than an equivalent meat patty, I’m thinking they’d be much much more popular. Times are tough, people got to pay rent, these Impossible Meat/Beyond Meat burgers are delicious, and less resource intensive. Let’s get this sorted! Do we really need some government interference in the market?
We already have government interference. Meat, dairy and eggs receive MASSIVE subsidies and marketing aids from the government. That’s a big part of the reason why it can be sold so cheaply to the consumer.
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.
So you won’t pay a single cent so that intelligent creatures don’t have to suffer atrocity?
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.