The soil depth
> and base is still there, and without unnatural erosion from tillage it
> would not take too long.
(as the post later discusses Australia, I thought I would chip in here.
We do have fertile areas mostly along the east coast. There are others
which are somewhat fertile, but it's more like the grass plains (more
trees perhaps) you describe the US as being like before it was 'settled'
(that's probably the wrong word - no offence to anyone). We have a lot
more trees relatively (based on what has been posted here) than the US,
but it's not to be seen as a sign that the land is more furtile, it's
actually because the trees themselves are seemingly better able to
flourish in arduous conditions. Apart from the east coast, most of the
other land with plant life does not lend itself as readily to food
crops. If anything the situation is moving even more in that direction.
This will sound goofy, but we to have a soil erosion problem. Mostly due
to rabbits. They aren't a native animal, there was 84 rabbits
(seriously) that came over on one of the early colonisation fleets.
Depending on whoi you believe, they either escaped or were set free.
>From this population 84 rabbits we now have them (and it was this way in
a decade after they disappeared) in incredible numbers - plague
proportions.. They are a pest, burrowing and destroying arable land,
eating native plant life, and severely monopolising it, meaning native
animals face a much bigger challenge just to feed themselves. Despite a
fairly intense amount of resources allocated to addressing this, they
have to date evolved and become immune to everything tried. Their
numbers are so great that any virus introduced, there are enough that
some will randomly have a mutation that renders them immune. These are
the ones who survive so the gene is passed on and the remaining
population will all carry that gene.
The only other significan't cause of soil erosion is farming. I don't
know of the exact reasons 'why' it contributes, but it does nonetheless.
It's when trees are cleared to make room for crops.
The point of me posting this is to add some data to what was sort of
being discussed. The impact that 'infecting' any environment - with
plants/animals that are not native - is for the most part significantly
negative. eco-systems evolve in harmony more or less - the animals adapt
to the conditions (climate & food sources) as do the plants. They
further adapt in respect to one another. This takes place over years,
decades - always has always will. Throw something else in the mix and it
will create dramas. Especially if it is severely different to existing
species. Changes naturally occur gradually and subtlely.
It makes an interesting parallel to the ideas on this group about
eating. We evolved for a number of millenia for a certain nutrition
profile. Throw something new in and it can cause problems. In the case
of people in India, they probably have an extra thousand years or more
of time consuming a close to meatless diet. Some vegetarians would just
take the single issue - i.e. these people are ok on a vegetarian diet,
so it must be the best for everyone. It totally ignores the fact that
they have more than likely evolved a little further in ability to thrive
on a vegetarian diet. You cold go one step further and also point out
that there is no 'control' group to compare it to. For all we know,
these same people may fare even better on a carnivorous or posslbly
omnivorous. Without testing being undertaken to see if a meat inclusive
diet is better or worse for them, any comments to the effect that as a
people they prove a vegetarian diet is superior are dubious at best. I
think it would be worthwhile for proper controlled studies to be done.
Another piece in hte puzzle.
Possibly the best thing about a lot of our land mass is the fact that
it _can't_ be used for crops - it means that it is left alone
agriculturally speaking. There are the cattle stations, but they don't
tax the soil greatly. These cattle stations (called stations here - I
suppose the equivalent of a ranch) and bloody huge, so the cattle are
moved from area to area. The plant life has time to recover.
> No, they would be managed, semi-wild herds, like the longhorn cattle
> that lived wild all year and then were rounded up in cattle drives for
> slaugther. Most of the time they would not recognise the difference.
> We would use them the way the American Indians did, but with far less
> wastage. Their body fat is the same as a wild animal's. Check out the
> range cattle herds of Australia to get an idea what I mean, or the old
> system of range cattle in the US.
I wish I had have read the whole post before starting my response -
could have saved some of the typing here. Our beef is quite lean for the
most part - especially if you average it out and compare that fat% to
the average of beef overseas. There are fatty cuts/even herds that are
bred especially for it, but on the whole the cattle are lean. Possibly a
combination of the food source + the amount of exercise they get -
moving from area to area (so it's good for the cattle not just the plant
life). Again the food and exercise (and no certainty as to which of them
contributes what) have yet another positive effect, and I don't work in
the cattle industry - but our beef has a first rate taste. It's not just
me, people I have spoken to from overseas have mentioned how good it is.
One would have to at least consider the idea (and again it would be nice
to have some sort of controlled study on this) - that if the conditions
the cattle are raised in can affect the taste, it is at least possible
it could affect some attribute which would affect some people
negatively.
> > Healthy animals to eat just need enormous amounts of space to live on.
> > No problem for small populations.
Well in this case we are lucky - 20 million of us. Enormous spaces are
everywhere, and aren't good for much else..
Most of the human population is now
> packed into very small spaces in cities. They seem to like it that
> way.
This is also the case in Australia. something like 25-30% of our total
population is contained in Sydney and Melbourne alone.
> I do not know how to get from where we are now to where I would like
> to go. I do not see a very large number of people giving up their
> addictive grain based lifestyle for a healthier natural one.
I am reminded of a description of a particular ant - I think in South
America. They bulid up the ant hole, more ants are born, and in
something like a couple of weeks it gets massive in total area. It then
gets a bit bigger and to the point that it is taking more resources and
effort just to sustain itself. Then it collapses in on itself (in terms
of a 'society' not as much the physical structure. And it then repeats
itself. I am curious as to whether humans will address this issue before
it goes so far that the whole planet is stuffed. Considering the track
record - forests being cleared for timber during the industrial
revolution, lots of species facing extinction, massive pollution etc, I
suspect it will will be unlikely for it to be any different.
I dare say that the human species will do a very similar thing on a
grand scale. As the population spirals, so must food productions. It
will (much like early civilisations) result in a food production that
can sustain the greatest number of people - albeit significantly
unhealthily. In bygone days it was what it took to have 'the numbers' .
5,000 malnourished people could still easily slaughter an army of 2000
healthy strong people. The actual difference in population of a hunter
gatherer culture (in contrast to a culture that raised animals for
consumption) for any given land mass would probably be astronomically
smaller than an agricultural based one. Unhealthy they may be but still
a superior foe. Now and no doubt more so in the future, the goal/outcome
is the same as then - sustain the population by the most space efficient
means regardless of how healthy they will be. The only difference is
that unlike before where it was perhaps needed for the civlisation to
survive attack, now the need stems from the fact that the population is
increasing - the sizable calorific need is already there.
--
John McKenzie
|
