Lentils? Pshaw! Textured yeast protein is good enough for the peasants!
Soylent Tan?
Got no idea where you are coming from. A vegetarian diet w/ limited animal protein is demonstrably healthier than one heavy on animal proteins - and much less expensive. But - yeah - we’re Americans. We should be able to consume whatever we want in whatever amounts we wish, with no eye to expense.
Those with limited means can sometimes choose lentils, sometimes textured vegetable protein, sometimes refried beans, and sometimes splurge on beef, as their tastes and budgets allow. I see no reason the rest of us should preferentially subsidize beef.
Congratulations, you sound exactly like a Republican.
I’m a moderate. I believe in the market for distributing most commodities.
The distinction is that purebreds come from a very limited gene pool; whereas not-purebreds by definition can be adding random genes from a much larger pool. The problem isn’t a recent mating, the problem is the extended limited gene pool.
Although - my go-to counterexample would be Easter Island -w here presumably one or two large canoe-loads (probably around 100 people) provided the starter kit for an isolated island population that grew to as much as 15,000 people in less than 1,000 years with no demonstrable ill effects. OTOH, my friend had a Dalmatian and he was convinced the thing was dumber than a bag of hammers and was often out of control. Some purebreds are known for problems like hip bone issues. Horses have been bred for size without regard to the bones catching up, so broken legs especially in race horses happen. But with animals that have to be somewhat reliable in the real world, we cannot ignore mental deficiency the way we can in food animals.
Not sure I follow. If we can afford it, we will eat it. As third world countries become richer, a main result is that meat consumption goes up. Humans evolved eating (cooked) meat as a major source of food for our brains. Thanks to advances in plant management, it is possible now to gather enough protein instead of hunting it. To my mind, there’s a certain irony in plant-based food having a major selling point that “we look, feel, and taste like meat”.
As for subsidies, from what I read the subsidies are there for plant farmers as much or more than meat farmers. Subsidies are counter to the spirit of American free enterprise (snort!) but have the benefit of slowing the consolidation of farming into a small collection of very large businesses, as has happened to retail and manufacturing. But then, the USA is hardly unique in subsidizing small farms.
(My neghborhood was awash in “No farmers, no food” protest signs because Indian -particularly Punjabi - immigrants were supportive of their fellows back home protesting the government’s attempt to weasel out of farm subsidies and let big business take over. They recently won this battle. The fear was businesses would become monopolistic middlemen and then squeeze the farmers.)
Not really.
A more recent cite:
https://www.montana.edu/regecon/publications/doesfarmsizematter/index.html
Results indicate that farms within the top decile for crop sales receive over two-thirds of the total payments from these programs. Indeed, the last 50 years of research has shown that agricultural safety net program benefits are concentrated among the largest, wealthiest farms.
The true costs of industrialized farming aren’t included in the price of those products, so it’s not a fair comparison.
People who eat beef should pay the actual cost of producing that beef. Even if it makes beef a luxury. For most of history that what beef was, a luxury. You don’t need to eat beef to live.
I think it is utterly hilarious to see people who consider themselves to be good liberals being so blind to how how they are talking looks. “We don’t want to pay subsidies to help the poor! If they can’t afford meat, let them eat beans! They’ll be better off!” Might as well be fitted for the MAGA hat, because that is thinking exactly like a Conservative Republican. Or Ebenezer Scrooge.
Care to list other ways you think the poors are better off having their lives made even harder and lower quality? Maybe milk and eggs are too good for them?
I wouldn’t exactly use the word hilarious, but – yes.
And they don’t recognize that the kinds of agriculture they support, because they requires more land, cause, at the end of chain of consequences, deforestation – resulting in greater externalities than for the cheap food the poor eat.
And i think it’s hilarious that you think it’s insulting to accuse posters of being conservative. I’ve never even claimed to be “a good liberal”. Markets work in many situations. Not generally for healthcare, because people need to make their most expensive healthcare decisions when they are both desperate and too exhausted to do the research. But for food? Yeah, they mostly work well for food.
Anyway, I’m all in favor of making direct payments to the poor so they can afford to buy enough food. And in favor of funding soup kitchens for immediate, desperate needs. But I’m not in favor of distorting markets just to make certain that meat is cheap.
This is a legitimate argument against organic food production. I don’t think it’s a very strong argument against humane treatment of food animals. At least, I’ve never seen numbers laid out demonstrating that the factory production of pork or chicken has a lower environmental impact than producing the mix of less pork and more beans that the market would demand if the pigs had more space and the opportunity to socialize and root and do similar pig things.
Dude. Eating less meat is healthier. To say that someone would have a harder life of lower quality is irrational. Some might even say ignorant.
I’ve never thought of myself in terms of being a “good liberal.” I don’t even know what that means. I DO know that although SOME people are to the left of me on individual issues, it is quite rare to encounter someone to the left of me across ALL social/political/economic/environmental… issues.
You seem to value personal freedom as the preeminent liberal value. I disagree. I think it more important to provide the most needy members of society with adequate housing, health care, education, nutrition - before worrying about their ability to choose a Big Mac over a nutritious meal of rice and beans. Hell, I’d prefer that hamburger be taxed to $50 a pound, with the taxes going to operate food pantries in every town and neighborhood where poor folk can get nutritious meals free of charge. I guess that isn’t “liberal” enough for you, because in my vision, the diners would not be able to choose a burger, soda, and chips…
And I do not view our current agricultural model - of huge industrial farms relying heavily on fertilizers and pesticides to produce monocultures - over weighed towards corn - with profits going primarily to the food processors rather than the farmers, to be a good thing, simply because it results in cheap hamburger.
The kind of agriculture I (not a liberal, but even more so not a conservative) support does not require more land. And certainly not land cleared from forest.
I’m not in favor of taxing beef to distort the market, either.
I AM in favor of taxing producers in general to pay for the externalities they create. I think we all can make better decisions when the price of items is proportional to their actual cost. I’m also in favor of enforcing minimum standards in how workers are paid and treated, and how much environmental damage is created, especially how much pollution is released into places where it affects people, and also how animals are treated.
I agree, in general, that the cost of goods should recognize externalities and I don’t think it’s a liberal vs conservative thing to think so.
Is it true that : malnutrition in poor American populations is largely due to access to food stores? If that’s the case, then, subsidizing meat is not going to solve that - neither will depositing money in their bank accounts.