| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Agriculture Forum » If all farm animals dissappeared
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| ta |
 Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rick |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:26:26 -0500, "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote: 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. There is no food
shortage, only food distribution problems. 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?
-Rick |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Saunby |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GyVLb.2824$PP5.2081@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Quote: 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.
Quote:
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.
Michael Saunby |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| LarryLOOK |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GyVLb.2824$PP5.2081@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Saunby |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Rick" <Rick@not.here.com> wrote in message
news:b6a000p6a1dlhm173ngkvb3rr3j84ds1bi@4ax.com...
Quote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:26:26 -0500, "ta" <ta33@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.
Quote: 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.
Quote: 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?
Sorted.
Michael Saunby |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeepers |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <GyVLb.2824$PP5.2081@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote: 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! =----- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bill Vajk |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ta wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim Webster |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Vajk" <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:Pv2dnbupDvYtoZ3dRVn-vg@comcast.com...
Quote: ta wrote:
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.
many vaccines are grown of bovine foetal serum
Jim Webster |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jonathan Ball |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Webster wrote:
Quote: "Bill Vajk" <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:Pv2dnbupDvYtoZ3dRVn-vg@comcast.com...
ta wrote:
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.
many vaccines are grown of bovine foetal serum
At present, virtually ALL cell culture uses bovine
fetal serum as a growth medium.
Fetal bovine serum (FBS) is a common component
of animal cell culture media. It is harvested from
bovine foetuses taken from pregnant cows during
slaughter. FBS is commonly harvested by means of
a cardiac puncture without any form of anaesthesia.
Fetuses are probably exposed to pain and/or
discomfort, so the current practice of fetal blood
harvesting is inhumane.
http://tinyurl.com/4nhk
post by John Mercer
http://tinyurl.com/355tu
John Mercer has written extensively in
talk.politics.animals and alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
about the astonishing and never-ending dishonesty of
"vegans" and "animal rights activists" in pushing cell
culture as a "non animal" alternative:
Searched Groups for "cell culture" group:*animals*
author:john author:mercer. Results 1 - 10 of
about 758.
http://tinyurl.com/2qaoa |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim Webster |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:vkYLb.3212$zj7.3022@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote: Jim Webster wrote:
"Bill Vajk" <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:Pv2dnbupDvYtoZ3dRVn-vg@comcast.com...
ta wrote:
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.
many vaccines are grown of bovine foetal serum
At present, virtually ALL cell culture uses bovine
fetal serum as a growth medium.
I came across it during the BSE inquiry. The speed with which the UK
switched to NZ sourced bovine fetal serum (but continued to use old stocks
of vaccine) was impressive
Jim Webster |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| JMartin |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GyVLb.2824$PP5.2081@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Quote: from the face of the earth tommorrow and all of the land used for animal
production was to be used for non-animal food production, what would be
the
short and long-term economic, ecological, and social consequences (both
good
and bad)? Has anyone studied this possibility and published it?
Gee. I don't think that anyone has studied the effects of sudden farm
animal disappearance. I wonder why. It really sounds like something the
government would award a grant for....billions of dollars just so we know in
the event of some kind of farm animal rapture.
What a dumb question.
Jena |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rubystars |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Michael Saunby" <msaunby@despammed.com> wrote in message
<snip>
Quote: If food
distribution was improved and everyone was fed regardless of whether
there
was work for them to do, free health care to keep them healthy, and enough
control on weapons, etc. to ensure they didn't shoot each other they would
still need to be kept in check by some means.
Why? The main problems of overpopulation seem to be hunger and disease. If
those are solved then why should we worry too much about keeping a
population "in check?"
Not that a smaller population wouldn't be easier to feed and medicate, but
wouldn't social pressures be enough?
-Rubystars |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zakhar |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"JMartin" <antares1947@comwares.net> wrote in message
news:btpl4e$dun$0@12.166.20.64...
Quote:
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GyVLb.2824$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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dutch |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote
Quote: 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?
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dutch |
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"LarryLOOK" <LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote
Quote:
"ta" <ta33@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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:59 pm
|
|