this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
609 points (96.1% liked)

memes

10335 readers
1527 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Floey@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If you don't eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don't eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it's almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market. So acting like the consumer here is not one of the if not the most important part in this causal chain is just naive.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

in this causal chain is just naive.

there is no causal chain.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

If you don’t eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don’t eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it’s almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market.

why do you tihnk both these sentences are true, and how would you go about trying to disprove either of them?