The redneck strike again.

[Confused Ape]

Man become man about a million years ago.
Before he was very similar to an primate so your idea that man was man for more than a million of years is just rubbish.

I said "we and our ancestors" which includes the apelike animals which came before humans because they are our ancestors, too.

Aborigines are those who really started to screwed up Australia before the arrival of white man which finish the job to put the nails on the coffin.

The point of my linking to that article about aborigines was to show that the women catch small game. This means they don't run around hunting with weapons. Our remote ancestors could also have caught small game like that so they wouldn't have needed big teeth and claws etc. They just caught their meat in the same way that chimps and bonobos do today. Humans only moved on to hunting big animals once they'd invented proper weapons.

[bennyboy]

Animals have the advantage of condensing some of the more important nutrients from the earth into meat, and meat has the additional advantage of being relatively easy to store and transport without spoiling. The cost of this, as I see it, is a loss of caloric efficiency.

They can turn things we can't eat, into things that we can,and in the process generate the inputs required to grow yet more food.

They CAN, but don't. You know as well as I do how the US cattle industry works.

as a vegetarian, I hope to minimize the impact of my uselessness.

Your vegetarianism doesn't accomplish that. The issues that seem to bother you aren't caused by what we eat, or even how much we eat, but the manner in which we produce what we eat.

I agree and have said so. If cattle were truly free-grazed, on land that was unsuitable for human-edible plant crops, then nobody could make an efficiency claim. There could still be other issues-- methane production and potentially disease issues, but I don't think anyone could argue that cattle kill as many voles and birds as industrial vegetable farming practices do.

The numbers of efficiency with regards to farmers and the general public are less forgiving btw. Less than 1% of us feed the rest of us. This could be the case anywhere, and we could be even more efficient if we chose to be. In fact, you'll never find a number of people in which that ratio would change. If we reduced our population to 10% of current levels, less than 1% of that 10% could feed the lot. You'll always be useless, by your own metrics - as will the same portion of human beings no matter how small the number becomes. If there were 100 of us, 99 would be useless. If there were ten, 9 would be useless (since a fraction of a person can't farm, of course). In fact...the only number that makes sense with this sort of justification is 1. It seems pretty damned absurd to me that we consider this as any sort of option when we always have the option of feeding more people, better food, in greater quantities than are currently available to them - while reducing the footprint of the system, and minimizing or eliminating the suffering of animals involved in that system. Do you want to accomplish those goals -or is the goal, more accurately put- to get rid of people?

There's another option-- reverse the industrial efficiencies and focus on other values-- sustainability, lower impact on ecosystems, etc. Doing this requires smaller (or no) machinery, basically a technological step back. If we have billions of people sitting around doing essentially nothing, why not scrap the 100-meter-wide threshers or whatever (I hope I'm exaggerating but not sure), and get people actually working fields by hand? Hand-picking grain would save all those voles and birds I was talking about, and give people a respect for their food they haven't had in a long time.

We could end all suffering and eliminate any footprint whatsoever if we just burnt this entire rock to cinder with all hands on deck. Hell, it'd probably be easier and cheaper than growing food too. No, no, wait, how about we eliminate 90% of non-human life? Wouldn't that fall within the confines of your justifications just as easily as eliminating the excess human animals might? After all, we're all on equal footing, eh? Or, still just spitballing, we could set up a lottery with every living thing represented as a number - then we could eliminate whatever the ping pong ball tells us too until only 10% of what we began with remains, human, non-human..the whole lot.

Well, either we self-limit, or we continue to grow until there are no real viable solutions. Right now, changes in food production could improve our quality of life and minimize the environmental effects of so many people. But if we get more efficient, and end up supporting 20 billion people, we'll hit a point where only efficiency matters, and quality of life is no longer an option to consider.

[The Grand Nudger]

They CAN, but don't. You know as well as I do how the US cattle industry works.

Yes, they do, how many times do I have to repeat this? Feed corn is not corn fit for human consumption. All corn isn't created equal, so to speak. I'll explain some of the differences, in the specifics.

Feed corn is largely grown without irrigation. It's planted with the stalks pretty much supporting each other and with no discernable rows. Very dense stuff. It requires a lesser amount of nutrients and can be treated with more herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides, more often..though it doesn't have to be to provide a decent ROI (because livestock don;t seem to care how pretty their food is). Lesser compared to table corn, that is. Table corn which requires more water, about a palms breadth between stalks, and a foot and a half between rows. Table corn which cannot be treated with the same spectrum of chemicals and must be managed much more carefully with regards to those chemicals. Table corn also has to meet marketability requirements, people just don't buy ugly food, it is what it is. Granted, most of the unmarketable stuff gets processed (but we see what sort of trouble that's been getting us into and yes, this less-than-marketable excess does get fed to livestock when the human consumption market is flooded - the alternative being to simply throw it away).

(table corn, feedcorn, canning corn, processing corn...all of these things are different commodities)

I agree and have said so. If cattle were truly free-grazed, on land that was unsuitable for human-edible plant crops, then nobody could make an efficiency claim. There could still be other issues-- methane production and potentially disease issues, but I don't think anyone could argue that cattle kill as many voles and birds as industrial vegetable farming practices do.

The corn and the feedlots are even more efficient than grazing (that's why we do it that way). I wouldn't do it, but meh, you know.

There's another option-- reverse the industrial efficiencies and focus on other values-- sustainability, lower impact on ecosystems, etc. Doing this requires smaller (or no) machinery, basically a technological step back. If we have billions of people sitting around doing essentially nothing, why not scrap the 100-meter-wide threshers or whatever (I hope I'm exaggerating but not sure), and get people actually working fields by hand? Hand-picking grain would save all those voles and birds I was talking about, and give people a respect for their food they haven't had in a long time.

Plenty of options, but I don't know if I'd advocate for the luddite option. You wouldn't tell a doctor to take a step beck, right? I am a smaller machinery guy myself, smaller and better, more advanced - more efficient. Hand harvest is unlikely to save much wildlife, but there's something to be said for putting hungry people to work in a garden. Ultimately though, it won't work. Human labor is the highest cost of production, even though most fieldworkers get paid dick as is, and an army of them (larger than the current army) would only serve to make food even more expensive and less efficient. There are some pretty novel production systems for row crops that could tilt the scales a little bit, like vertical integration (essentially get more out of the human machine per step taken) but it's hard to compete with the machines.

Well, either we self-limit, or we continue to grow until there are no real viable solutions. Right now, changes in food production could improve our quality of life and minimize the environmental effects of so many people. But if we get more efficient, and end up supporting 20 billion people, we'll hit a point where only efficiency matters, and quality of life is no longer an option to consider.

That's one of those bridges we'd have to cross when we got there, and wouldn't it be fantastic to have such a problem? 20 billion people, all of them adequately fed, wondering not so much how to stop them from starving, but how to increase their quality of life.

[bennyboy]

Plenty of options, but I don't know if I'd advocate for the luddite option. You wouldn't tell a doctor to take a step beck, right?

The doctor's job isn't one of efficiency, and reducing technology is unlikely to provide an actual benefit.

I am a smaller machinery guy myself, smaller and better, more advanced - more efficient. Hand harvest is unlikely to save much wildlife, but there's something to be said for putting hungry people to work in a garden.

Well, hand harvesting won't turn voles, birds and snakes into mulch. That's something. And I think it's fundamentally good for people to get away from the Oprah re-runs and out into the world of things they can touch with their own hands, nuture, grow, and eat. Part of the "useless" comment I'm taking flak for is that people are completely disconnected from the real world, living in a media-fantasy which dehumnanizes them. People need to be re-humanized.

Ultimately though, it won't work. Human labor is the highest cost of production, even though most fieldworkers get paid dick as is, and an army of them (larger than the current army) would only serve to make food even more expensive and less efficient.

That's the point. Our society is too efficient, and there are too many people who are not needed to make any important contribution. This leads to a hedonistic consumerism and all the environmental consequences that we can see today. There's nothing wrong with feeling good. There is, however, something wrong with good feelings that serve no useful purpose and involve large scale waste and disruption of ecosystems for no good reason.

Well, either we self-limit, or we continue to grow until there are no real viable solutions. Right now, changes in food production could improve our quality of life and minimize the environmental effects of so many people. But if we get more efficient, and end up supporting 20 billion people, we'll hit a point where only efficiency matters, and quality of life is no longer an option to consider.

That's one of those bridges we'd have to cross when we got there, and wouldn't it be fantastic to have such a problem? 20 billion people, all of them adequately fed, wondering not so much how to stop them from starving, but how to increase their quality of life.

No, I don't think that's a wonderful vision at all. I see that as a vision of over-brained amoeba sucking up every last resource till they're choking on their own shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's unlikely that reducing technology will lead to any benefits in ag either. We can take a look at "old tech" with our new high tech eyes, that's been showing promise, but just abandoning tech in ag isn't going to do anyone any good (that includes non-human animals). I promise you...lol, there's nothing inherently humanizing about working at a farm. I'd honestly prefer that you (and a few hundred others) were busy teaching and painting and composing and building and designing and playing (I could go on and on), while I dug the trenches. I love this stuff, I've never known anyone who didn't to be very good at it. Seems more like a chore to them(from my pov) - a hot, gritty hell with slim margins and no sense of achievement. The fewer people that have to be involved in this stuff from the working end the better. I just like to tell people whats involved, so that they can make informed decisions.

You're against waste, you have a moral issue with it....but now we're "too efficient"?

[bennyboy]

It's unlikely that reducing technology will lead to any benefits in ag either. We can take a look at "old tech" with our new high tech eyes, that's been showing promise, but just abandoning tech in ag isn't going to do anyone any good (that includes non-human animals). I promise you...lol, there's nothing inherently humanizing about working at a farm. I'd honestly prefer that you (and a few hundred others) were busy teaching and painting and composing and building and designing and playing (I could go on and on), while I dug the trenches. I love this stuff, I've never known anyone who didn't to be very good at it. Seems more like a chore to them(from my pov) - a hot, gritty hell with slim margins and no sense of achievement. The fewer people that have to be involved in this stuff from the working end the better. I just like to tell people whats involved, so that they can make informed decisions.

The problem is that most people don't paint and compose and build and design and play, because they don't have the money or the health to do those things. Most people sit around watching Oprah re-runs and eating KindaMeat™ TV dinners. They are useless not only to the society by which they are unneeded and to which they do not contribute, they are useless to themselves or to the wonderful life they should be trying to lead.

You're against waste, you have a moral issue with it....but now we're "too efficient"?

Yes, because the efficiency renders most of humanity as a wasted resource, and I'm against wasting resources.

I reckon we should distribute food better, guaranteeing all people adequate health, and then put that human labor to good use colonizing Mars or something. I do not think we should feed them waffles and Big Macs, requiring the existence of big animals in little shitty spaces, as a way to let off the "steam" caused by our efficient production of food.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, because the efficiency renders most of humanity as a wasted resource, and I'm against wasting resources.

They are potential. Our efficiency in ag increases that potential by freeing them up. Not all resources show immediate promise or have an obvious use. As a teacher, iirc, this ought to be obvious to you. What would we do without all these people, and how do we know which ones will make those big discoveries that your chosen profession exists solely to disseminate...who would you disseminate that information to? How do you judge potential? Am I wasting the excess steam cranking out of my head growing food when I could be curing cancer or designing interplanetary colonization vehicles? You really have to let this "useless" shit go man.

I reckon we should distribute food better, guaranteeing all people adequate health, and then put that human labor to good use colonizing Mars or something. I do not think we should feed them waffles and Big Macs, requiring the existence of big animals in little shitty spaces, as a way to let off the "steam" caused by our efficient production of food.

I'm with you 100% on every item. I suppose I could modify one, I think we ought to distribute -food production- better. Distribution of commodities is one of the problems with our current system (though I'm sure we could eliminate the nastiness and keep the distribution model). I would also caution against good use, "good use", with regards to labor, would be up to the individual (but putting boots on the ground on some other planet definitely deserves billing on the list of good use..lol). "Good use" may be nothing more than singing me a song while I pull weeds...

[Little Rik]

The sahara..riketto, is the result of a rainshadow from a set of very large mountains...just one of natures "non-mistakes". Let's give a nod to the tilt of the earth as well, while we're handing out kudos to nature for a job well done.

Let wonder lead you to knowledge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_shadow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

You're welcome.

The sahara..rhythm, is the result of ............. a rainshadow or whatever you like which in turn is the result of .......the tilt of the earth or whatever you like but at the end we got to go back to the original cause of all.
We got rock pictures which show that man was hunting animals that of course did not live in the desert and then we got petrified trees which of course did not live in a desert.
So who really screwed up this non desert into a desert?
Mother nature or humans?
What happened in the past is repeated today so you can't really go wrong in finding out the real culprit.
You burn the trees in order to let the grass grow so the animals are attracted and the kill is easily.
And these days you cut the trees in order to plant soya or other crops for animals feed.
Once you get rid of the trees the climate change for the worse.
The heat increase, the ice melt, once the ice melt the earth will experience a pole shift which will tilt the earth axis as the ice caps that were holding the axis in place are gone and all get screwed up.
But of course to go back to the original cause is too complicated for your intellect.
Well, as grandma said.......it is never too late to learn.

[Confused Ape]

And these days you cut the trees in order to plant soya or other crops for animals feed.

Soya is used for vegetarian products, including soy milk.

As for nature never making mistakes, what about the dinosaur extinction which was most likely caused by an asteroid impact?

[Baqal]

@Confused Ape
-As for nature never making mistakes, what about the dinosaur extinction which was most likely caused by an asteroid impact?
Why do you view that as a mistake?