this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
166 points (99.4% liked)
PhilosophyMemes
308 readers
2 users here now
Memes must be related to phil.
The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
hunting can yield hundreds of pounds of meat for just a few dollars.
Sure, assuming you have the rifle, the training and the hunting rights, and assuming your time doesn't count as value.
I'm definitely more pro hunting than pro factory farming!
But I don't really know of any poor people in industrialized countries who get their meat from hunting, especially not ones that eat meat every day. Maybe some special cases in very rural places? And it's hardly scalable.
you are moving the goal posts. I provided the only counter example needed to disprove your claim
You don't need that to hunt.
A crude selfmade bow and arrow is enough. Even a rock will do.
That is how they did it for thousands of years.
Is this really an argument for a non-meat diet being too expensive?
Imagine the effort, time and risk involved in hunting and killing a rabbit or deer with a rock, and subsequent slaughtering and storing of meat. Doesn't that represent much more value than the money you would pay for an equivalent amount of nutrition from non-meat sources? At least in an industrialised nation?