Another round

Naomi took the time to pen a response to my response, to which I, in turn, responded. Naomi:

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying, and for having an interesting discussion! Unfortunately, with the growing global demand for meat (trying to keep pace with American's consumption habits) I don't think we have the land, nor the farmland/grain for feed, to ethically raise number of animals required to meet current demand. Our meat eating habits will have to change if we want to ethically eat animals, and trying to convince people accustomed to regular meat consumption to eat less is going to be a hard sell. Before factory farming, eating meat was a treat, something for special occasions, not a daily (or mealy) occurrence. We need to return the ritual to our meat eating, and in doing so, show that we value the animals we consume. How to do this in a world of ubiquitous fast food seems overwhelming.

To which I wrote:

Hey Naomi,You have a good point, but I don't think it's totally right. Yes, ifeveryone in world wanted to eat as much meat as the typical American rightnow, and had the means to, that would probably be a disaster. I don't think anyone knows how much meat people would consume if all meat was produced in
the way we think is good- that would be a much different world. But a few points:

I think a lot of people have the egalitarian intuition that, if something
cannot be done by everyone, we shouldn't do it. But I think there are many
cases where following this rule is not desirable. Many new technologies
are prohibitively expensive at first, and consume a lot of resources. But I wouldn't say, therefore, that we shouldn't have them. I'd say to let people
with the money buy them, and, if these technologies hold a lot of promise, people will find a way to produce them more cheaply. This is good for
society overall, in my view (and I think most economists would agree, for
what that's worth).

So in the case of pastured meat, I'd say: buy as much as you think you can afford. This will encourage the development of those farms, and there are probably applications of technology that could drive down the cost, while maintaining the humaneness and environmental impact that we want. At least greater economies of scale will develop, which will bring the price down.
Yes, some people won't be able to afford as much as others, but, again, I
think it's a fallacy to suppose that such an outcome is bad, even by, say,
the Rawlsian maximin principle.

This, in my view, is why markets work well: prices will determine the distribution of resources in an efficient way, and provide incentives for innovation. Yes, factory farming is, to some extent, a result of such a
market, but this is where people can put their money where their values are,
and also, to some extent, the present situation is a result of government policy, for example in subsidizing corn. And there are probably good
argument for policies like banning use of hormones and/or antibiotics in
cattle. Anyway, if I'm right about all this, we can safely encourage people
to eat as much pastured (meaning fully grass-fed, in the case of cows andthe way we think is good- that would be a much different world. But a few points:

I think a lot of people have the egalitarian intuition that, if somethingcannot be done by everyone, we shouldn't do it. But I think there are manycases where following this rule is not desirable. Many new technologiesare prohibitively expensive at first, and consume a lot of resources. But I wouldn't say, therefore, that we shouldn't have them. I'd say to let peoplewith the money buy them, and, if these technologies hold a lot of promise, people will find a way to produce them more cheaply. This is good forsociety overall, in my view (and I think most economists would agree, forwhat that's worth).

 So in the case of pastured meat, I'd say: buy as much as you think you can afford. This will encourage the development of those farms, and there are probably applications of technology that could drive down the cost, while maintaining the humaneness and environmental impact that we want. At least greater economies of scale will develop, which will bring the price down.Yes, some people won't be able to afford as much as others, but, again, Ithink it's a fallacy to suppose that such an outcome is bad, even by, say,the Rawlsian maximin principle.

This, in my view, is why markets work well: prices will determine the distribution of resources in an efficient way, and provide incentives for innovation. Yes, factory farming is, to some extent, a result of such amarket, but this is where people can put their money where their values are,and also, to some extent, the present situation is a result of government policy, for example in subsidizing corn. And there are probably goodargument for policies like banning use of hormones and/or antibiotics incattle. Anyway, if I'm right about all this, we can safely encourage peopleto eat as much pastured (meaning fully grass-fed, in the case of cows andsheep) meat as they please. 

This is something I need to think more about. I should say many of the ideas I've expressed here are influenced by, or directly taken from Melissa McEwen and Amar Bhidé .