From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: California/Desert
Date: 23 Jan 1993 23:39:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


Rich Young observes:

>ry> About 25% of California's water is used for livestock, so simply
>ry> "cutting back" wouldn't save all of that water, either.  


Russell Lawrence retorts:

>It depends on the level of the cuts, don't you think?  If 
>Californian's were to eliminate animal agriculture altogether, 
>it's clear that they would realize a savings of 25%.  


I say:

Whoah lets not jump the gun on this Russ.  First of all the economics of the
situation say that if a major producer quits abruptly, the price/unit
skyrockets until other producers increase output and new producers enter
the market, witness the $40/barrel oil up from $15/barrel at the start of
the Gulf War when Iraqi oil exports were halted.  Perhaps some Argentine or
Brazilian ranchs will distroy some more rain forest to increase production?
Secondly and more importantly is that those cows are raised for FOOD.  If
these cows were to vanish as assumed by your simple modle of the world, the
people depending on them for meat and dairy products would have to start to
eat lets just say vegetables, this makes the demand for vegetables
skyrocket and thus their price (initially).  More land will have to be
dedicated to farming.  Lets just say that this same california desert is
used.  Surely you dont believe that it will not have to be irrigated?  That
25% of the water now being used on cattle wont just be freed, a great
portion of it will have to be diverted to the production of alternate food
such as veggies.  This conversion will not be easy either if you consider
that the most fertile land is already being used in veggie production and
the less fertile land for cattle.  It will surely take more water to bring
this infertile land up the the quality of the land already in veggie
production so thus the average gallon/unit food ratio will be higher than
in the established farms.  That 25% savings isnt quite as clear now is it?
  

Rich Young notes:

>ry>Frankly, I think growing anything in a desert which requires the
>ry>importation of water is stupid, including dairy cows...and people.


To Which Mr. Lawrence adds:

>Is your concept of "stupidity" a black-and-white determination, 
>or, are there any shades of grey?  For example, let's assume that 
>you were living in an arid region and had a fixed amount of water at 
>your disposal for all purposes, including food production.  

People didnt use to live in arid regions, they died there or moved.  The
population of Africa used to be much smaller, primarily because of disease.
The people that lived near the desert were nomads and moved with the
expanding and contracting desert.  Some time ago western man gained power
over diseases such as malaria and the plaque, the vaccines and treatments
were relatively inexpensive.  Some bleeding hearts said "oh its such a
shame that these poor people will die of a disease that we can prevent so
cheaply, lets go imunize them" so the diseases were wiped out and the
population boomed.  Now there are way to many people for that land to
support and the blame is squarely on our shoulders.  Its sad to say that
letting one person die fifty years ago would probably mean about 50 less
people in that country today because the births/woman in that part of the
world like 10.  Now there are so many of them that in just a few
generations the already poor land is worse, not to mention that the desert
is currently in expansion mode.  Together with a drought for the modern
record books and you've got a famine.  Add to that pressure from the west
to protect wildlife such as elephants and zebras that could be used for
food and ask yourself who's at fault.  Obviously we should have left them
alone 50 years ago and there wouldnt be too many of them to made nomading
feasible.  The not-so-simple question is should we once again try to solve
their problems for them and risk another round of unknown consequences or
shall wlet naturere take its corse and the famine will reduce the
population to one that the land can support. 

I propose that quality of life is much more important than the sancity of
life.  I would rather not be born than live to age 5 in abject poverty
facing starvation every step of the way.  I think that the quality>sancity
value is one shared by many americans considering that of the 1/3 of the
people that still dont believe in a woman's right to choose, many of them
will say that abortion is OK in the event that the fetus, if allowed to
develop into a child, will suffer from extreme pain and eventual death due
to extreme mental and physical abnormalities.


alex the omnivore


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals