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 l0QKLvTK010511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:21:57 -0500 Received: from madman.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.134]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0QKLq4l016432; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:21:52 -0500 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY madman.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45BA62DB.9E9DA.4173 ; 26 Jan 2007 15:21:47 -0500 Received: from kepler.eecs.umich.edu (kepler.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.81]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0QKLjCx016396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:21:45 -0500 Received: from kepler.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by kepler.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l0QKLZlf008649; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:21:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (klochner Æ localhost) by kepler.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id l0QKLZvq008646; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:21:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: 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 15:21:35 -0500 (EST) To: Daniel Reeves cc: "Erica O'Connor" , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Kevin Lochner Subject: Re: more reasons to be vegetarian Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 922 can we get a consensus on factory farming in general? There was an article in the economist last month making the case that local farming and organic farming cost the world more because they don't take advantage of economy of scale and efficient production, essentially making them more wasteful. For example, taken to the extreme, small farms may not be able to feed the whole world at some point in the future. I'll dig it up and try to post it somewhere, but thought I'd solicit thoughts in the meantime. (this does not include erica's "eating down the food chain" idea, which clearly is the more enviro-friendly option). On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote: > 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 >