The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Mar 13, 7:10*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
> > On Mar 9, 8:42 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> >> On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >>> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
> >>> On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> >>>> wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
> >>> Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> >>> that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> >>> animals like sheep?
> >>> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> >>> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> >>> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
> >> Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
> >> interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
> >> the observation that land has value to animals as well
> >> as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> >> majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
> >> than the hills and moors?
>
> >> ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
>
> > Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
> > contention anyhow.
>
> How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species
> than is cultivable land?
Well, which is more fertile on average?
>
> You're an idiot. *You don't have a clue.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|