From: Eric Q. (sentience@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 11 1999 - 20:17:12 MST
Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>Here is a consequentialist argument for raising cows not to be eaten:
cows
>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
for
>nostalgia, pastoral scenes that people driving down the highway can
enjoy
>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.
Eric
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:47 MST