[greglindahl]

No, I got his point.

Of the people who ski, some would be happy to substitute another winter sport if skiing became less desirable (more expensive or less fashionable). Some would substitute non-winter sports (e.g. go to the California coast instead of Tahoe.)

That's the 'substitute goods' that I mentioned.

If you really love skiing, you're still a part of that economic theory, you're just the inelastic part. You might still substitute something else if skiing became 10x more expensive.

[swombat]

To embrace the skiing analogy, I’m Swiss and I love skiing. I’m about to go on a ski trip next week. If I believed that going on occasional ski trips does anywhere near the harm that meat consumption does I would indeed give up skiing.

For similar reasons, I’m not interested in going lion hunting for my holidays. It’s harmful. There are other alternatives. So use the alternatives!

[MandieD]

Extending the analogy: I live in northern Bavaria. I've switched most of my skiing away from weekend drives to Austria to daytrips on the train to places in southern Bavaria. I love skiing in the high Alps, but for what I'm doing, the "foothills" still provide a lot of fun, and it's reduced the marginal cost of a ski day from over 150 EUR to 70 EUR. I still plan to take one long weekend, driving to a less-accessible part of Austria, as well as some train-transported weekends, but the cheap daytrips have compelled me to change what I think is necessary for a day on the slopes.

Deutsche Bahn helped kick this off by offering some really great combo deals that enticed me to try a different style of ski travel, so how could that be done with food?

[greglindahl]

Thanks, that's exactly what I was getting at! And in your skiing example, it's not the price of skiing that causes you to choose another sport, it's your opinion of skiing. Both price and opinion matter to humans.