The problem isn't just meat. It's mass production. It's monoculture. We throw away masses of food yet people still starve -- cheap produce isn't solving the problem.

It SEEMS like cheap produce is a win, right? But what about the people who grow the produce? If massive agrifarm can produce sweet potatos in ohio and ship them to africa at two cents a pound small farmer in africa who produces them at three cents a pound can't put a roof on his house. And he stops growing them. He works in some sweat shop sending widgits to ohio. Then some tyrant or another comes to power and there are no more sweet potatoes coming from ohio. AND there are no more being grown locally. And of course the ohio widgit market dries up. And we get a famine even though the world has more than enough food.

I don't happen to eat the animals either, Joe, but I don't think that's a magical cure-all for any but the particuar animals that I don't happen to eat.

Yes, the world would in some ways become a better place if we all stopped eating animals tomorrow. It would also become in some ways a better place if we all stopped driving cars tomorrow. Or drinking alcohol. Or all cheerfully stopped practicing religion. Or all cheerfully practiced the same religion... but none of these things are going to happen. Your simple fix is useless because it is completely impractical. And, like all fixes (simple and otherwise) unintended consequences would kick in. And aren't those fun?

Contrary to what you wrote about me, If you read through my various axe grindings and scalp takings, you'll see that I do two things: advocate not eating animals, and acknowledge that people are highly unlikely to do this (though there is hope that one day it will happen), so in the alternative, I stress treating the animals people do eat as humanely as possible, and that I think is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Where you are dead wrong and, I am confident, in the extreme minority of zealots,* is that life would be better if we all stopped drinking. You may take my soy cheese, but you will have to pry my bourbon from my cold dead liver.

"Gooba gabba gooba gabba one of us one of us.

On that we completely agree.

Last night I saw a new documentary in theatres called "Food, Inc." It's about the way we produce food and how a small number of corporations basically own the food supply. This article fits in perfectly with what the movie showed. The solutions the movie gave are to eat locally, eat from suppliers that respect animals, the planet and you, and that you vote for the kind of world you want to live in with each bite, three times a day.

interesting concept, actually

instead of supporting Charles Manson and his crazy flock in prison for the rest of their unnatural lives, simply harvest whatever usable organs are present in their bodies and then...process the rest into 'Soylent Green';

a 'white collar' criminal swindles someone out of their money?

force the 'white collar' criminal to restore the money and then....process the criminal into 'Soylent Green';

did someone cheat on their income taxes? shocking and time to process that person into 'Soylent Green';

have you been convicted of jaywalking? too bad because you will probably be my next week's allotment of 'Soylent Green';

my library book was two days late in being returned and now I must settle the rest of my affairs before I am processed into....Soylent Green!

In his Gil 'The Arm' Hamilton series of short stories, Larry Niven wrote of a similar future concerning organ transplantation

Try to bear in mind the Taoist maxim that the sharpest blade is the one that gets chipped.

I've been reading your comments for a long time, and for the most part, I value them. I've also been reading them long enough to know that coercion isn't your business- you aren't out to seize power and force total vegetarianism on people. In fact, you even occasionally post comments to the effect that simply reducing meat consumption is a good idea, as an alternative to total abstention. Fair enough.

My main problem is that you seem to consider vegetarianism to be a catch-all solution for the world's ecological ills. Your answer appears to me to be primarily oriented toward personal diet. Vegetarianism in and of itself is not going to swing the planet away from the toxic effects of out-of-control addiction to petroleum products. And, since vegetables, grains, and legumes are primarily grown on land, I think there's a strong possibility that could lead to an increasing neglect that's all too apparent already, as regards natural aquatic and marine environments. Non-fishing cultures- whether livestock & poultry eating or vegetarian- that live by shorelines have an unfortunate legacy of treating their rivers, lakes, and beaches primarily as waste dumps.

What I'm criticizing is not vegetarianism per se- it's the eerie disconnection from the natural balance of the world that often appears to me to emphasize a fastidious disdain for the hunters and fishers; for the rough campers; for the hand-hewn world of people who live in the wild and comes to terms with it without imposing all the conveniences of modernity, like relying on a supermarket for their food supply, for instance. So I think it's at least as important to emphasize the proactive, at least as much as the act of renouncing things. I think that someone who gets some of their food supply from a garden or chicken coop in their back yard contributes to ecological sanity in a way that's deeper than the simple modification of their food consumption habits- even if that person is an omnivore. And the act of gardening is something that a community can share- it's an activity that consists of more than one group of people constantly proslyetizing for a restrictive dietary regime at another group, as if that alone consisted of the answer.

I've seen too many vegan/vegetarian urban and suburban kids who seem to me to be wholly dependent on artificial worlds constructed and nurtured by plastic-housed digital microelectronics, almost completely disconnected from the realm beyond that of domesticated humanity. Many of them seem to be afflicted with a sense of superiority morality and entitlement that they frankly have done very little to earn. I have a hunch that isn't going to work out very well as a survival strategy, either for them or the natural world with which they have so little real-time experience. I have no desire to lump all young middle-class urban/suburban vegetarians and vegans together as a stereotype, but I've observed enough to see a worrying tendency. The diet thing doesn't resolve a wider vacancy.

Vegetarianism isn't going to stop or replace the abuses of petrochemical agriculture all by itself. In fact, if that's the only value pursued as an ecological solution, it's liable to make things worse. As a resource, fish and shellfish grow themselves in sustainable harvest quantities as their own natural permaculture- no additives needed; a healthy habitat is sufficient. Fish and shellfish already provide an estimated 15% of the protein food consumed by humans. Frankly, I think that amount could be doubled without subjecting vulnerable species to the pressures of depletion and extinction. The result would be a healthier and more diverse natural world. Conversely- take away that 15% from the diet of humans, and see what results.

As a related topic: should fish cost more to buy in the store? Undoubtedly. I'd gladly pay another dollar on each 8 oz. can of salmon I'm presently getting for $1.99 these days at the Grocery Outlet- particularly if I were sure that the money were going toward littoral zone and riverine habitat restoration projects, and anti-water pollution efforts. The #1 point-source polluter in the USA is sewage and chemicals from inadequate municipal water treatment facilities. That calls for tax money- which will in turn pay dividends for everyone from the fishing industry to locally based tourism. And yes, I'll pay it through a consumption tax.

As for the livestock and poultry industries: I think it's only a matter of time until factory farms get shut down- not only as insults to the environment, but as menaces to public health. And I think if someone wants to eat mammal flesh, they ought to be prepared to pay the actual cost of producing it safely and sanely. As it is now, there are too many hidden costs. Although I haven't renounced it 100%, I'm not much of a consumer of any poultry or livestock- perhaps two or three meals a year. I do buy eggs to eat on occasion- these days I buy the highest price ones in the store, and then make smaller omelets. Eating smaller portions balances out the extra expense to the wallet. I think that consumers of meat, poultry and eggs who are honest with themselves should do likewise. If the animals aren't raised properly and the farms cause water pollution problems, I won't buy it. Needless to say, my nearly total refusal to patronize fast food establishments for their cheap hamburgers and chicken has saved me a small fortune over the years. (Although it was known to disconcert those of my cab passengers who wanted to treat me to meals at the drive-through, only to have me opt simply for an order of fries, or nothing at all...)