Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational - Just did a spin class. Nearly died.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 209050 times) previous topic - next topic

BenTheBiased, DaveGodfrey, VoxRat, borealis, JonF (+ 1 Hidden) and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34575
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?

He won't agree because neither is true. Ecosystems have been naturally eradicated and different ones imposed on the landscape countless times in the past.

Other animals besides humans can destroy ecosystems. Beavers do. They destroy an existing dry land ecosystem and impose upon it a wetland, which soon has wetland species, plants, birds, mammals, fish.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34576
The obvious answer is that the animals take care of themselves wrt poisonous plants just like they do in nature so micromanagement of poisonous plants by humans is not needed.

Dude.

Wild animals have problems dealing with poisonous plants and other dangers all the time.  Domesticated animals have had their survival instincts stunted and modified by human selection, and may have no idea how to avoid dangerous plants (and in fact, some are fine for them, but subsequently dangerous for people who consume their products).

Think!

Don't assume it will just take care of itself. Have you never heard of illness caused by sick animals or consuming products from animals that have eaten dangerous plants?  If not, wake up!

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34577
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.
Then you're an idiot. Just observing that the Sahara is a beautiful ecosystem doesn't mean the planet would be fine if all land surfaces looked like it. Nor does observing the same of the Rocky Mountains. You really should learn some basic logic one of these days.
Not likely, Bluffy is a confirmed "all<some>none" man. All or nothing. Everything or nothing. Either / or. One or the Other.
Are we there yet?

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34578
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?
Repeating the exact same crap is not a response.

"Nature" does not "know" anything. Several good explanations why in the posts above.

The second item is irrelevant. See above again.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34579
Dave, when your premises and conclusions based on them are all flawed, it's time to examine those premises for error. Not double-down and keep mindlessly repeating them.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34580
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.

  • Sea Star
  • Not an octohatter
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34581
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. That is nowhere near the 'simplest definition'. It's nowhere near in keeping with reality.
It simply highlights your total and deliberate misunderstanding of the issue.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 07:50:40 AM
Lol
Sea Star has been trolling me this whole time.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34582
Dave, under your plan to save the world, can you please describe the various ecosystems that will be commonplace? From what I've read so far you seem to be aiming for a homogeneous ecosystem suitable for hmg of milk producing mammals.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34583
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."
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34584
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 the more densely populated an ecosystem is the healthier it is? Think about what you're saying here, Dave.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34585
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.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34586
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.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34587
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 the more densely populated an ecosystem is the healthier it is? Think about what you're saying here, Dave.
Yes, but with one notable exception. Haha... I think your brain was engaged on this one!

We can talk about the exception later, I just want to find some common ground on definitions first.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34588
This is kinda pathetic. :(

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34589
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.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34590
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?
Yes and no, depending on how general and vague "Nature Knows Best" can be. Nature can enhance AND destroy ecosystems, ecosystems are parts of Nature and Nature is a dynamic system. The relevance of that to thinking one does not need to know certain things or perform certain actions, remains unclarified. And I still don't understand the relevance of references to Man's destructive power.

Forget about generalizations for a minute. Generalizing requires to have something, some mechanism or process you can generalize from.

You know the answer to the question I asked. Why are plants poisonous? How does that protect them?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34591
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


Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34592
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



So very different from your 'most simple' idiot definition above then.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34593
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.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34594
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.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34595
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


So, imagine a very simple hypothetical "ecosystem": A species of plants and a species of animals. Some of those plants become poisonous. What happens?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34596
Can't happen, coz Dave says so. :D
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34597
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.
  • Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 02:30:25 PM by Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34598
Does a poisonous plant increase or reduce numbers of species in a given area?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34599
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 thought you were just talking about the number of cells per unit area?  That's the simplest definition wasn't it?