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: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
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 l0R019TK026148 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -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 l0R0163L013229; 	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:01:06 -0500
Received: FROM wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.226]) 	BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45BA9639.31D37.18575 ;  	26 Jan 2007 19:00:57 -0500
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s17so1045160wxc         for <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:00:55 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;         d=gmail.com; s=beta;         h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;         b=g/7+Yw0qSMb95t/B77Dr0VswASkobjfMWuZLWxIf6DfvEKQimrFS2/Riwon990zAG4T6/EWo7WF0MFuoGePyQmULj4w1S1DcRtOr7rYlsElqfF4mScqnORXd+rXprhqP8wFKc7qDtd8SoWIZK3qo7cUqCItjfN4Ce9lSX1YEpbg=
Received: by 10.90.32.14 with SMTP id f14mr4300731agf.1169856055829;         Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.113.9 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5ed707a10701261600h76cbc6e9i12e41f1d2aeb7eda &AElig mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701261614460.30196 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5FBB2176-92EF-4F1E-8ACE-38A7A187D671 &AElig umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701241524480.9931 &AElig columbus.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <F46790C7-0ABD-40A9-83CA-55019BBCC7BF &AElig eecs.umich.edu> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701261614460.30196 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on  	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:00:55 -0500
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: "bethany soule" <bsoule &AElig gmail.com>
Subject: Re: more reasons to be vegetarian
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 932

on that note, I've been wanting to brush up on my history re: gov't
subsidies and find out what the current state of affairs is as well.

here are a two resources I've found so far that are useful:
www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0604Folsom.pdf
(short bit about the how farm subsidies started)
http://www.ewg.org/farm/whatstheplan.php
(more detailed info about current farm subsidies)

Clare, I weighed more when I was a vegetarian, though that was mostly
other lifestyle factors. Still, I think it's pretty easy to be a lazy
vegetarian. For example, it's really easy to use dairy as a main
source of protein in your diet, but that's usually tied to a lot of
fat too. And there are lots things (like kraft dinner jumps to mind)
that are cheap and easy to make and vegetarian and calorie dense and
not so healthy. That probably also contributed.

B

On 1/26/07, Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu> wrote:
> The efficiency argument doesn't cut it on its own though.  You wouldn't
> take a moral stance against live theatre because of how much more
> efficient movies are.
>
> I think it's really important to have a sense of the true cost of eating
> meat, and unconscionable that we're not paying it.  The government
> subsidies are the first thing that has to go!
>
>
> --- \/   FROM Joshua J Estelle AT 07.01.25 18:34 (Yesterday)   \/ ---
>
> >> 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"
>
>     "The best way to accelerate a windows machine is at 9.8 m/s^2."
>
>