Kendall Clark wrote:
>
> >>>>> "carrol" == Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> writes:
>
> carrol> Kendall Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> a vegetarian diet is pretty widely conceded to be more healthy
> >> for its consumer than a meat-rich diet.
>
> carrol> Vegetarian diet vs meat-RICH diet. The comparison
> carrol> limps.
>
> Why? I don't have numbers to hand, but from what I recall, the average
> diet in the US contains more meat and animal products than just about
> any other national diet, certainly vastly more than diets outside the
> "first world".
>
But you are proposing a _new_ dietary regimen. So you need to compare it not only (or not even mostly) with the present dietary regimen but with other possible new regimens. So I find your proposal uninteresting since you haven't compared it with its real alternatives.
Of course the meat-rich diet you describe is undesirable, for reasons both of ecology and of health. But what are the alternatives. VEGAN is not an alternative (1) because most of us won't accept it and (2) it would be ecologically destructive. We are not discussing, I assume, individual preferences but social policy, which is why the preferences of "most of us" figure so strongly. As a social policy vegetarianism would be subject to all the objections Kelley has raised. As a matter of personal preference it is merely a bore.
Carrol
Carrol