from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for your input.
> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
What your talking about here is a form of "futurology" taking a rather extreme scenario as a basis for a planned future. What you'll find if you bother to do the research is that far more consideration has been given to global nuclear war, because, quite reasonably, those with the resources to do such studies consider such scenarios to be a damn site more likely.
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > your input.
There are plenty of folk who claim all sorts of doom resulting from species loss, so I expect you're pretty much on your own if you are proposing to remove species from the planet for purely asethetic reasons.
I rather like keeping farm animals, and I don't think I'm alone in this. If you really did wish to pursue this I rather suspect that your pro-animal-extinction advocates would be more likely to suffer a sudden and unpleasant extinction - and quite rightly. Past generations of our own species have survived all sorts of horrors thanks to the flexibility that a variety of livestock species can present, loosing even one would be a very foolish move to take.
Note that there are already groups devoted to keeping rare breeds of livestock and crops so that their genes are available to future generations. Without doubt the nuber of people at present commited to such good work far exceeds the number of vegans on the planet, and I very much doubt that any more than a tiny proportion of vegans would support the notion of making livestock extinct in some perverse effort to force veganism on the omnivorous majority.
By all means do the research, perhaps by attempting farming on another planet that doesn't actually have any livestock, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously, because it's clearly a barmy idea that will get close to zero support.
> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > your input.
Very interesting question, and I plan to post the anwer later.
Another question would be as follows. Suppose the long term consequences were excellent, with mankind benefiting enormously. Would we actually do it. Not likely. BTW, we could keep those animals around in small numbers to avoid extiction.
We can't even get people to stop smoking despite knowing of the great benefits.
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:26:26 -0500, "ta" <t...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > >production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > >short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > >and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> >I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > >(starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > >long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > >one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > >your input.
> I do not see how things would change very much in either the short or > long term. Rich nations would still have much more food than they > need. Poor nations would still have too little.
Probably best not to think in terms of nations but in terms of people. A friend once told me that throughout the Ethiopian famine you could always get a good meal in the best hotels in Addis Ababa.
> There is no food > shortage, only food distribution problems.
Any population of animals, and that includes humans, will have something that limits the population. Humans can, and do, breed quite rapidly. The factors that limits population in North America and Europe it seems are complex social pressures, in other places it may be disease. If food distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether there was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and enough control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they would still need to be kept in check by some means.
> No pay -no eat is the way > it's always been. The crux of the issue is how does one change that > basic fact? now would you please stop crossposting this stuff to > misc.rual?
In article <GyVLb.2824$PP5.2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"ta" <t...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > your input.
Why are you crossposting?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
ta wrote: > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it? > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > your input.
There are a number of very important drugs which rely on farm animals for production. The most recent one I ran into was a contrasting medium allowing an echo cardiogram to "see" parts of the heart of interest.
It requires eggs as a medium in the creation process.
ta wrote: > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
I have discussed something similar to this before.
I think we need to refine the question. First, are we talking about eliminating the species which we now use as "farm" animals, or are we talking about creating a space where members of those species could survive as wild animals, but humans would no longer use them as domesticated animals? Second, are we talking about removing only one part of the situation -- just animals -- or a major social change where humans also develop a different worldview and act to control their own population growth and ecological devastation? Third, as I'm sure you know, not all land used for animal "production" can be used for production of non-animal foodstuffs. Certainly, a large amount of it could be, but not all. We'd also have to discuss the question of fertilizer for non-animal crops, and whether a society without farm animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence and organic, sustainable agriculture, or whether such a society would still depend, or depend even more, on massive chemical and artificial food production -- are we envisioning many small, organic farms fertilized with guano or buffalo chips, or are we talking about huge, power-intensive hydroponic farms in giant buildings, and vegetable equivalents of current factory farms?
There are all sorts of possibilities, depending on which way human society went before and after the elimination of farm animals.
But it's a fascinating question. Thanks.
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > your input.
> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
Gee. I don't think that anyone has studied the effects of sudden farm animal disappearance. I wonder why. It really sounds like something the government would award a grant for....billions of dollars just so we know in the event of some kind of farm animal rapture.
"Michael Saunby" <msau...@despammed.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>If food > distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether >there > was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and enough > control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they would > still need to be kept in check by some means.
Why? The main problems of overpopulation seem to be hunger and disease. If those are solved then why should we worry too much about keeping a population "in check?"
Not that a smaller population wouldn't be easier to feed and medicate, but wouldn't social pressures be enough?
> "ta" <t...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:GyVLb.2824$PP5.2081@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be > the > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both > good > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> Gee. I don't think that anyone has studied the effects of sudden farm > animal disappearance. I wonder why. It really sounds like something the > government would award a grant for....billions of dollars just so we know in > the event of some kind of farm animal rapture.
> What a dumb question.
Good question. You're just too dumb to understand it.
> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
That is an excellent question. I don't think the idea has been examined closely at all, and I find that rather ironic considering that is exactly what animal rights activists and vegans are proposing, don't you?
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > your input.
Look at the fundamental energy equation. The human race is sustained by calories from plant material, including plant material cycled through animals. Right now that includes virtually every plant on the face of the earth, grasses that grow on hillsides and dry prairie are used for grazing, hay is grown on marginal land, grains that do not meet human standards are fed to animals, by-products from plant products like oils are all fed to animals as mash. Plants grown for animal feed such as corn, are 100% utilized. All of these sources would be lost. So, say as a race we consume 100 trillion calories per month (or whatever), we would have to find a way replace all those calories through agriculture. The massive factory farms that would be needed would dwarf anything we see today
Also large areas of the world lack the climate and conditions to sustain themselves through plant agriculture. The task of bringing food to these people alone would be monumental.
The rational answer is that we need a mixed solution, utilizing resources from every possible source, such as we have now. The answer to the problems within the system lie in reform and education, not radical quasi-politics.
> "ta" <t...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be > the > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both > good > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, > no > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > your input.
> Very interesting question, and I plan to post the anwer later.
You don't HAVE "the anwer" you fucking moron! You probably buy loafers because you can't tie your shoes.
> In article <GyVLb.2824$PP5.2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, > "ta" <t...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > your input.
> "Michael Saunby" <msau...@despammed.com> wrote in message > <snip> > >If food > > distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether > >there > > was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and enough > > control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they would > > still need to be kept in check by some means.
> Why? The main problems of overpopulation seem to be hunger and disease.
If
No they are not. Today hunger and disease generally don't occur in densly populated places but in sparsely populated countries with inadequate infrastructure or as a consequence of some natural disaster.
> those are solved then why should we worry too much about keeping a > population "in check?"
> Not that a smaller population wouldn't be easier to feed and medicate, but > wouldn't social pressures be enough?
In the past in Asia and Europe, regions which still have the highest population density, population grew in bursts linked to technological developments - mostly agricultural. The first of these, after the advent of agriculture itself, was the development of the plough, later the development of crop and livestock breeding. Human populations are not determined just by social pressures, the social pressures are a reaction to changed circumstances. You are advocating a change in technology, using livestock free farming. Why? Clearly not because it would be technically better because you accept that the research hasn't been done.
> > "Michael Saunby" <msau...@despammed.com> wrote in message > > <snip> > > >If food > > > distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether > > >there > > > was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and > enough > > > control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they > would > > > still need to be kept in check by some means.
> > Why? The main problems of overpopulation seem to be hunger and disease. > If
> No they are not. Today hunger and disease generally don't occur in densly > populated places but in sparsely populated countries with inadequate > infrastructure or as a consequence of some natural disaster.
So why does human population need to be kept in check?
>You are advocating a change in technology, using > livestock free farming. Why?
> > > "Michael Saunby" <msau...@despammed.com> wrote in message > > > <snip> > > > >If food > > > > distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether > > > >there > > > > was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and > > enough > > > > control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they > > would > > > > still need to be kept in check by some means.
> > > Why? The main problems of overpopulation seem to be hunger and disease. > > If
> > No they are not. Today hunger and disease generally don't occur in densly > > populated places but in sparsely populated countries with inadequate > > infrastructure or as a consequence of some natural disaster.
> So why does human population need to be kept in check?
I wasn't meaning it in a political sense, only in an ecological sense. The human species WILL never grow without limit, if you remove the check that food availablity presents then something else will then become the limit - probably disease. If the intention of this proposed switch in diet is to provide a better environment for human to live in then it's necessary to consider what the limiting factor will be if food supply no longer serves that purpose. Of course nature could simply be allowed to do its thing, which seems fine by me, but would of course mean that people need to be allowed to eat what they choose to eat, not what they're told to eat.
> >You are advocating a change in technology, using > > livestock free farming. Why?
> long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > your input.
*** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, WI USA
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> but I'm actually more interested in the > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, > no > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > your input.
> *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil > fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
Crap.( Excuse the pun).
Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits being reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
> "Russ Thompson" <p...@mwt.net> wrote in message > news:4001644d_1@corp.newsgroups.com... > > but I'm actually more interested in the > > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, > > no > > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks > for > > > your input.
> > *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and soil > > fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
> Crap.( Excuse the pun).
> Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits being > reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
and reduced yield, because while the green manure is growing you aren't growing food
Note, far too many cross posts so I've cut them Jim Webster
> Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits being > reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
*** Well Duh! We are farmers. This is our business and life. This farmed was converted from conventional to sustainable in 1982 and from sustainable to organic in 1993. We attend work shops, conventions, and expos. We attend classes every week all winter put on by the extension. My husband has a BS in dairy science with a minor in crop and soils science. We both have a certificate in sustainable farming. We read industry publications and talk to other farmers all the time. So in reply to your condecending question YES! We have and do use green manure crops on our farm. I have personally planted crops for use as green manure. However I can see that you are an expert and know far more about the subject than I so why don't you tell us what you know?
Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, WI USA
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > your input.
> This has been studied but unfortunately I can't remember the source for
the details. But I remember the conclusions, currently most countries in the world would starve including the rich nations. This is because much of the land used to provided meat for consumption would not be able to sustain high continuous vegetable growth. One point they made was that for Brazil to feed it's own population with non Animal food you would have to chop down the entire Amazon forest to make land available whereas the high population density European nations have nowhere near enough land... Well that all my brain can remember of the report... since many vegans are also " countryside conservationists" that gives them a bit of a problem...
> "ta" <t...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:GyVLb.2824$PP5.2081@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal > > production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be the > > short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both good > > and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
> > I'm imagining that most of the short term consequences would be negative > > (starvation, economic loss, etc.), but I'm actually more interested in the > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical question, no > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks for > > your input.
> > This has been studied but unfortunately I can't remember the source for > the details. But I remember the conclusions, currently most countries in the > world would starve including the rich nations. This is because much of the > land used to provided meat for consumption would not be able to sustain high > continuous vegetable growth.
'Pounds of edible product that can be produced on an acre of prime land: Apples 20,000; Carrots 30,000; Potatoes 40,000; Tomatoes 50,000; Beef 250 ' [Tom Aldridge and Herb Schlubach, "Water Requirements for Food Production," Soil and Water, no. 38 (Fall 1978), University of California Cooperative Extension, 13017; Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment (San Francisco: Freemna, 1972), pg. 75-76.] http://www.vegetarianusa.com/feature_articles/kitchen/earthsave_food_...
> One point they made was that for Brazil to feed > it's own population with non Animal food you would have to chop down the > entire Amazon forest to make land available.
'Today, production of livestock and livestock feed for the world market is supplanting the production of staple foods in many developing countries.
In Mexico, for example, where millions of people are chronically under-nourished, one third of the grain produced is fed to livestock. In Brazil, where 23 percent of the cultivated land is now being used to grow soybeans -- half of which is destined for export for livestock feed -- less land is available to grow corn and black beans, staples of the Brazilian peasant diet. The result has been less food at higher prices for an increasingly hungry and impoverished population. http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html
> whereas the high population > density European nations have nowhere near enough land...
"If the earth's arable land were used primarily for the production of vegetarian foods, the planet could easily support a human population of 20 billion or more" -Noted from the book Proteins: Their Chemistry and Politics / Dr. Aaron Altshul .
> Well that all my brain can remember of the report...
> since many vegans are also " countryside conservationists" that gives them a > bit of a problem...
> > "Russ Thompson" <p...@mwt.net> wrote in message > > news:4001644d_1@corp.newsgroups.com... > > > but I'm actually more interested in the > > > > long-term consequences. Obviously since this is a hypothetical > question, > > > no > > > > one really knows for sure, but can't we make educated guesses? Thanks > > for > > > > your input.
> > > *** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and > soil > > > fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.
> > Crap.( Excuse the pun).
> > Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits being > > reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
> and reduced yield, because while the green manure is growing you aren't > growing food
Not growing food for animals you mean?
> Note, far too many cross posts so I've cut them > Jim Webster
> > Have you studied the use of green manure, with SOME of it's benefits being > > reduced soil erosion and improved fertility?
> *** Well Duh! We are farmers. This is our business and life. This farmed was > converted from conventional to sustainable in 1982 and from sustainable to > organic in 1993. > We attend work shops, conventions, and expos. We attend classes > every week all winter put on by the extension. My husband has a BS in dairy > science with a minor in crop and soils science. We both have a certificate > in sustainable farming. We read industry publications and talk to other > farmers all the time. > So in reply to your condecending question YES! We have and do use > green manure crops on our farm. I have personally planted crops for use as > green manure. However I can see that you are an expert and know far more > about the subject than I so why don't you tell us what you know?
I'm sure you know *everything* there is to know about farming in the past, present and the future. Your arrogance is not surprising.
|
