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
>