Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (106438)	6/23/2005 1:24:05 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Since you asked, here is more detail specifically about the market for beef in America, from the article under discussion: "The beef industry says more beef is being eaten now than ever. But that's a function of a growing population. Most Americans eat less beef than in 1970; per capita consumption of beef has fallen 11 percent, while chicken consumption has gone up 68 percent, and turkey demand has gone up 74 percent. I need to ask for clarification. When you object to meat consumption and to cruelty to animals, are you only talking about "red" meat, or do you object to the eating of all meat, including poultry? Do you only object to inhumane treatment of cattle, pigs, and other four-footed animals, or do you also object to cruelty to chickens and turkeys? That article doesn't suggest necessarily a reduction in per capita consumption of meat, it only suggests a shift from one form of meat to another. If we went from a society eating, take some numbers which may have no direct connection with reality, 60 pounds of beef and pork, 30 pounds of poultry, and 10 pounds of fish and other seafood a year to one which ate 30 pounds of beef and pork, 50 pounds of poultry, and 20 pounds of fish and other seafood, but still ate 100 pounds of flesh each year, would you consider that an advancement, or not?