John Emerson, I agree with most of your post except the comment about Republicans refusing bi-partisanship. This seems to put the onus completely on the right and ignores the extremely feeble (to the point of non-existent) efforts on the left to promote bi-partisanship. Unless you expect one party to simply comply with another parties' program. That isn't what the parties are for. They are supposed to fight. In the long run this acts as a balance against the country moving too quickly in any one direction. I see no particular value in bi-partisanship except in cases of national emergency.

Depends on whether she is willing and able to pay for it. I certainly don't want to have to. There are plenty of alcohol drinking, smoking, fat people who are a benefit to society that I wouldn't make a broad statement banning reproduction.

Humanity is essentially a highly inbred species. We don't have a lot of genetic variability compared to other common species. This may be all there is too it, too much inbreeding. Even our interracial matches would be considered inbreeding if we applied the same standards to humans that we do to animals.

... but they are probably also more likely to have a minimum level of competency of making sure the machinery of government doesn't explode in our faces... 
 
If they have any such goal. I don't see much evidence of that. Disaster and panic are good for those in power, as long as things don't get so out of hand that they lose power.

Hello John Emmerson, 
 
The experience of several thousand years and the choices of farmers throughout that period suggest that animal agriculture adds, not subtracts calories. 
 
I believe you are making an unrealistic comparison, between pure animal ag and pure vegetable. That almost never occurs. Both are integrated and add to the efficiency of the other. As an example, on our family farm we grow no animals, but every year part of the land is planted in forage crops which are sold to neighbors who raise cows.  
 
Crop rotation is part of basic land management to insure fertile soil and to help control weeds and insects. Without a market for the forage this practice would be uneconomic and fewer farmers would do it, leading to higher chemical pest control and gradual loss of land fertility. 
 
I hope I am not coming across as too argumentative here, but this issue touches one of my sore points. There is a lot of propaganda against animal agriculture that is simply based on lack of knowledge of farming, or on vegetarian propaganda.

To John Emmerson, 
 
I have to disagree with your comment 'I don't think that animal husbandry is ever a productive use of land in terms of calories-protein per acre.' 
 
I worked some years in the third world in animal agriculture. Whenever given the opportunity small scale farmers will integrate animals into their farms. Animals increase efficiency in several ways, recycling inedible materials, providing essential raw materials, and through necessary nutrients in the diet.  
 
These people are not stupid. They know that without animals they are so many steps closer to starvation, to say nothing of malnutrition.

Don't forget that potatoes are a nightshade, most of which are deadly poison. If we hadn't grown up eating them we might balk too. Tomatoes are another nightshade, and there was deep suspicion against them in the US in early days for that reason. 
 
Those peasants might not be as dumb as you think. They had little reason to think that their betters had best interests in mind. Maybe a thinning of the population?

Are you sure it is not just the effect of a very low protein diet?