Science and Technology news... :: View topic

pearl · Guest

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:2TDMb.6789$zj7.2570@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

You>re a dirty liar, and I want to make that plainly known.
...
You have nothing, you are nothing and you>ll never be anything. Not
because you are not like the rest of us, prepared to try, try and try
again to succeed, but because you seek to drag everyone into the same
gutter you have built for yourself, and you refuse to drag yourself
out. Now that is how low you have become, in reality. This is the only
life you know, self abuse, the only way to get people to talk to you
is to abuse them, given a choice we would just pass you by and leave
you in the gutter where you belong, and obviously were born.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

pearl · Guest

"Russ Thompson" <pmfb@mwt.net> wrote in message news:40030855_2@corp.newsgroups.com...
[quote]'On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace,
at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, ..'

snip waffle[/quote]

[quote]The U of Wisconsin has found that land under controlled grazing
actually builds soil rather than erodes it.
[/quote]
Why isn>t such 'controlled grazing' widely practiced then?

[quote]How many tons of soild would be eroded from that same land if the
grain grown was fed to people instead of animals?
[/quote]
Have you 800 million people to feed with the grain grown on that land?

drdoody · Guest

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:btv8rm$ci3$1@kermit.esat.net...

[quote]http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

[/quote]

Ho-Lee Kee-Rist! Please, *please* tell me you didn>t create that... for lack
of a better term, *thing*. An entire website full of kooky, barely coherent
ranting devoted to one singular person you>ve had a beef with on Usenet? Do
you realize just how incredibly nuts that little display makes you look?
Usenet is virtual, not real. Why not reserve your obviously engorged
reservoir of hatred for something that matters?

Yeah, Ball... you were right. Schwartz and pearl are seeing pretty much
eye-to-eye.

Doc

--
"I>m at peace
with my lust.
I can kill because in God I trust.
It>s Evolution, baby."

Pearl Jam "Do the Evolution"

pearl · Guest

"drdoody" <drdoody@dieslowly.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%NFMb.3732$566.2669@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

[quote]"I>m at peace
with my lust.
I can kill because in God I trust.
It>s Evolution, baby."
[/quote]
Sad doody. <plonk>

drdoody · Guest

--
"I>m at peace
with my lust.
I can kill because in God I trust.
It>s Evolution, baby."

Pearl Jam "Do the Evolution"
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:btva5d$cut$1@kermit.esat.net...
[quote]"drdoody" <drdoody@dieslowly.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%NFMb.3732$566.2669@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

"I>m at peace
with my lust.
I can kill because in God I trust.
It>s Evolution, baby."

Sad doody. <plonk

[/quote]
Actually, I didn>t write that. They>re song lyrics. Secondly, do you
honestly think that the opinion or attention of a half-baked lunatic means
all that much to me?

"Sad"? I>m not the one spending obviously enormous amounts of time and
effort creating a web page devoted to a single person I>ve never met.

Doc

Rat & Swan · Guest

Michael Saunby wrote:

[quote]"Rat & Swan" <labrat@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?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]When did you last see a wild
cow, or a wild sheep, or even a wild dog or cat?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]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?
[/quote]
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).

[quote]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.
[/quote]
No reason why that would not be a good idea.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Yes, as of now, certainly.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Yes, if one is talking about an omnivorous culture.

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

Rat

Dean Hoffman · Guest

On 1/11/04 9:23 PM, in article
400214bd$0$1739$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au, "Fran"
<maura@takethisbitoutwebone.com.au> wrote:

[quote]"Dean Hoffman" <dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote in message
On 1/11/04 8:57 AM, in article 4001644d_1@corp.newsgroups.com, "Russ
Thompson" <pmfb@mwt.net> wrote:

*** Long term results would be the (more rapid) loss of top soil and
soil
fertility. Agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable.

I take it you mean sustainable without chemical fertilizers.

How do you translate Farm animals into chemical fertilizers? Farm animals
to traditional (or organic) fertilizers I could understand but chemical
fertilizers???????
[/quote]
I>m real glad you asked that. I don>t have the foggiest idea.
How about agriculture without farm animals is unsustainable without
chemical fertilizers?

Dean

-----= 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! =-----

Dean Hoffman · Guest

On 1/12/04 10:18 AM, in article btuiaf$kh2$1@reader2.nmix.net, "Rat & Swan"
<labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:

Some cut.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
More cut.

It comes down to ease of application and money. There>s a little bit of
information here:

http://manure.unl.edu/v3n5_97.html

Note that a ton of sludge yields under 4# of nitrogen. It takes roughly
1# of N to produce a bushel of corn. Yields of 200 bu./acre aren>t that
unusual anymore on irrigated farms. I think the U.S. average yield is about
130 bu./acre.
Why do you think chemical fertilizers aren>t as good as manure etc.?

Dean

-----= 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! =-----

ta · Guest

Rat & Swan <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote in message news:<btuiaf$kh2$1@reader2.nmix.net>...
[quote]ta wrote:

Rat & Swan <labrat@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.
[/quote]
I hear you, but how can one do what is right without a reasonable
understanding of the consequences of the decision?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
The basic drive in all animals is to propagate, so population control
is a sticky subject. You would think that we humans, given we are the
only species who can actually contemplate, and hopefully anticipate,
our own demise, would have a leg up, but it doesn>t appear that way to
me. Perhaps we are too adaptive for our own good.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
I>ve made the suggestion before that we ought to be moving toward a
more primitive model of civilization in some ways, more akin to the
foraging/hunting/gathering societies . . . at which I>m usually met
with guffaws and chants of "luddite"! :-) I think we need to
seriously consider such things, though I>m afraid it may happen too
late.

[quote]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. :)
[/quote]
Indeed.

[quote]Rat
snip[/quote]

ta · Guest

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:<1004kjk1432hb7f@news.supernews.com>...
[quote]"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
"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?

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?

Let>s be fair. *Some* AR activists and vegans advocate that. *Most*
ARs and vegans are concerned with cruelty issues first and foremost.
Everyone knows that animal products are not going to disappear
overnight. However, it certainly does warrant understanding the
ramifications if one is to propose such an ideal.

Good idea, but as Tom Regan put it, "We must do what is right, though the
heavens fall." That>s the "leader" of the modern AR movement.

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

If it were a sudden, revolutionary change as I proposed, I>d certainly
agree. A gradual, evolutionary change might yield different results
though.

The dilemma would still remain, population X and growing, demanding Y
calories and growing, to be fed by an ever shrinking number of sources of
calories.
[/quote]
I think population control is critical - mother nature may take care
of that problem for us shortly anyway. Despite that, there is enough
food to feed the world currently, so eliminating the ineffeciences
associated with meat eating would be a major step in the right
direction. And of course all this depends on using wiser, more
sustainable farming methods, as "Rat" pointed out.

[quote]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.

Yes, distribution seems to be one of the key stumbling blocks in
finding alternatives to these huge industrial operations.

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.

I think reality dictates that any changes would happen gradually over
time. I>m just trying to anticipate what the obstacles are.

Economic disaster and starvation on an unprecedented scale. I think it would
make an excellent theme for a sci-fi novel.
[/quote]
Economic disaster and mass starvation are imminent anyway, given our
current direction. Fundamentally changing our views about the natural
world is necesssary to prevent that scenario.

Jonathan Ball · Guest

Lesley, the CONVICTED Irish whore, wrote:
[quote]"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:2TDMb.6789$zj7.2570@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

You>re a ...
[/quote]
Stick to the issues, will you?

Jonathan Ball · Guest

drdoody wrote:

[quote]"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:btv8rm$ci3$1@kermit.esat.net...

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Ho-Lee Kee-Rist! Please, *please* tell me you didn>t create that... for lack
of a better term, *thing*. An entire website full of kooky, barely coherent
ranting devoted to one singular person you>ve had a beef with on Usenet?
[/quote]
Is that unbelievable, or what? I mean, I can>t even
get angry over that. It>s the most slap-dash,
amateurish, WEIRD hate page I>ve ever seen.

[quote]Do you realize just how incredibly nuts that little display makes you look?
[/quote]
Sad to say, I don>t think there>s any way she COULD
realize how stupid it makes her look. That>s one of
the problems she>s experiencing from letting her
syphilis go untreated for so long.

[quote]Usenet is virtual, not real. Why not reserve your obviously engorged
reservoir of hatred for something that matters?

Yeah, Ball... you were right. Schwartz and pearl are seeing pretty much
eye-to-eye.
[/quote]
Well, without more exposure to Schwartz, I couldn>t say
for sure. All I know is that Lesley is one seriously
addled slut.

Bob Yates · Guest

Rat & Swan wrote:
[quote]
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.

Bad example, corn/maize is not a wild plant, it>s ancestor was very[/quote]
different.
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news260.htm

Other mistakes also, but I am getting tired

Rat & Swan · Guest

Bob Yates wrote:
[quote]Rat & Swan wrote:

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.

Bad example, corn/maize is not a wild plant, it>s ancestor was very
different.
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news260.htm
[/quote]
Yes, that was the ancestor I was thinking of. I remember reading about
the discovery -- sorry if I got it a bit muddled in memory.

<snip>

Rat

Russ Thompson · Guest

[quote]I am envisioning the replacement of large-scale, industrial animal
production facilities with many small, organic, sustainable farms.
[/quote]
*** You can>t have both. Pick one sustainable or organic.

Kala

-----= 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! =-----


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7