Writing in Slate, Tim Harford explains why conservation laws can kill the animals they are supposed to protect – the expectation of the conservation law leads to preemptive development. Case in point? (One that Tim doesn’t mention). The prospective ban on foie-gras (click on the link for Anthony Bourdain’s definition) in Chicago has lead to an orgy of consumption:
With the city’s ban on foie gras…days away from going into effect, upscale restaurants in the
city are serving it up like never before. They’ve put together special
menus featuring it in course after course — searing it, chilling it,
throwing it into salads and turning it into sauce.
One restaurant is even relocating just outside the city boundary.
Here is more on why the future is meat-eating vegetarianism.
Thanks to Amanda "I won’t eat Jello" Agan for the pointer.
If you follow a couple of those links you’ll get to Tyler arguing that boycotts on meat can shift cows into the uglier dairy sector. (Related arguments are made in less-deeply-nested posts; I’m using the cow example because it’s easy to describe.)
I didn’t see mention anywhere of the distinction between substitution and income effects. Sure, a decrease in demand for meat will shift some cows to less enjoyable lifestyles, but over the long term it would also lead to a decrease in the total demand for cow lives — not just a positive effect, but very possibly positive enough to more than make up for the substitution effect.
EVE ISK
EVE Online ISK
Buy EVE ISK
Cheap EVE Online ISK
Comments on this entry are closed.