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 l0QNhfTK024828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:43:41 -0500 Received: from ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.133]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0QNhbq5009511; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:43:37 -0500 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45BA9225.47C0F.27298 ; 26 Jan 2007 18:43:33 -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 l0QNhRt4009472 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:43:28 -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 l0QNhRTK024820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:43:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id l0QNhR0J024817; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:43:27 -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: <2ff07e720701261319x3f5fd62ep66957dc79a17774e Æ mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <5FBB2176-92EF-4F1E-8ACE-38A7A187D671 Æ umich.edu>

<2ff07e720701261319x3f5fd62ep66957dc79a17774e Æ mail.gmail.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 18:43:27 -0500 (EST) To: Clare Dibble cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: Re: more reasons to be vegetarian Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 931 That settles it, a self-imposed charity tax of 100%! But let's pick something unambiguously environmentally unfriendly. Seriously, who will do this with me? Sign up here: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld/ Clare, maybe because you're married to a vegan chef? :) Vegetarian, Atkins, the all-fudgesicle diet... I figure they all tend to work as weight-loss diets by making off-limits some fraction of the calories you encounter (meat, carbohydrates, everything other than fudgesicles) so you will tend to eat fewer calories. Probably void in the Fedibblety household. So you two could make a pact to switch roles for a month, if Rob could justify it on the grounds that the net impact on the world would stay constant! --- \/ FROM Clare Dibble AT 07.01.26 16:19 (Today) \/ --- > Being married to Rob, I have become much more likely to seek out and > purchase free range this or organic that with a good smattering of > locally grown food, especially produce. I find that typically the > environmentally friendly options available are typically 1.5 to 3 > times as expensive as the "traditional" versions, though good finds > are occasionally even cheaper than the factory farmed alternatives. I > would propose if people wanted to participate in such a scheme, they > use numbers something like this. And I'm not sure I would limit it to > animal consumption... > > Every time I have been or tried to be vegetarian or vegan, I have > gained weight. I'm just curious if anyone else has had this > experience. I know Rob lost weight when he shifted his diet away from > meat. Any other changes people notice when eating fewer animals or > animal products? > > On 1/25/07, Joshua J Estelle wrote: >> > The text of this article is about how mass farming of meat is bad >> > for the environment, not that eating meat is bad for the >> > environment. If eating meat alone was bad for the environment, then >> > eradicating all carnivores would solve our global warming problem, no? >> >> It is true that locally raised meet likely has negligible negative >> impact and that the real problem is mass farming of meat, but I think >> even very environmentally conscious meat eaters are unlikely to >> always eat "good" meat. >> >> > To change the topic slightly, your article reminded me of a very >> > interesting essay by Jared Diamond (the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" >> > guy) claiming that farming was the worst mistake humanity ever made: >> >> While farming may not also be perfect, it is by far the lesser evil >> to eating meat. Consider we have to feed 10 people for 1 year. Then >> think about how much land and resources you would need to feed them a >> meat eating diet. Each animal they eat will need a tremendous amount >> of resources to raise that animal to be eaten. Then consider if >> those 10 people were vegetarians. The amount of land and resources >> needed to feed them would be drastically smaller. >> >> It's just more efficient to be vegetarian. >> >> I think I just discovered my short answer to when people ask me why >> I'm vegetarian, "It's just more efficient." >> >> Best, >> Josh >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Robert Felty wrote: >> > >> >> Really great article about how eating meat is bad for the >> >> environment. Thanks to Clare for pointing it out to me. >> >> You can read it at: >> >> http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0120-20.htm >> >> >> >> > -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" "A celebrity is a person who is known for their well-knownness."