Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: A republic of lutz.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RAFH

1
Doesn't matter anyway. Dave's going to save the world by wiping them out. :D
Nah, they get their 2 acres each as well. I mean, might as well, can't be more than a couple of thousand of them and in comparison to the billions of humans, nobody will notice.
2
Orang o' Tang: people of the space-age powdered fruit drink

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I was thinking of Dear Leader's Hair Color.
3
Lol

Quote
The left-wing conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russian officials ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign continued to crash and burn Friday, with Robert Mueller's indictment showing the foreign nationals began meddling in US politics one year before Donald Trump announced his run for office.

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/collusion-collapse-mueller-says-russian-meddling-began-before-trumps-candidacy/amp/

It doesn't matter when it began. 

The point is that Trump has refused to accept that it's anything other than a hoax, and has tried to stop the investigation.

Not only that, but this particular indictment isn't about hacking the DNC but about spreading *real* fake news - actual made up material, spread as though it was real, and picked up by channels like your favorite "news" sources.

If Trump is innocent why does he regard this major crime against the US as a "hoax"?  Just vanity?

And given that you can't even be bothered to read the indictments, and are so ignorant of actual news that you didn't even know that Trump had repeatedly denied that there had been an Russian attack on US democracy, and has done everything in his power to subvert Obama's retaliation for those attacks, what on earth makes you think that your evidence-free speculations about Obama are more solid than the evidence-supported theories about Trump?
Generalized First Law.
4
My admittedly limited Research into this topic leads me to believe that opening up the rainforest canopy to between 20% and 50% canopy cover with grass planted below would be a nice compromise which would feed large numbers of people while at the same time being truly sustainable over thousands of years.

I hope to conduct some experiments along these lines in southern Guyana based out of the village that I visited in 2011.
Hopefully someone in the government of Guyana will see you for the militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboy you are and will keep you out of the country or kick you out if you manage to get in.
5
Back to the Amazon ... one question I have is ... is it possible to convert rainforest to pasture land successfully?  I think the answer is "Yes" judging from information from Greenpeace and others ...


Why would we want to destroy rain forest?
Rainforest is being destroyed already. What my ideas can do is modify rainforest constructively and productively rather than destroy it.  What we need is balance. Pure rainforest cannot feed very many people. And pure cattle ranching at least done in the conventional way will degrade soils over time.  So ideally we need to find a balance between number of trees and amount of grassland which will feed a maximum number of people but will not destroy the ecosystem over time.
There is no functionally useful amount of grass land that will not destroy the ecosystem over time. If the ecosystem was going to have substantial grasslands, it would already have substantial grasslands. What is it about just leaving it alone that bothers you so much.

Ya know, we in the US waste 40% of the food being grown. Just cutting that in half would increase the available food to be consumed by 33%. Do that world wide and we'd have more food than we'd know what to do with. And that's actually got an economic incentive, it will cost less to produce consumable food. We could either use the excess or, perhaps better yet, simply not use as much land, and in particular, not use land not already domesticated.
6
BTW, I take it we're no longer talking about poisonous plants, or about why there's no reason to know or do specific things in HMG.

Oh well.
It was time for a diversion.

We must keep the show going. Time is of the essence and all that.
7
Back to the Amazon ... one question I have is ... is it possible to convert rainforest to pasture land successfully?  I think the answer is "Yes" judging from information from Greenpeace and others ...


Bluffy, that map is showing the deforestation of the Amazon due to cattle. It's not suggesting it is possible to convert rainforest to pasture successfully, at least not over more than a few years. It only illustrates that deforestation is going on at an alarming rate.
Hahahaha .... what do the cattle eat, Raffy?  Dirt?

I guess you skipped over the disclaimer following the quote from your post.

Yes, you can slash just about anything and then, after letting it dry some, burn it. That temporarily enriches the soil and grass will grow. For a time being. Maybe a few years, like I said. Then the soil is depleted and useless for grazing. At least until it goes through the cycle and becomes rain forest again. That does not mean it's sustainable. A lot of the reforestation is dependent upon the surrounding rain forest. But if that's been slashed and burned as well, that cycle turns a lot slower. And, yes, it's possible to exceed the ground's ability to sustain a forest, at least in terms of human life spans.
8
  Massive changes that I am aware of (within the last 2000 years) are the result of man's activities, not Mother Nature's.
You think the Viking farms on Greenland were abandoned because they were doing agriculture wrong?

Vox, Bluffy did qualify his statement with "that I am aware of". As we all know, Bluffy's awareness of most everything (other than perceived insults) is somewhat limited.
9
Back to the Amazon ... one question I have is ... is it possible to convert rainforest to pasture land successfully?  I think the answer is "Yes" judging from information from Greenpeace and others ...


Bluffy, that map is showing the deforestation of the Amazon due to cattle. It's not suggesting it is possible to convert rainforest to pasture successfully, at least not over more than a few years. It only illustrates that deforestation is going on at an alarming rate.
10
Quote from: Martin.au link=8msg=160130 date=1518867501
I think it's funny that Dave "work with nature not against her" is promoting his idea that would require a wholesale destruction of almost all natural ecosystems so they can be replaced with a single "ecosystem".

Oak Savannah is the master ecosystem? :D
I wonder how well oak savanna does above about 60 latitude, north or south. I wonder how well it does above 8000'. I wonder how well it does in locations where the rainfall exceeds 100" per year or is less than 10" per year. I wonder how it does in soils that are extensively sand and gravel or exposed bedrock.

My guess is those conditions account for a significant portion of Bluffy's "woodlands". He still doesn't get that not all the world is Missouri. Not even a goodly portion of North America. Heck, there are parts of Missiouri that aren't like Bluffy's ideal Missouri.
11

Ideally, we'd confine our efforts to a specific space and leave the rest alone.
we did. That space is everywhere that isn't Chernobyl.
Well, for earth only. I was thinking something a bit larger out yonder. Not too far, but far enough. Completely artificial. Hell, best bet would be to do it entirely virtual. It could be done.

Man, I saw this TED talk the other night, about this guy and his company that produce artificial limbs. It was from 2014, but wholly 100% grass fed cows, it was amazing. His legs are so natural. Not looking but the way they work. He looks completely normal. And then you comprehend what he's doing could lead to some really serious changes in humanity.
12
So if we use any of these definitions of enhanced ecosystems or destroyed ecosystems, then I think we could agree that an ecosystem like the Amazon rainforest is more enhanced (or we could say less destroyed) than the Sahara Desert ecosystem ... or if you prefer to pick a desert ecosystem that we both agree is being destroyed by man, then we could compare it to the Gobi Desert.
That's why any of those definitions should not be used.
No, the Amazon rainforest is not more enhanced (nor less destroyed) than the Sahara Desert Ecosystem*.
Think about it, Bluffy, is a 500# Sumo Wrestler a more enhanced human than a 3yo girl?


*Actually, if one includes damage to the ecosystem by humans, I'm not sure. I'm not sure which has suffered more. Both have taken hits but I lean towards the Amazon having suffered more damage. Primarily because of deforestation.

Biodiversity is nice, systems with a lot of it tend to be resilient, so they hang around for a long time, through thick and thin. Systems with little to no diversity tend to have little to no resilience, so they are usually short-lived, though some have been around for a very long time. Does being short-lived make something less than something that lives a long time? Is a 3yo less than her 90yo great grandpa? Less what?

Ecosystems are valuable simple because they exist. One is not necessarily more valuable than another nor less valuable.
You've misread me.

I am not making an absolute declaration that "high biological diversity" = "good"

I am simply observing that...

1) Some ecosystems like the Sahara are low in biological diversity
2) Others like the Amazon rain forest are high in biological diversity
3) Mankind over recorded history has tended reduce biological diversity in ecosystems
4) Mother Nature without interference from mankind does not reduce biological diversity
5) Unless we want our grandchildren to live in a world of low biological diversity we should learn a thing or two from Mother Nature

Do YOU want your grandkids yo live in a place similar to the Sahara? I do not.
My grandkids live in a place called the Pacific Northwest. Because that's where their parents, my daughter and son-in-law lived and have continued to live. It's a nice place, lots of mountains and rivers and forests and lakes and blackberries and islands and on and on. But it does rain a lot. And dreary on occasion. Then there's a clear winter's day when you can see all the mountains all around, topped in dazzling white, a seriously blue as far as you can see, and then the various hues of the forests, and the islands sticking up- out of the sound, the rush of the rivers and falls. I'm glad they are growing up here in this amazing place. But if my daughter had ended up in the Sahara and so that is where my grandchildren would be growing up, that's OK by me, I've never been but I'm told by numerous others, accounts from olden days, articles I've read, live in person visitors, the Sahara is a pretty amazing place. I'd be glad my grandkids would be growing up in such an amazing place.

1) Yes, so? Does that make the species that live there unimportant? Unvaluable? Important? Valuable? Priceless?
2) Yes, so? Does that make the species that live there unimportant? Unvaluable? Important? Valuable? Priceless?
3) Yes, so? So do many other species and non-organic events.
4) There is no "Mother Nature", this is part of your problem, Bluffy. Stop anthropomorphizing it all. Natural systems, left to themselves don't tend to do anything. They may well increase in diversity, they may not change in diversity, they may decrease in diversity. There's even the option to retain the current diversity (as measured by the number of species x the population of each as a fraction of the total number of species x the entire population) but lose all of the existing species and gain an equal set of species and populations, thus the metric shows no change at all, despite it's an entirely different ecosystem.
5) see above. Well, assuming there's anything to learn that will prevent it from becoming a world of low biological diversity, there is no Mother Nature. Yes, by studying the world we live in, the reality we live in, we may gain useful data, data we may be able to use to figure out how to soften our impact as much as possible. So when it comes time for the awards, we won't have to worry about getting the booby prize because what ever happened wasn't our fault. We might not come up with gold, but we can aspire to that.

And if we are careful, we might reach a point where we can take much better control of this world, this reality. Given our handling of it so far, I'd say we first need to be doing a whole lot more studying so we can get a whole lot better at figuring out how we can have as little impact as possible. Yeah, getting better at figuring it out is definitely critical and much needed. Certainly before we start getting creative with this world.

Ideally, we'd confine our efforts to a specific space and leave the rest alone. Let it go how it's going without us fiddling about. But inside our special space, go for it. As long as you keep it contained and can afford it and you aren't preventing someone else from doing the same, go for it. I tend to like the direction EA Poe took in "The Landscape Garden". But then, I'm an architect.
13
Here is the Wikipedia discussion of this topic... I find this part particularly useful...

Quote
traditional diversity measuresspecies density, take into account the number of species in an areaspecies richness, take into account the number of species per individuals (usually [species]/[individuals x area])diversity indices, take into account the number of species (the richness) and their relative contribution (the evenness); e.g.:Simpson indexShannon-Wiener index

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_biodiversity


Bluffy, that's describing Measurement of Biodiversity. It is not a measurement of whether a particularly ecosystem is good or bad.
While it's true highly diverse ecosystems tend to be more resilient than ecosystems that have very limited diversity, but resilience is not a measure of good or bad. It just means that ecosystem can likely survive under more diverse variations in conditions than one that is not very diverse at all. A little tetra fish can live for years in a tiny little bowl. But it's highly sensitive to any changes.
I'm not declaring that it's good or bad in any absolute sense. But in order to have a meaningful conversation I have to Define what I mean by enhanced or destroyed.
To what purpose?
Certainly an ecosystem from which absolutely nothing above loose atoms, maybe even molecules continues to exist has been destroyed. Or maybe highly evolved.

Before you start identifying specific criteria by which to measure "enhanced" or "destroyedness", let's discuss if those concepts even apply. Particularly the notion implicit in your posts: "More. Better."
To which I reply, "More Better than What?
14
Faid when I say that nature Knows Best I am specifically saying that "Nature knows best How to not destroy ecosystems and also how to enhance them" which to me means greater biodiversity, higher numbers of life forms, Etc

Related to this observation is the secondary observation that mankind is the only species that I know of that is able to destroy ecosystems.

Do you agree with these two general observations?
So when I talk about enhancing an ecosystem or destroying an ecosystem I'm talking about increasing or decreasing the number of species and the species diversity per unit area or we could say we are increasing or decreasing the number of living cells per unit area. I think either one works.
And what if one increases while the other decreases?

You've given two candidates for "enhancing an ecosystem". Sometimes, these candidates will conflict.
Well I think that's why we need an objective measure like the ones I have proposed.
Dave, the ones you've proposed are that ones that can conflict.
Well hold on do you even agree with the concept of an enhanced ecosystem in the first place? And do you believe it is possible for humans to destroy ecosystems?

Maybe you don't and if you don't, there is no point in continuing this conversation.
But that's exactly the point of this discussion. No wonder you don't want to continue it.

An existing ecosystem is as good as it can be doing what it's doing. Any thing you do to it is destructive. Why? Because the ecosystem that resulted from you fucking with it is not the same ecosystem that was. The old one is gone. It no longer exists. The new one never existed before. Yeah, it's also creative. So is the new one better than the old one? Is it a better old one than the old one was? The old one you "enhanced"? If so, then the old one is gone and there's a new one, a different one, right where the old one was, but it's different.
15
Faid when I say that nature Knows Best I am specifically saying that "Nature knows best How to not destroy ecosystems and also how to enhance them" which to me means greater biodiversity, higher numbers of life forms, Etc

Related to this observation is the secondary observation that mankind is the only species that I know of that is able to destroy ecosystems.

Do you agree with these two general observations?
I don't. They are the silly fantasies of someone who doesn't know much about the world, someone who prefers to decide how the world is, primarily based upon some ancient myth and whatever other childhood stories he's been told as well as continuing reinforcement of his beliefs.
1. You think hurricanes and tornadoes and ice storms and such don't destroy ecosystems? Or volcanoes? Or advancing ice sheets? Or massive landslides? Or tsunamis? Or wild fires? Or droughts? Or sea level variations? Really? Are you that isolated from reality?

2. Many other species can destroy ecosystems. Army ants come to mind. Actually pretty much any species that goes through a particularly bountiful year during which the predators, for whatever reason, were not active. Overpopulation results, the forage gets eaten to the ground, rampant erosion ensues, many creatures die off, then next year, with the predators back on the job and the prey still suffering from their abundance the year before (most of the usual forage hasn't recovered) suffer even greater losses of numbers.

Just a generalist predator can wreak havoc by moving into a new territory, perhaps as a result of being pushed out of their former territory. Happens all the time.

Of course, over time, ranging from a season or three to perhaps years, even decades, the previously existing ecosystem may recover or it may be a new one will take its place.

I will give you that humanity is a major source of ecosystem disruption. Often to it's own detriment. That follows because humans are apex organisms. Primarily because we are omni. We eat just about anything, we live just about anywhere, we are capable of rapid transits, and due to our own smarts, seriously capable of over-population. Not to mention we've developed some serious technology. Plus there's always the idiots like yourself who act first on their beliefs and leave it to others to pick up the pieces. Sort of like Savory with the elephants.
ETA: By "apex organism" I mean one that uses or consumes a lot of the other organisms as well as a lot of stuff that's not an organism. I don't mean better or lessor or whatever. Just another species. This one uses or consumes a lot of the other species as well as a lot of stuff that's not an organism.
16
So if we use any of these definitions of enhanced ecosystems or destroyed ecosystems, then I think we could agree that an ecosystem like the Amazon rainforest is more enhanced (or we could say less destroyed) than the Sahara Desert ecosystem ... or if you prefer to pick a desert ecosystem that we both agree is being destroyed by man, then we could compare it to the Gobi Desert.
That's why any of those definitions should not be used.
No, the Amazon rainforest is not more enhanced (nor less destroyed) than the Sahara Desert Ecosystem*.
Think about it, Bluffy, is a 500# Sumo Wrestler a more enhanced human than a 3yo girl?


*Actually, if one includes damage to the ecosystem by humans, I'm not sure. I'm not sure which has suffered more. Both have taken hits but I lean towards the Amazon having suffered more damage. Primarily because of deforestation.

Biodiversity is nice, systems with a lot of it tend to be resilient, so they hang around for a long time, through thick and thin. Systems with little to no diversity tend to have little to no resilience, so they are usually short-lived, though some have been around for a very long time. Does being short-lived make something less than something that lives a long time? Is a 3yo less than her 90yo great grandpa? Less what?

Ecosystems are valuable simple because they exist. One is not necessarily more valuable than another nor less valuable.
17
Here is the Wikipedia discussion of this topic... I find this part particularly useful...

Quote
traditional diversity measuresspecies density, take into account the number of species in an areaspecies richness, take into account the number of species per individuals (usually [species]/[individuals x area])diversity indices, take into account the number of species (the richness) and their relative contribution (the evenness); e.g.:Simpson indexShannon-Wiener index

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_biodiversity


Bluffy, that's describing Measurement of Biodiversity. It is not a measurement of whether a particularly ecosystem is good or bad.
While it's true highly diverse ecosystems tend to be more resilient than ecosystems that have very limited diversity, but resilience is not a measure of good or bad. It just means that ecosystem can likely survive under more diverse variations in conditions than one that is not very diverse at all. A little tetra fish can live for years in a tiny little bowl. But it's highly sensitive to any changes.
18
Let's clarify what we mean when we talk about destroying ecosystems or enhancing ecosystems.

The simplest definition would probably involve a simple count of the number of living cells per unit area.

For example the number of living cells per unit area in the Amazon rainforest is vastly greater than the number of living cells per unit area in the Sahara Desert.

So, a planet completely covered by bacteria would be an enhanced ecosystem.  OK.

Fuckwit.
Earth pretty much is.

Typical human biosphere has 10x as many bacterial cells as human cells.

Wait, fuck the lice, it's bacteria we exist for!!
19
Let's clarify what we mean when we talk about destroying ecosystems or enhancing ecosystems.

The simplest definition would probably involve a simple count of the number of living cells per unit area.

For example the number of living cells per unit area in the Amazon rainforest is vastly greater than the number of living cells per unit area in the Sahara Desert.
No.

The quality of an ecosystem is not dependent upon the number of cells in it or the number of species in it. Indeed, there is no particular metric that defines a good or bad ecosystem other than perhaps in an anthrocentric manner, whether they benefit us humans or are detrimental to our purposes. All ecosystems have value in that they exist. And that we can learn from them and we can, quite simply, appreciate them for what they are.

That's not to say there's no point in worrying about some particular ecosystem, go ahead and trash it. Not at all. It may be that ecosystem provides some sort of benefit to other ecosystems and even to ourselves. And there's the moral issue of whether we currently living have the right to fuck with things to the extent that we destroy ecosystems willy nilly. I would hate to see our offspring decide we've fucked things up enough and decide to eliminate us older folks. Or punish us. We have a lot to suffer for. And that's not to say we don't have a lot to be proud of. I have a feeling your robocage is not going to be one of the latter.
20
Faid when I say that nature Knows Best I am specifically saying that "Nature knows best How to not destroy ecosystems and also how to enhance them" which to me means greater biodiversity, higher numbers of life forms, Etc

Related to this observation is the secondary observation that mankind is the only species that I know of that is able to destroy ecosystems.

Do you agree with these two general observations?
I don't. They are the silly fantasies of someone who doesn't know much about the world, someone who prefers to decide how the world is, primarily based upon some ancient myth and whatever other childhood stories he's been told as well as continuing reinforcement of his beliefs.
1. You think hurricanes and tornadoes and ice storms and such don't destroy ecosystems? Or volcanoes? Or advancing ice sheets? Or massive landslides? Or tsunamis? Or wild fires? Or droughts? Or sea level variations? Really? Are you that isolated from reality?

2. Many other species can destroy ecosystems. Army ants come to mind. Actually pretty much any species that goes through a particularly bountiful year during which the predators, for whatever reason, were not active. Overpopulation results, the forage gets eaten to the ground, rampant erosion ensues, many creatures die off, then next year, with the predators back on the job and the prey still suffering from their abundance the year before (most of the usual forage hasn't recovered) suffer even greater losses of numbers.

Just a generalist predator can wreak havoc by moving into a new territory, perhaps as a result of being pushed out of their former territory. Happens all the time.

Of course, over time, ranging from a season or three to perhaps years, even decades, the previously existing ecosystem may recover or it may be a new one will take its place.

I will give you that humanity is a major source of ecosystem disruption. Often to it's own detriment. That follows because humans are apex organisms. Primarily because we are omni. We eat just about anything, we live just about anywhere, we are capable of rapid transits, and due to our own smarts, seriously capable of over-population. Not to mention we've developed some serious technology. Plus there's always the idiots like yourself who act first on their beliefs and leave it to others to pick up the pieces. Sort of like Savory with the elephants.
21
It's true I don't know much about natural die-offs of this nature. But can you refute my observations about the Norms of grazing animals in nature? That grazing animals typically don't like to eat soiled grass? That they like to graze and then move to new grass? And that the same grazing animals or other grazing animals do not return to this already grazed grass for a certain period of time? And that grazing animals in nature typically graze in herds? And that this whole system could be characterized as... Bunch. Move. Rest....?

It depends on what grazing animal you are talking about, on the time of year, and other biological factors typical of whatever species you're talking about. Banteng and Gaur, two wild cattle species, live in forests and jungles, not on grassy plains, Banteng cows follow a matriarch, the bulls are solitary. Gaur have similarly solitary males. Many grazing animals live in very small herds, so 'bunching' isn't an accurate description at all. Others follow strict migration patterns. Quite a few small antelope species are solitary and never maintain herds, so no 'bunching' for them.

You could describe any social animal as 'bunching, moving, resting' if you ignore all their other behaviours. Chimps 'bunch, move, rest'. So do bees, some black bears, wolves, coyotes, lions.

Quote
That grazing animals typically don't like to eat soiled grass? That they like to graze and then move to new grass? And that the same grazing animals or other grazing animals do not return to this already grazed grass for a certain period of time?

Most animals, grazers or not, instinctively don't eat soiled food, and of course grazers move to new grass because they prefer different parts or ages or species of grass. Most grazers likely don't return for some time, they have patterns of migration.

But what you do does not mimic those patterns. You are imposing a pattern on your livestock. You are deciding what patch of forage they eat and when. On their own, your goats, sheep and cow might make quite different choices of food. They are aware in ways you are not which grasses are most tender or most tasty or most desirable. Their preferences may mirror their bodily needs, just as a human only fed donuts for a few days will crave protein.
Bluffy doesn't actually decide what his flerd is going to eat, the animals get whatever is in the path of his robocage, and I suspect it's paths are selected primarily on the basis of what is best for the robocage, not what's best for the animals. Level, not too rocky, etc.
22
Hey Dave, remind me:

How does "Nature knows best" square with "We'll force the animals to bunch up when they naturally wouldn't due to the lack of predators"?
You are mischaracterizing the observation. The observation is not that they scrunch up tight to one another shoulder-to-shoulder. The observation is simply that they tend to live in herds. And that these herds stay on the Move constantly.
You're still missing my point.

How does "Nature knows best" square up with "I'm going to put up unnatural restrictions"? If Nature knows best, wouldn't your animals act that way anyway?
On conventional ranches, they certainly do Try to eat grass that is unsoiled, yes.  But there are at least two key differences between grazing animals on a conventional Ranch and grazing animals in nature. The first big difference is that there are no predators to group The Animals into smaller groups. The animals can wander anywhere they like all over the ranch with no fear  of being attacked by predators. The second big difference is that they are restricted by permanent fences so they do return and take a second bite on the same plant much sooner than they would in nature where they have no fences. Allan Savory goes into great detail in his textbooks about this the timing of this second bite and the 3rd and 4th bites. It is a fact that plants have severe difficulty recovering if they are bitten more than one time in a short enough time interval. No orchardist would prune his apple trees at the appropriate time of year, then print them again the following month. Rather he would wait an appropriate time for the plant to recover... I don't know in the case of apple trees but maybe that's a year or two. In the case of typical perennial grasses that I deal with the consensus is that around a 60 to 90 day recovery period is appropriate. This interval is believed to be close to what would actually occur in an undisturbed ecosystem containing grazing animals and perennial grasses.
Another bad analogy, Bluffy, orchardists generally do not prune their trees more than once a year, except to clear the way for picking the fruit and that's generally not very significant. It's more usual to prune in the fall after the harvest, primarily to direct where growth buds will form in the winter and subsequent growth will occur in the spring.

As to your 60 to 90 day natural cycle, no, wrong. Presuming you and your heroes are using the Serengeti as your model, maybe it would be best if you read this: https://www.expertafrica.com/tanzania/info/serengeti-wildebeest-migration

In short, it's an annual thing, they head north in April, continuing on until October when they head back south again. They stay at each end for a couple of months.
23
Oh wait... Did I say destroying our planet? I forgot that people here think that our planet would be just fine if all land surfaces looked like the Sahara Desert... Because hey! The Sahara Desert is a beautiful ecosystem!

Can you cite a post from a single person who has ever said anything remotely resembling that, Dave?

Because I can't.

Why did you lie about this, Dave?  I realise it was an attempt at humour, but that kind of hyperbole is only ever funny if it bears SOME relation to reality.

What position, or whose position, were you attempting to satirise?

Or have you really misunderstood what people mean by biodiversity quite this badly?
I didn't lie. I perceive this to be your view about the Sahara Desert as best I can determine it from statements you have made.
You determine very poorly. That the Sahara is a beautiful ecosystem is obvious. All ecosystem have their own beauty. Some ecosystem are more suited for habitation by various organisms than others.
Your obtuse act is not cute or clever.
A giant ulcer on your leg  can also be a beautiful ecosystem too, depending on the perspective of the viewer.

Indeed.  Keep going, and perhaps you will start to get a clue.
Why should I keep going? What more is there to discover with respect to this point?
And right there, Bluffy admits he's congenitally clueless.
24
Hey Dave, remind me:

How does "Nature knows best" square with "We'll force the animals to bunch up when they naturally wouldn't due to the lack of predators"?
You are mischaracterizing the observation. The observation is not that they scrunch up tight to one another shoulder-to-shoulder. The observation is simply that they tend to live in herds. And that these herds stay on the Move constantly.
Bullshit. Your very own "Bunch. Move. Rest." principles deny you. When grazers are under predator threat they can't outrun, they do bunch up. And they don't graze while bunched up. They remain alert.
And, no, that's not just shorthand for living in herds. Your whole scenario has been based upon this predation thing from the very beginning. As some sort of justification for the herd bunching up. And no, grazers don't normally graze while moving as a herd. They stop in area and spread out and graze. When the area is grazed out, the grazers start moving off and eventually form the herd.

You are simply fooling yourself with what you want to be true.
25
It's true I don't know much about natural die-offs of this nature. But can you refute my observations about the Norms of grazing animals in nature? That grazing animals typically don't like to eat soiled grass? That they like to graze and then move to new grass? And that the same grazing animals or other grazing animals do not return to this already grazed grass for a certain period of time? And that grazing animals in nature typically graze in herds? And that this whole system could be characterized as... Bunch. Move. Rest....?
Some of the initial statements have some validity, the last though is crap. Grazers do not graze when bunched. Grazers that have bunched up because of a predator threat don't move (it exposes their sides, bellies and hind quarters - instead of presenting horns and antlers and forward kicking sharp hooves, not to mention, they can keep an eye on the predator). As to "Rest", of whom or what is getting the rest? The animals or the pasture? So, no, the whole system can not be characterized as "Bunch. Move. Rest."