|
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, misc.rural, alt.agriculture, sci.agriculture, alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: Rat & Swan <lab...@cybermesa.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:18:55 -0700
Local: Mon 12 Jan 2004 16:18
Subject: Re: If all farm animals dissappeared
ta wrote: I think the most important thing is to recognize that any major change > Rat & Swan <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message <news:btph59$phk$1@reader2.nmix.net>... >>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? in ecology and food-production can go either way -- it can be a change for the vastly better or vastly worse depending on how it comes about. Ecology is always a tricky subject, and each change has so many possible side-effects that it is impossible to say exactly what the total effect of any change will be before it comes about. Most single ecological changes _tend_ to have negative results, both because the obvious effects aren't considered -- what will the introduction of a new species in an area where it has no natural checks do? -- and because we can't see the less-obvious effects, such as the spread of a disease from a domestic species to a closely-related wild species or vice versa -- AIDS in humans, brucillosis in bison, scrappie in cattle and humans as "mad-cow disease", various strains of flu, etc -- and so on. Often, we don't even recognize the negative effects after they become ingrained in a society: the nutritional defects caused by dependence on one or two major sources of food (the corn-and-beans diet of the Ancestral Puebloans, the degradation of the status of women created by a change from farming to herding cultures in ancient Europe). That's not to say that results of a major change cannot be positive. <snip> >>I think we need to refine the question. First, are we talking about Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very >>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? > My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be > re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter. good idea, I think -- and work on recreating more diverse and natural ecologies where the re-released animals could live -- also a good idea. >>Second, are we talking about removing only one All good, IMO. >>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? > Ideally, the latter is my assumption. >>Third, as I'm sure Again, reducing human population would be critical to success. >>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. > Right. I think we should consider that we could do much more in terms of re-creating more of a gathering culture than we have now. There is no reason why humans couldn't harvest foods from wild areas, as long as they were ecologically sensitive in the ways they did it. Think of such traditional activities as gathering pinon nuts in the dry uplands of New Mexico which are not suitable for farming without massive irrigation. The ecology was degraded significantly by grazing "food" animals on it, but gathering native vegetable foods actually improves the ecology. >>We'd also have to discuss the question of No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their >>fertilizer for non-animal crops, > Are animal products absolutely required for fertilizer? effects and in their production. However, dung could certainly be harvested from non-domestic animals, or those not used for food but kept as companions, as cattle dung is used in India. Also, there is absolutely no reason why human dung -- nightsoil -- couldn't be used as fertilizer, if it were treated to kill disease organisms. We're animals, too. >>and whether a society without farm It's ALL good. :) >>animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence >>and organic, sustainable agriculture, > Yes, assume that. Rat You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||