From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:18:58 GMT

unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>>There is more than the water reason to not eat meat, e.g., health, ethics,
>>>and/or environment.  Also, you wouldn't have to increase non-meat agriculture,
>>>because the reported number of people who can be fed by grains and soybeans
>>>US cattle eat is 1.3billion (US population is about 250 million).  Even if the
>>>reported number is off by a factor of 5 [one monumental error] we could still
>>>feed all americans.

>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>	We already do.  

>The point is, we could still feed all americans without the meat thing quite
>well without increasing production.

	But why?  That's like shutting down all GM and Ford plants because
we can supply enough domestic cars from Chrysler plants.  What's the purpose
behind such an idea?  Of course we can feed all Americans without feeding
grain to meat -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics says this.  Since we're
already feeding everybody who can pay for it, there's no need to stop meat
or popcorn growing yet.  Now when the population doubles, maybe feeding
cows will be less profitable and we'll have to sell more grain to humans,
or even grow more human-palatable grains rather than corn and soybeans,
but these are still market forces at work, not humanitarian zeal.

>>Farmland isn't being lost to cattle, it's being lost to suburbs.  

>In the US.

	Yes.  In other countries it may be different, but it makes
little difference whether farmland is being lost to houses or sand, it
is being lost.  The question is at what stage do you sell grain to
humans or cattle, and I say that the stage is when the humans are more
profitable to sell to.  Concern for the welfare of animals or the health
of the planet are already taken care of by simple economics, and hence
I can't see where the big problem is.

>Somalia's problems are mostly political. Because the gangs prevented farmers
>from planting again this year, their problem will be continuing,
> unfortunately.

	For another view, the Nile river delta in Egype used to feed 400
people per acre.  Witness the Dam (Aswan?).  No flooding, no silt, no
more fertile river valley.  Guess who imports grain now?

	The simple fact is that 1000 head of cattle are livestock.  That
means they are worth something.  As their worth becomes less, such as with
fewer people eating meat, it becomes more profitable to sell grain to
humans.  Granted, there were times would could have just shot the whole
herd and saved money, but that's 20/20 hindsight.  When cattle demand
drops to where it's not profitable to raise them, they won't be raised.
When you're ready to pay $6.00 for that bag of rice checks, I'll sell
it to you.  Simple, eh?

	If you want ecological cost to reflect real cost, I suggest
you examine the cost of the electricity you use, or the gasoline you
burn, or any of a dozen different items to see that political concerns
prevent such true costs from being passed on directly.  However, it
bears noting that the labor of a migrant worker is considered cheaper
than a tractor.  Which one costs more if we include health benefits,
retirement pension, housing, and offspring is probably different.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals