3 ms·
I think the usual claim is that almost any other use at all would be better for the environment than cattle grazing.
by bscphil 8y ago
I think the usual claim is that almost any other use at all would be better for the environment than cattle grazing.
- komali2 8y agoI don't understand why - better being "more natural," right? Those plains have been feeding grazing animals for millennia, what should we do differently?
- knuththetruth 8y agoThey were feeding grazing animals, but without all the massive externalities associated with industrial agriculture, from antibiotic resistance to its impact on climate change. If you’re also of an ethical mindset similar to someone like Peter Singer, the “cultivation” of animals for slaughter is not something one should favor.
- leetcrew 8y ago> impact on climate change do cows produce significantly more methane than non-domesticated grazing animals, or are there simply many more cows than there were buffalo?
- knuththetruth 8y agoThere are cows now within an industrialized agricultural context that we know to be a significant contribution to climate change. Would bison in this context produce the same outcome? It’s hard to say, but the two circumstances of their existence on this land is largely incomparable.
- Spooky23 8y agoIt’s a religious argument that cannot be won or lost.
- Turing_Machine 8y agoThat's kind of a bizarre statement, since (as others have noted) the land was historically used by grazing bison, a creature so closely related to domestic cattle that they can even interbreed with them with a substantial amount of success. The same is true of similar grasslands elsewhere in the world. Lots of grazing animals, which support a smaller population of predators (including humans).