His video on First Past the Post voting should be mandatory to watch.
he doesn’t actually state in that video what should be the biggest takeaway: strategic voting is what leads to consolidation of parties, so your best interest longterm is to vote your values, even if doing so has a likelihood of losing short term.
enough people going vegan would probably have a noticeable effect on the animal agriculture industry.
certainly, but perhaps not the effect you are expecting. your assertion that you know what their reaction would be, and that it would be to accept making less money, is just not likely true.
i think most people have degrees to all of their feelings.
has anyone else ever been able to repeat your results?
so your want is binary either you do want it, or you don’t, and there are no degrees?
it is never the less there.
this sounds like a statement of faith, rather than fact.
Yeah, I stopped, and it has had an impact.
great! can you show me on this chart?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
can you see how your want is not quantifiable? how much did you want a hamburder? could you have wanted it less? would that have decreased the supply? this is pure storytelling.
I’d like to see evidence of the opposite happening to be honest.
gladly. despite the high value of faberge eggs, no more are produced. despite the high value of epipens, enough have not been produced to make them affordable to all who might want one. of course, this doesn’t actually quantify demand, and i’m still not sure how that can be done.
edit:
despite no demand for iphones in 2004, they were subsequently produced.
The goal of the business was to make money so when their product stopped making money they stopped producing it.
but they could have changed their values. they could have decided that the goal was not to make money, but to cover the earth, nay, the solar system with vcrs. but they didnt. they chose other values, and tried to act in a way that would uphold those values. they choose the values. they choose the action. i have no resposibility for others choices in this regard.
a moment of introspection here will show you that, in fact, this is about as close to the truth as you’re ever going to get. all economic theory is storytelling. you happen to like some particular stories better than others, and so you choose to believe them (and even repeat them as though tehy are true). but they are not True in an objective sense. there is no scientific experiment that can be constructed to test these claims which would satisfy the skepticism of a critical rationalist inquiry.
that’s fine. i believe (or act like i believe) lots of stories that i can’t prove the truth of, which are actually unprovable. we all do. just don’t try to pretend it’s science.
but global supply has increased since then. you also haven’t quantified demand.
you said they don’t make them, but that was a lie, and i called it out.
did you try stopping? did it have any impact?
how do you quantify demand and can you show me a case where it has ever been true?
when you state a falsehood, and i call it out, it’s not pedantry: it’s honesty.
it’s a fallacious form of reasoning where claiming that the correlation of events implies causation. “it happened after, therefore it was caused by” as in… veganism increased with policing and surveillance.
you’re the one proposing a causal mechanism. it is on you to provide evidence. simply disbelieving (or suspending judgement) is the only rational course until evidence is provided.
they stopped making them
you can still buy them new.
copying isn’t stealing