bitcoinusername
bitcoinusername on Hacker News
I guess by this logic, since Sahara exists, eating food is a luxury.
Your definition of luxury has transformed into a supreme being just so you can call vegetarianism/veganism a luxury.
If you live in the first world, eating plants over eating meat is not a luxury. It's the cheapest form of healthy sustaining food there is.
I'm pretty sure ex-Yugoslavia area has a very good geography, if not better than most countries. You can grow soy there, just like in the USA, you can grow corn, wheat, you can raise chickens, you can do practically anything there, olives, oranges, grapes, forest fruit etc.
What do vegetarians elsewhere eat? Is there a place on Earth where it's cheaper to grow protein by feeding protein to animals, or to just eat the protein directly?
I'm not exactly sure where in the world is rice and beans more expensive than meat? If so, then it's heavily subsidized and is not real free market behavior.
During poverty in Yugoslavia my family and I subsisted on a diet of beans and rice. Complete protein in that combo, enough fiber and calories, we didn't die despite eating that for years.
I thought this kind of stuff is a solved issue, some kind of distributed queueing messaging engine with the trading logic at the collector of all these trading messages.
It's the pragmatist philosophy.
I'm pretty sure virtue ethics is as practical as you can get and still stay in the realm of philosophy.
Virtue ethics is there to give you guidance of which questions to pose and how to act when coming up with the answers.
There's no need to delve on the metaethics of a particular case.
Nihilism isn't the ultimate end.
I'd say that if you can choose between eating a fruit, and killing a bird and eating it's flesh, a virtuous agent would eat the fruit.
It's unnecessary to go the utilitarian way of trying to draw the lines and meet every single exception to the rule.
Acting in the world as a virtuous agent is a much more practical approach.
Would you test and experiment on someone who has a nervous system capable of feeling pain and suffering, if it could save thousands or even millions of people? Given the data of the lack of success of a huge percentage of studies, you would, being virtuous, deduce that it's better to seek other means of testing instead of doing a hit and miss approach on animals.
People don't behave as virtuous agents, and they do not act kindly. Especially not to those they deem less worthy than them.
That's why stuff needs rethinking and regulation.
I sometimes find them hard to understand due to heavy usage of words with Italian roots. But their grammar is equivalent to Croatian grammar.
They also use the word "čaj".
I'd say Croatian as a language was popular and was heavily used on coastal areas even before Italian influence, and after too.