Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>Here is a consequentialist argument for raising cows not to be eaten:
>lives are overall worth living because they produce dairy products that
>some people enjoy such as milk, butter, cottage cheese, creme brulee,
>tarimasu, not to mention eggnog or a white russian.
>Another reason for keeping some Herefords, for example, around would be
>nostalgia, pastoral scenes that people driving down the highway can
>from afar -:)
I'm new to this "extropian zone" and I have no idea if I'm going about interjecting to this conversation correctly, but here goes nothing!
Dear Natasha, this isn't so much an objection to your view(personally I'm not vegetarian); rather to possibly help inform. I lived all my life on a farm and see where my experience may contribute to this dialoge.
I don't know a percise percentage, but I'd say only about half(for sake of argument) of the cow population's function is for diary purposes. So that leaves the other half to "deal" with. My second observation is that I agree, It would be nice spare the "post-prime" cows, for nostalgia; etc., but on the other hand, this would be INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE! If it were only one or two cows, a person might be able to wing it. But the vast majority of farms harbor, I don't know, maybe 50+ cows. The feed and medical burdens would, financially, be too much for anyone. Farmers already have enough trouble making ends meet. Notice the disclaimer on news/financial reports, when the average salary for americans is displayed; it's only for "NON-FARM PAYROLLS."
Well, I hope that was helpful. Again, I'm not in the least critisizing you; just trying to help.