Steve Kurtz wrote: > If we return to pre-modernity, probably not by conscious planning :-), the > pets that could would revert to a wild state and eat by hunting/browsing. > Those that were unsuccessful in adaptation would be eaten by some other > life form, down to worms, insects and microbes. Humans would eat many of > course. > > As to the US$17B in current situation, I agree that the statistic is nearly > meaningless except to point out that pet keeping is a voluntary > luxury/leisure activity that consumes resources. I suppose the judgement is > implied that pet keeping is immoral. Put those pets to "work" to provide > some "economic benefit" for the planet! According to USDA figures, the U.S. food system provides about 3'800 kcal/human/day (= sum of what is eaten and what is thrown away by consumers, restaurants, etc.), which is almost _twice_ the required calories, so I guess all those pets could survive really well even without spending the $17B for pet food... Jock McCardell asked: > How would an economist figure it if pets were sudenly outlawed in the USA > and Europe (ignoring the social cost but including the disposal cost!) and > this US$17 billion might be redirected to provide basic health and > nutrition for everyone in the world? According to MSNBC, "It is estimated that excessive meat consumption is responsible for between $60 and $120 billion in health care costs each year in the United States alone. Since domestic cash receipts for the meat industry totaled roughly $100 billion in 1997, it is possible that this industry is a net drain on the American economy." And: "If each American reduced his or her meat consumption by just 5%, roughly equivalent to eating one less dish of meat each week, enough grain would be saved to feed 25 million people." So much about health cost savings and feeding the world... Regards, Chris [who doesn't eat meat and whose 'pets' are green and provide oxygen :-)]
