Message from discussion
If all farm animals dissappeared
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.com!feeder.nmix.net!reader2.nmix.net!not-for-mail
From: Rat & Swan <lab...@cybermesa.com>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,misc.rural,alt.agriculture,sci.agriculture,alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: If all farm animals dissappeared
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:18:55 -0700
Organization: NMIX Reader
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <btuiaf$kh2$1@reader2.nmix.net>
References: <GyVLb.2824$PP5.2081@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <btph59$phk$1@reader2.nmix.net> <c5c0e6e6.0401111821.1a7869e2@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: qwest230-dsl3.cybermesa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: reader2.nmix.net 1073925263 21026 216.84.163.230 (12 Jan 2004 16:34:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@nmix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:34:23 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <c5c0e6e6.0401111821.1a7869e2@posting.google.com>
ta wrote:
> Rat & Swan <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message news:<btph59$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?
I think the most important thing is to recognize that any major change
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.
I think the most important factors are a determination to do what
is right, and a holistic view of what the good society is.
<snip>
>>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?
> My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be
> re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.
Then we would have to reduce human population drastically -- a very
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
>>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.
All good, IMO.
>>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.
> Right.
Again, reducing human population would be critical to success.
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
>>fertilizer for non-animal crops,
> Are animal products absolutely required for fertilizer?
No, but chemical fertilizers tend to be less good, both in their
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
>>animals eliminated them because of a holistic philosophy of non-violence
>>and organic, sustainable agriculture,
> Yes, assume that.
It's ALL good. :)
Rat
<snip>
|
