= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Romashka comments on The ethics of eating meat - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (59)
No role in natural ecosystems? Large herbivores certainly do, unless you would rather the woods and shrubbery cover vast expanses which are now grazed into meadowhood - but that would likely have lots of negative consequences, including wildlife loss from edge habitats (and even from quite transformed ones).
Now, chickens are different...
I am in favour of continuing to farm animals on places where you can't grow crops, simply because i value humans higjer than animals and this increases overall food supply. But today we are talking mainly about animals that are feedet with plants. If the grassland cant be used to grow eatable plants it can stay grassland and have cows on it.
But the places where you can grow crops are wide flat open spaces, which would get re(?)vegetated with woody plants when you take off the grazing pressure.
There's pretty small grassland which has not been converted to some kind of use in the developed world, and I think in the developing world, too.
Depends on the climate. A semi-desert (e.g. a lot of Western US) is a wide flat open space, but it doesn't change over to a forest without the grazing pressure.
Does much grazing occur there? Because if not, then this is somewhat irrelevant.
Some. However the areas with grazing (usually non-intensive and by cows, not goats or sheep) aren't much different from areas without grazing. You just won't get forests in sufficiently arid climates. Brush, yes, some trees along the usually dry creek beds, yes, forests, no.