John,

        What came first, the chicken or the egg?  As I understand it, grain
consummption is much more calorie-efficient than meat consumption (by a
factor of 3? 4?  5?  X?).  E.g., an acre of grain can provide N calories
for human consumption.  If that grain is used to feed cattle, the
butchered cattle will provide (1/X*N) calories for human consumption.
So, in a pre-industrial society, meat consumption would mean a reduction
in the overall calories available to a society.

        At least that's the theory.  A couple things about the theory bother
me:  (1) it seems to assume that these societies were closed systems,
and they weren't, even if trade was not as efficient as it is today; and
(2) it seems to assume a planned economy and ignore the impact market
forces would have on meat vs. grain production.

Robert
John Miller wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/6/98 4:51:52 PM, Ray wrote:
>
> <<The real reason for vegetarianism is that domestic animals compete with
> grains for resources.  When resources are strained by population growth
> as in India in the 6th century BC (when Budism and Janism began and
> Hindus became vegetarians), the animals have to go to produce more grain.>>
>
> Could someone explain this to me?   Buddhism has, as one of its tenets,
> harmlessness to animals (ahimsa).    Wasn't it the rise of Buddhism and
> Jainism that promoted vegetarianism, which then caused the competition between
> animal and grain resources, and not the other way around?   Are you saying
> that economic pressures gave rise to these religious beliefs (a very
> interesting idea)?
>
> -John M