From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 20:20:57 MDT
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, gts wrote:
> I've seen only two theoretical arguments for vegetarianism: 1) the argument
> that humans have a moral obligation to minimize suffering in the world,
> including the suffering of animals, and 2) the argument that humans are best
> genetically adapted to a diet limited only to plant foods. Many vegetarians
> embrace both arguments. I object to 1) mainly on philosophical grounds and
> to 2) mainly on scientific grounds.
There is a 3rd "rational" argument. Animal food sources are simply inefficient!
(Perhaps you include this in "scientific").
The figure I've commonly seen used is that animal nutrient/energy sources are
~10x less efficient from an energy perspective than plant sources.
If we want to support the greatest number of people on the planet we should
cover our rangeland with solar ponds (growing spirulina or engineered equivalents)
and feed shrimp farms the bacteria coming out of our waste treatment plants.
(There are more examples I could cite but I'm sure you get the idea).
Robert
Oh, yes -- and for those thinking about the Atkins -- spirulina looks
pretty good:
http://www.spirulina.com/SPBNutrition.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 20:31:11 MDT