Totally off topic: environmental impact of eating meat

[Jade Rubick <jade at rubick_com>]

Just for fun, look at it this way (I'm being a devil's advocate):

There is a particular maximum human population on this planet, a 
"maximum carrying capacity".

Vegetarians argue that you can increase the maximum human population by 
eating vegetables instead of meat. After all, you can grow much more 
food per acre if you're growing vegetables than if you're feeding it to 
animals you eat. It's just more efficient.

So by being a vegetarian, you can increase the total human population 
of the planet.

But environmentally, which is worse for the environment, chickens and 
cows, or human beings? Who destroys our ecosystem more?

Perhaps we should be eating as much meat as possible.

Tongue in cheek,
Jade

> From: Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>

> I think on a environmental platform eating less meat is good and much 
> better
> for everyone. It takes far more resources to raise meat than it does 
> plants.
> If we want more humans on the planet, this change will have to occur. 
> Meat
> is generally pretty wasteful. I like some of it and all, but I don't 
> care
> for it a lot.
>