[QML]

I've never heard of meat substitutes being "marketed ideologically as something that will help reduce economic inequality"—that's such an odd argument to make.

What I have heard before is: - more resource-efficient and green since livestock farming requires a lot of feed and has a higher carbon footprint than all vehicles combined, and - that it's less cruel than raising animals to be slaughtered.

In terms of economics, a cheaper meat substitute would just mean a cheaper source of protein for people, comparable to eating vegetables.

As a side note, does anyone know why Paul Graham has been talking about economic inequality recently? Is it just politics season and that this is a debate issue?

[danans]

> does anyone know why Paul Graham has been talking about economic inequality recently?

Back in January of 2016, in the aftermath of the occupy movement and the height of the US presidential campaign, he penned this essay as a sort of "defense" of inequality:

http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html

We're ramping back up to another presidential election, the concerns about inequality have only gotten greater, and for the first time, mass transformation of dietary habits via technology as a way to combat climate change has gone from a niche to a national topic.

[TomMckenny]

In keeping with that 2016 post, using the opportunity to again point out the difference between zero sum inequality vs real wealth creation where a good share goes to incentivize invention.