the house can only make $1 per play, and the bettor can make a functionally unlimited amount.

see the martingale strategy. you are basically sticking the house with a martingale strategy in which you get to decide when they bet.

lots of people talk about economics as though it is science.

it’s storytelling, not science

“basic economic principles” is handwaving. you’re storytelling, not making a scientific postulate

Laws are made entirely on morals.

this has never been true

In the positive sense, humans absolutely exploit animals (e.g. vegans eat fruit and veggies pollinated by bees; humans are “exploiting” the bees, but the bees are also “exploiting” the flowers for pollen and nectar).

that’s a contradiction for vegans to resolve.

Definition 2 is what I’m referring to.

and i’m referring to definition one, and the vegan society doesn’t distinguish at all.

You’re not being exploited if you consent.

i think this is a tenet of so-called “anarcho” capitalism.

You’re not being exploited if you consent.

the definition of exploitation makes no mention of consent, and no clarification about consent is made in the vegan society definition.

#3 is a bare fact.

it’s the very definition of exploitation. consent plays no part in it.

1. humans are animals
2. veganism eschews exploiting animals
3. drinking a product from a human is exploitation

therefore

4. breast milk is not vegan

using breastmilk is vegan since it’s consensually given

the definition of veganism says nothing about consent, only exploitation. breastmilk is as vegan an cows milk.

the militant ones are cool. it’s the evangelical ones that bring out my ire.

oh no! don’t wreck their whole paradigm in one comment!!

significantly fewer plants are harvested if you switch to a fully vegan diet.

that has never happened.

this uses poore nemecek 2018 and so it can be safely ignored

the movement is growing

google trends says otherwise

it is possible to feed a vegan world, and it would actually be easier

it’s even easier to feed a world with no living creatures. that doesn’t make it desirable

We could grow far more food by repurposing that land.

if that were the case, why aren’t we? it seems there must be a good reason that in the over half decade since this paper’s publication, surely we could have revolutionized our food production. instead, even though veganism saw a steady rise from before the publication of that paper until 2020, it’s been in decline since then. somehow i don’t think that paper captured the whole scope of our agricultural system.

https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/5c433cba-a635-48ab-b875-3b5530480e89.webp

this seems to say (near the bottom there) that basically everything a cow eats (52 of 54 units or there about) is either grazed grass or crop residues, with only like 2 or 3 of those units (so about 4-6%, in round numbers) comes from crops grown to feed them. i don’t really know the dietary composition of a chicken or swine, but, cattle, at least, get essentially no direct crops at all.