On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:47:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>"Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
>pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
>eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
>animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
>wastes a lot of resources."
>
>http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
>
>
>
>Couldn't get plainer than that. This ****wit isn't concerned about the
>environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",

Probably not, Goo. Does he appreciate and promote
situations where raising animals is more efficient than
raising crops, like he does when raising crops is more
efficient than raising animals? Without even knowing
the details I feel confident that the answer is: NO! Or
maybe even more correctly: NEVER! If I'm right about
that Goob, then efficiency is not the true objection
either. People cut and burn forest areas to grow crops
like corn or soy, but it only lasts for a few seasons
before the quality of the ground can't support that
type crop any more, so I believe then they grow something
like wheat for as many seasons as they can get, then
when it can't support that any more they try to grow
grass so they can raise livestock. From what I understand
that's the general cycle Goo. If after a few seasons of
grass the land won't support even that any more, then
it seems that if they had started with the grass and hadn't
grown more demanding crops to begin with, they could
have gotten more efficiency out of the land and been
able to grow grass for many many more seasons. Even
if they can grow grass as long as they want after they have
depleted it with the more demanding veggies, grass/livestock
eventually becomes the most efficient way of obtaining
human food from some of the land on this planet, but some
people not only don't point that out but instead don't want
to see it taken into consideration at all.