You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RichardKennaway comments on Group Rationality Diary, August 1-15 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: therufs 01 August 2013 08:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (61)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 August 2013 11:40:29AM *  3 points [-]

Having been spending $900/year to eat an omnivorous diet, you'd have to be eating a huge amount of meat to save $1K/year by going veg.

I spend roughly four times that, eating an omnivorous diet which, as it happens, does not include any large slabs of meat, and I'm curious to know where the difference lies. If you were specifically working to economise on food outlay, then it would not be a surprise to you that people not trying to economise have room to cut down by $1000 a year. But if you are not, how does your cost come in at less than $3 a day?

I'm in the UK, where food is more expensive than the US, but not four times more expensive, and while I generally shop at the better supermarkets rather than the cheap ones, I have no inclination towards "luxury" goods, and rarely eat out.

Comment author: jkaufman 02 August 2013 01:37:48PM 1 point [-]

If you were specifically working to economise on food outlay

I was.

The surprising thing to me was not that people would spend more than $1K on food per year, but that the projected savings by eliminating meat would be $1K.