I am uncertain exactly how the poor would see children as an econoic gain in a way the rich wouldn't. It would strike me that although the well off may have additional expenses for a child (outside child care for example) the poor have similar concerns.

I've never known a poorer family to say "Hey we have another kid, our problems are solved!" another mouth is another mouth whether it is fed rootmarm or caviare.

I guess I am mostly just skeptical of the over rational views of behavior on a massive scale. While one poor person might say I shall have more kids to ensure my old age, to think that this is the rationale behind it all seems unlikely, especially since I don't see a major reason not to view similar thoughts among the rich.

Instead what I see is a trend that occurs, and rationalizations come after it. One thing that I hadn't thought of is of course longevity, and richer people having children later in life which results in fewer productive child bearing years. But is it a trend caused by rational choices or are the choices influenced by our intrinsic nature that we then find appropriate answers for.

Essentially, if the trends were reversed, I could imagine just as logical arguments describing that behavior, since both rational arguments are logical why do we see the opposite occuring.

As to the question of feeding people to end global population, we are faced again with this question. Is the inverse ratio of wealth to fecundity caused by rational choices or instinctual behavior. If as I posit it is related to instinct then increasing human health and wealth would slow population. Although this would mean that Salon Readers would get less extra energy for fun and frolic, if our needs are met we shouldn't start having children at an alarming rate. The idea would be to share the wealth, making the rich a little poorer and the poor a little richer so that we reach a stasis of production and consumption.

That's the theory anyway, or we can just keep on as we are, and deal with the natural limiting factors of peak oil, global warming, and desease. Either way, I am sure a bald monkey or two will make it through and start the whole process over again.

Are we to take from this thought experiment that the transportation and preperation of 100 calories of beef produces so much more net CO2 than the the transportation and preperation of 100 calories of say grain, that the very real net CO2 reduction of walking is offset, and one can drive one's car?

Firstly, since humans do not consume fossilized carbon, walking is always carbon negative, since a plant has removed more carbon from the atmostphere than we will consume or rerelease back into the atmosphere, the same is true if the plant's carbon is first cycled through a cow. Cars since they do consume fossilized carbon will always produce net CO2 regardless of their efficiency. The fossilized Carbon would not reeneter our atmostphere without combustion, which the car requires for locomotion.

Now, the argument is that excessivly more carbon will be produced by the trucks transporting the cow, than by the trucks transporting grain because grain must also be transported to the cow. However, because we are discussing calorie vs. calorie here, keep in mind that the calories within the cow are far more efficiently packed and lighter than the calories in the grain. Additionally, remember that while cows can digest raw cellulose, humans can not. As such what the cow is eating is largely carbon removed from the atmostphere that humans can not consume. The cow ensures that far more carbon is used by the end consumer (built into proteins) than just the raw grain. Since cows are likely eating locally (which is not a corrollary to the car argument) what you are doing is processing locally grown vegitable matter into a far more enegery efficient package before transporting it across the country to the walking consumers.

Now, granted if you are taking the car when walking is an acceptable form of transit you are probably in worse shape physically, and thusly are likely to die earlier than the meat eating walkers, and so over your life time your net carbon production might be lower, but I think the actual numbers would show the lie of the original inflamatory statement. Net CO2 is not caused by the processes of living things. It is caused by the combustion of fossilized carbon. No process that combusts fossilized carbon can ever be carbon negative, and the greater weight per calorie of carbon transported for grains are likely going to offset any advantage that a non local vegitarian life style might afford if one drives everywhere.

When people who wear the white coats of science make intentionally stupid statements that are filled with political and personal biases the whole of science suffers.