You think there's going to be a nuclear war?

:mask: :up:

It isn't clear to me, at this point, what a "balance" between our species and "nature" would look like. — BC

It's not all that hard to understand the principle of the thing. If herbivores have no control on their population, then they will breed until their numbers exceed the ability of the grassland to sustain them. Then they are in overshoot. They eat the grass down to the bare earth and then starve. Then the population crashes and eventually the grassland recovers, or else some other vegetation is established that supports a new population of consumers. I can hear the buffalo on their philosophy forms saying " Well I like grass, what you want me to eat?" as the desert encroaches.

One of the things that happened with the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone is that certain areas around the rivers became more dangerous because the view is limited and wolves can get close. So these areas were less grazed and the vegetation became more diverse allowing another habitat and expansion of other species. [More diversity equates to more resilience of the ecosystem.]

Imagine that human intelligence could replace the predator, such that we could agree to keep, say, half the land, and half the ocean free from human exploitation. That would be a smart move for a dominant species that knew it needed to have a sustainable relationship to its environment. If only we were a bit more smart!

You think there's going to be a nuclear war? — RogueAI

I think we're heading for apocalypse. See the four big dust clouds on the horizon? One of them can be nuclear cloud.

If only we were a bit more smart! — unenlightened

Forever and ever, amen!

I do object to heavily industrialized agriculture -- for both animals and plant crops -- which is driven by the usual capitalist impulse to cut costs and maximize profits. Two examples: a) producing corn for ethanol as 10% gasoline and b) massive feedlots which are harmful to both ecology and animal health.

Exactly. When addressing such a broad range of practices, better to target the very worst practices than the topic as a whole since there are both positives and (the well appreciated) negatives. Pretending that ranching is solely negative is a gross oversimplification.

Pretending that ranching is solely negative is a gross oversimplification. — LuckyR

I have not yet seen a model of cattle ranching that's good for the cattle, the environment and the climate. Migrating herders of ancient times probably did no great harm, but I can't think of one good thing to say for barbed wire fences.

I can't think of one good thing to say for barbed wire fences. — Vera Mont

Per the eminent anti-ranching Bing Crosby & and the Andrews Sisters

Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don't fence me in

Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please
Don't fence me in

Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle
Underneath the western skies
On my Cayuse, let me wander over yonder
Till I see the mountains rise

I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
And gaze at the moon till I lose my senses
And I can't look at hovels and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in

Thank you very much. It was likely a discussion about this had been created already but I couldn't find it.These arguments didn't convince me but it was interesting to read them. From 3 to 6, these are "two wrongs make a right" fallacies.

Sorry there was a misunderstanding, I didn't mean plant-based food that looks like meat

Interesting answer. I guess it's a matter of degree (between "just being" and "existing with angst"). By the way, unfortunately (I guess) some humans do not suffer the guilt/awareness of doing harm in the satisfaction of their pleasures at all.

choosing not to be natural, but to be human — Fire Ologist

But doesn't "being human" mean "not being just natural"?

To be honest, I'm more and more convinced it's possible to show that livestock farming as a whole is negative (when it's physically and economically possible to avoid it), even when it's not industrial. However, I still eat a bit of meat from time to time, and quite a lot of cheese (which involves the death of many calves and the distress of their mothers who are separated from them). So I'm aware of the gulf that exists between doing and having to do. That's why it's a good idea to act gradually, starting by avoiding animal products from intensive farming.

Yes it could exist (waiting for the animal to die naturally until we eat it, etc.) but it wouldn't be economically viable. Also extended lactation on goat milk is quite a good idea. This avoids separating kids from their mothers and killing the kids. And it would be quite cost-effective, as far as I know. This can only be done with goats though.

Given that :
- meat is not necessary for almost all humans
- many farming systems are now capable of developing plant-based meat alternatives
- no livestock farming can take place without causing suffering to the animals: separation of mother and offspring, slaughter when they have not even reached half their life expectancy, etc.
…how can we still justify livestock farming? — LFranc

Not being bound in chains from infancy and fed water and paste until one dies of natural causes is "not necessary" for almost all humans. So, that, in and of itself, is not an argument.

Who's to say plants don't have an even greater sense of consciousness and feelings of pain, loss, and joy simply because the science we have can't detect it and would suggest otherwise? Maybe it's the livestock who are the ones creating suffering by eating grass and various plants, which are actually sentient, and are the real victims here who we are protecting by controlling and raising livestock? The philosopher really can't say with any absolute certainty. Science is about progression of understanding with the acknowledgement some things, grand things, are currently unknown, hence the point of science itself. Otherwise the very first person who even "science'd" would have discovered everything the moment he did an experiment and we'd have had the technology we have today in the 1600s.

I don't think an animal has quite the same deep societal understanding of the concepts of "mother" or "father" as a human does. It's just a familiar visual image, that when approached or drawn close to, produces milk or whatever sustenance that results in its own survival. It's literally just a teat and source of warmth so it doesn't die. There's no emotion involved.

We can justify livestock farming simply by doing nothing and removing our self, metaphorically, from the equation altogether. In a world without humans who have opposable thumbs and technology, it is a free-for-all where animals kill each other without intelligent reason (other than hunger ie. survival) in perpetuity. Day in and day out, nonstop. The suffering and "separation" would exist regardless if we were present or acting agents in the situation or not. So, as intelligent beings who can prevent this process, if benefited from perhaps 1 animal while we save 1000 that would otherwise die, become extinct, or suffer, it's really self-evident. This stuff is so elementary it shouldn't have to be explained, really.

Now, should we, as a society, feed immoral people who don't care about life and animals? That's a valid line of inquiry. However considering the fact people lie anyway so as to prolong their own existence (meaningful or not), it's not a feasible thing to consider. Like when they outlawed (or largely discriminated against) non-Christians from employment. For good reason, the peasants often stole because they had no moral backbone or belief in consequence toward actions not immediately prevented. Overnight, everybody became "Christian", and the word, or principles behind the idea became a joke. But that's a tale for another day.

This can only be done with goats though. — LFranc

I recently saw a video about a bovine dairy where it's working very well. This is one way: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/29/mums-ask-when-cows-and-their-calves-separated-rise-ethical-milk-vegan but methods have advanced since then. The farmer I saw leaves the calves with their mothers for the morning feed, then puts them in a separate field and gives them the substitute until they can digest grass. The cows do give her less, but they're not stressed as the intervals of separation grow gradually longer. These are relatively small farms, and I wouldn't be surprised if they all specialized in cheese for the squeamish customer. Cream cheese and cottage cheese don't require rennet and older cheeses can be made with microbial rennet.

There may be more interesting developments along with cloned meat; I'm not at the cutting edge on the science.

I don't think an animal has quite the same deep societal understanding of the concepts of "mother" or "father" as a human does. — Outlander

Motherhood is not a human societal concept. It's a deeply embedded animal instinct - one for which many birds and mammals and even some fish risk their very lives. If the crying of a bereft cow doesn't convey enough pain and sorrow to a human, the deficiency is not in the cow's understanding of motherhood.

So, as intelligent beings who can prevent this process, if benefited from perhaps 1 animal while we save 1000 that would otherwise die, become extinct, or suffer, it's really self-evident. — Outlander

And what if we have the opposite effect? Suppose we benefit from 150, waste 50, extirpate 799 and save 1? (I'll do the research to support my numbers if you produce some to support yours.)

For good reason, the peasants often stole because they had no moral backbone or belief in consequence toward actions not immediately prevented. — Outlander

Or maybe because they were hungry and ground under the landowner's heel? But that's a question for another tale.

Thank you, interesting article.

I have not yet seen a model of cattle ranching that's good for the cattle, the environment and the climate. Migrating herders of ancient times probably did no great harm, but I can't think of one good thing to say for barbed wire fences.

"good for the cattle"? What does that mean? Remember domesticated animals were invented to provide goods and services for humans. Commonly that involves their death or at minimum living in an unnatural situation. If humans don't need the goods and services of domesticated animals the option isn't living a wonderful life, it's to not exist at all.

I agree with you that small scale ranching leads to a better (less bad) quality of life for the animals, that's all I'm saying, take aim at the worst offenders, not the whole inductry.

I agree, it's worth it to me to choose higher quality (thus more expensive) meat and dairy not only for the quality of the product but also to compensate ranchers who practice more expensive techniques.

What does that mean? Remember domesticated animals were invented to provide goods and services for humans. Commonly that involves their death or at minimum living in an unnatural situation — LuckyR

They were not invented - like one of our vehicles or tools. They were bred from enslaved wild cattle. How does that justify mistreating them? There is a difference between 'unnatural' in the benign sense of domesticity and the reality of feed lots on the way to a slaughterhouse, usually in their early teens. (And, of course, we must not even mention chicken factories!)

There is no heavenly edict that requires us to keep breeding cattle, pigs and lambs for eternity.
'Not existing' has already happened to all the thousands of species we wiped out to make way farming and the highways to bring food to the cities. Not existing also happens to every baby prevented by a condom. Personally, I would prefer not to be born into a short, miserable life, in which I have no choices.

I agree with you that small scale ranching leads to a better (less bad) quality of life for the animals, that's all I'm saying, take aim at the worst offenders, not the whole inductry. — LuckyR

I'm not familiar with a model of small scale ranching (what numbers? on what acreage? what procedures?) that would be beneficial to cattle.
And I already am holding up the factory farms - not just in beef production; turkey and pig farms are probably worse; industrial scale corn and wheat are not doing the ecology any favours, either - as the epitome of bad ways to feed ourselves. I've already pointed out some positive changes small farmers are making to dairy production. I'll add here: free range eggs (which is what I buy, and they're twice as good as the factory version for the same price).
And I maintain that farming shouldn't be "an industry" like making shoes or car parts.

As far as I can tell we're in basic agreement, my only point is that to be fair, we should take into account the "purpose" of domesticated animals as being fundamentally different from the lives of wild animals.

my only point is that to be fair, we should take into account the "purpose" of domesticated animals as being fundamentally different from the lives of wild animals. — LuckyR

The word 'purpose' always pulls me up short. I understand the purpose of a sickle or a canoe: something made by n intelligent being to accomplish something he wanted to do.
When we talk (all too frequently!!) about purpose in our own lives, we attribute that purpose to a deity (I am a mere sickle in the hand of Ceres) or else we must define our purpose, each for herself.
I reject the idea of gods; I don't want to be their thing. I do not wish to be a god and make other sentient creatures my things.
We could compromise and strike some kind of equitable deal with domestic animals that doesn't elevate us to godhood or reduce them to thingness, but it's not an easy one to find. I applaud the people who are trying; I try to buy my protein from such people - and try to avoid buying it off an assembly line.
The relationship will never be easy or mutually beneficial until our technology catches up with the best of our intentions. The technology is rapidly approaching; the intention need serious improvement.

I get that domesticated animals aren't exactly akin to a sickle, however they're not like a wild animal either. Their genetics were crafted by humans to fulfill a human designed function. This function is their "purpose", really a quasi-purpose, hence the quotation marks.

I get that domesticated animals aren't exactly akin to a sickle, however they're not like a wild animal either. Their genetics were crafted by humans to fulfill a human designed function. — LuckyR

I know that. I also know that, because they are our property, made for our use, we tend to treat them like inanimate objects. And we have no real need - I mean need, as distinct from profit and desire - to have such vast numbers of captive, miserable animals. We have alternatives.
Since these strains have been adulterated to a point where most of them could not survive in the wild, the best way to let them go extinct is simply to stop artificial breeding programs. Allow the strongest and hardiest to mate at will and see if the offspring become adapted to life in the wild then release them gradually in small herds.
The rest will have to be slaughtered for the die-hard carnivores among us, as we wean ourselves off easy supermarket meat. The same people who, once the domestic livestock is no more available, will go after the surviving cattle and pigs in the wilderness and hunt them - probably with floodlights and overpowered military weapons. But the animals will at least have a chance at autonomous life.

I have no illusions about my species. Small gestures by well-meaning humans will be made - and many will succeed, but be ignored. Flocks of hens with no rooster lay eggs anyway; no reason they need to be kept in cages or have their beaks cut off. Dairy cows and goats can be induced to lactate without giving birth. Sheep don't need lambs to continue being sheared. Cheesemaking doesn't need rennet from calves. But a lot of people don't want to know, because the present system is quite lucrative, efficient and convenient.

Technology will continue to advance - while civilization lasts. We already have every possible food supplement; better vegetable-based processed food will become available - and the price would come down if the demand increased. Vat grown meat is also making progress, and will continue to be opposed by the meat lobby and rejected by hard-core carnivores. ('It's not natural!' - as if factory farming were.)

Humane eating is possible, and would become easy with humane human reproductive policies. But we're not going to have the benefit of either, because more powerful interests don't want it.

however they're not like a wild animal either. Their genetics were crafted by humans to fulfill a human designed function — LuckyR

Wait, is it true that if we released farm animals in the wild they would ALL just die? What if we released them in an appropriate environment? What if we were to release them gradually, to allow time for adaptation?

But the animals will at least have a chance at autonomous life. — Vera Mont

-> Vera Mont answered this a bit already

Wait, is it true that if we released farm animals in the wild they would ALL just die? — LFranc

They wouldn't just die. Nor would they be killed by predators, since we've already killed most of the predators. But they wouldn't find enough habitable territory or pasture for a normal herd existence. And I have no doubt the yahoos with their automatic weapons would mow them down as easy game, then let most of the carcasses rot where they drop, since they can only carry one steer in the pickup and store only half in their freezer; the rest would have to be smoked. Lots of time and work.

Divesting ourselves of meat culture wouldn't be a simple one-step procedure. It would have to be thought out, planned and implemented properly, with central co-ordination and global co-operation. Do you see humankind capable of that, for any endeavour except a war? We can't even get our act together in the last minute and a half to extinction.

How phasing out meat could work (other threats permitting) is a decline in the demand and increased demand for more sustainable protein sources. One by one, ranchers would have to sell up or change to a different method or different product. The freezer trucks would not be repaired or replaced and fall out of service. One slaughterhouse would close and then another, awaiting conversion to luxury bunkers or gymnasiums. Economies adapt to new circumstances. If there is time....

Per the eminent anti-ranching Bing Crosby & and the Andrews Sisters... — BC

Per Wikipedia:

Originally written in 1934 for Adios, Argentina, an unproduced 20th Century Fox film musical, "Don't Fence Me In" was based on text by Robert (Bob) Fletcher, a poet and engineer with the Department of Highways in Helena, Montana. Cole Porter, who had been asked to write a cowboy song for the 20th Century Fox musical, bought the poem from Fletcher for $250. Porter reworked Fletcher's poem, and when the song was first published, Porter was credited with sole authorship. Porter had wanted to give Fletcher co-authorship credit, but his publishers did not allow it. The original copyright publication notice dated October 10, 1944 and the copyright card dated and filed on October 12, 1944 in the U.S. Copyright Office solely lists words and music by Cole Porter. After the song became popular, however, Fletcher hired attorneys who negotiated his co-authorship credit in subsequent publications. Although it was one of the most popular songs of its time, Porter claimed it was his least favorite of his compositions.

(I only knew about this because I once ran lights for a local civic theater run of the biographical musical Red Hot and Cole.)

Just the kind of detailed information I live for!

Just the kind of detailed information I live for! — BC

:up:

Wait, is it true that if we released farm animals in the wild they would ALL just die? What if we released them in an appropriate environment? What if we were to release them gradually, to allow time for adaptation?

Alas, a non question. If everyone went vegan (highly unlikely, but it's a thought experiment), it would happen gradually. Thus as demand dropped over time, the amount of domesticated animals bred would drop to keep operating expenses down and profits up. Thus when demand hit zero, there would be close to zero animals to "release into the wild".