Message from discussion If all farm animals dissappeared

Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.bc.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!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 17:40:12 -0700
Organization: NMIX Reader
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <btvfmd$cm4$1@reader2.nmix.net>
References: <GyVLb.2824$PP5.2081@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <btph59$phk$1@reader2.nmix.net> <c5c0e6e6.0401111821.1a7869e2@posting.google.com> <btuiaf$kh2$1@reader2.nmix.net> <btujin$616$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>
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 1073955342 12996 216.84.163.230 (13 Jan 2004 00:55:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@nmix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:55:42 +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: <btujin$616$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>



Michael Saunby wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
> news:btuiaf$kh2$1@reader2.nmix.net...

>>>My understanding is that some domesticated animals can be
>>>re-introduced into the wild, so my assumption would be the latter.

> Doesn't it ring alarm bells when you consider that the wild ancestors of
> domesticated animals are not very common?

Well, the wild ancestors of domestic plants aren't very common, either.
One occasionally finds remnants like the small cobs of corn (maize)
which were the ancestors of domestic corn in some areas. Humans tend to
create large-scale monocultures of their crops, plant or animal.
Gathering cultures or hunting cultures tend to have more diverse diets.

>  When did you last see a wild
> cow, or a wild sheep, or even a wild dog or cat? 

Depending on the environment, they can be very successful.  The coyote
is an example of a wild canid which has increased its range dramatically
by responding to human settlement and human elimination of larger
predators like wolves.

> These species owe their
> very existence to domestication.  You complain about exploitation but then
> seem quite content to discard entire species when you alone feel you no
> longer have a use for them.  Not very ethical.

I'm not talking about "discarding" any species out of hand.  However, I 
don't think any species has any particular value in and of itself.  If
there is an ecological diversity, so that the ecology is relatively
healthy and stable, any combination of species is good, as far as I can
see.  I'm concerned about individual animals, and ecologies as a whole,
not about species survival _per se_.  Species evolve and go extinct all
the time.  I do not feel great sorrow over the loss of the dinosaurs,
although they are interesting to study.

>>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.

> It seems that vegetarian apes generally have very small populations anyway,
> and always have done.  Perhaps non apes on the planet might be better of
> with all non-vegetarian apes being removed.  But is it your choice to make?

No, of course not.  But humans create their own cultures, and can
live without farming animals, even if not without gathering animal
food (such as eggs of wild birds or wild honey,perhaps).

> Best decide soon though before all the non human apes have gone, or there
> will be none.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3383425.stm

> "Orang-utans 'may die out by 2025'..."

>>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.

> I could agree with this.  I would fully support any proposal that people
> may only purchase a proportion of their food, thuse ensuring that everyone
> takes the trouble to learn how to forage, to cultivate, to store, to cook,
> to fish, to hunt, etc.

No reason why that would not be a good idea.

>>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.

> Indeed.  Though most who do so at present will also take meat, eggs, etc.
> as members of our species, and related species always have done.

Yes, as of now, certainly.

>> 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.

> Or traditional european activities such as hunting deer and boar.

Yes, if one is talking about an omnivorous culture.

Better a hunting culture than a factory-farming one, at least.

Rat