From: Russell Blackford (rblackford@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 12 2001 - 05:31:13 MDT
Samantha Atkins said:
>If the cattle are not fed on cultivated land then what are they
>fed on? The vast majority of cattle raised for meat and flesh
>in the US are raised in factory farms and can't exactly keep the
>lawn mowed.
>
>It depends on the amount of cattle fed how many people would
>need to go more or less vegetarian to not have cultivatable land
>feeding cattle rather than people. Today, the percentage of
>cultivatable land feeding cattle is high from what I've heard
>claimed. I can't claim to have precise numbers though.
Okay, I've been lurking on the list for a few days now. Time to take the
plunge and start posting.
For anyone who'd like me to introduce myself, I append a self-intro at the
bottom of this post as purely optional reading.
On Samantha's comments, I don't doubt she's right about the US. It's not
necessarily like that in other countries. My understanding is that, here in
Australia, cattle are commonly grass-fed and raised in country which could
not readily be cultivated for vegetable crops. Even on Samantha's analysis,
there is a place for meat in a diet aimed at encouraging the most efficient
use of land.
This, of course, brackets off a lot of other issues about whether there
really is a moral or economic imperative to use land in the most efficient
way possible, not to mention (OTOH) issues of animal rights etc. But, if
it's purely a matter of efficiency in the sense of calories per acre of land
available for agriculture, the optimum mix seems to be one which includes
"free-range", grass-fed cattle, on otherwise marginal farmland.
Cheers
Russell
=============================================================
Optional self-intro follows:
I am an Australian lawyer, critic, philosophical journalist (it would sound
grandiose to refer to myself as "a philosopher") -- and occasional writer of
science fiction and fantasy stories. My pal Damien Broderick has encouraged
me to join this list.
In my own country, I am probably now best known for my articles in
_Quadrant_ magazine -- an influential, often controversial, and supposedly
"right-wing" intellectual journal -- covering such topics as the prospects
of computer superintelligence; post-modernist theory and its problems;
cyberspace; cloning, genetic engineering and radical life extension; the
work of contemporary philosophers and ethicists; and current debates about
free speech. I have also published articles, reviews and stories in numerous
other journals, magazines, anthologies and reference works in Australia, the
US, and Europe. I am a prominent science fiction critic and advocate of the
sf genre (eg my book covering the history of Australian sf, _Strange
Constellations_ (co-written with Van Ikin and Sean McMullen), published by
Greenwood Press in 1999).
My legal, philosophical, literary critical and creative writing is directed,
in various ways, at defending the life of freedom and reason as I understand
it. In public debate on some issues, such as racial hate speech, I have been
prepared to accept or propose narrowly-confined restrictions on liberty, but
I am strongly libertarian by temperament and in my approach to philosophical
and social questions. In particular,I argue for liberty of thought, rational
inquiry, belief, speech and expression, and of non-coercive "experiments in
living". I am an opponent of all forms of irrationalism.
I'd rate my most important contribution to the general culture in recent
years to be my writings in defence of contemporary or expected developments
in bio-medical science, including proposals for radical life extension,
human cloning and germ-line therapy. I expect to spend much of my time and
energy in the foreseeable future writing about such issues, giving stick to
the religious and quasi-religious irrationalists roaming at large in this
field of debate.
I should say upfront that I would be unwilling to adopt the label "an
extropian", or any other label suggesting that I am committed to a
ready-made philosophy or other world view. I can imagine issues or
circumstances in which I might have a viewpoint different from that of most
people who would call themselves extropians, though this list clearly caters
for a very wide diversity of views. In any event, I am persuaded that
humanity and the human condition as we know them will be superseded within
the next few centuries, if not the next few decades, and that this is, at
least generally, desirable. I see my ideas as closely allied to those of
extropians and transhumanists and would happily be represented, if it ever
helped anything, as someone who is "interested in" or "broadly sympathetic
to" or just "sympathetic to" extropian ideas, ideals and principles.
I look forward to discussing issues with you all. It's nice to have come
aboard.
==================
Russell Blackford
rblackford@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:05 MST