X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.0-r431796 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l0QKAOTK009853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:10:24 -0500 Received: from galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.134]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0QKAKAn013117; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:10:20 -0500 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY galaxyquest.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45BA6027.C5404.32762 ; 26 Jan 2007 15:10:15 -0500 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0QKADQp013075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:10:13 -0500 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l0QKADTK009844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:10:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id l0QKAC6v009841; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:10:12 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: <487288.95484.qm Æ web81910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <487288.95484.qm Æ web81910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:10:12 -0500 (EST) To: "Erica O'Connor" cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: Re: more reasons to be vegetarian Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 921 I definitely agree that that's an upper bound! Can we tighten it a bit? For example, no fair counting medical costs -- you'll pay for those yourself later. (That website really doesn't deserve to be looked at. 55 square feet of rainforest lost per hamburger? Puh-leez.) New proposal: set aside for an environmental charity an amount equal to what you spend on environmentally unfriendly products, including factory-farmed animal products. Who's in on that one? --- \/ FROM Erica O'Connor AT 07.01.26 11:10 (Today) \/ --- > (very) aproximately 100 yootles per hamburger > http://www.spirulinasource.com/earthfoodch7a.html > -Erica > >> I have a proposal: let's estimate the long term >> environmental cost of >> eating a hamburger (ideas on how solicited -- don't >> say it's impossible, >> we can at least put an upper bound on it) and pledge >> to set aside that >> much money for an environmental charity per >> hamburger (etc) we eat. -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" "Die? That's the last thing I'll do!" -- final words of Lord Palmerston