Reducing harm and animal extinction

[brimstoneSalad]

Is it precognitive? Because past evolution is no guarantee of fitness in a different environment in the future.

I believe it is. The fact that a species can physically evolve and conducive physical features can develop to improve life in an increasingly hostile environment is proof enough.

Ooohkay, so you basically believe in literal magic?
I did not expect this.

If evolution has supernatural attributes to you, I don't think there's much I can do to talk you out of that belief.

I'll just say this:

Mutations are random: species are not predicting environmental change, some organisms (and even a whole gene pool due to genetic drift) just accidentally happen to be prepared for those changes through lucky mutations while others aren't. Some species or subspecies go extinct due to bad luck and non-conducive changes while others thrive due to that good luck.
In only looking at the survivors, you have a selection bias. Like imagining that big winners at a casino have precognitive abilities -- they don't, they got lucky and as evidence of that there are far many more losers.

Most species that have ever existed have gone extinct; that's just how evolution works.

It's science, not merely "what I say".

I would call it an appeal to ignorance, not science.
Like when creationists talk about how "unlikely" life is (contentious), and just give reverence to it on that basis.

Over grazing is an obvious problem but you can't underestimate the long term repercussions of undergrazing.

"Undergrazing" is like "under-raping"; it's an oxymoron, it doesn't exist, there's no ideal amount of those things such that we'd be put out if we fell short and didn't have a little more. And in the wild the only outcome of not grazing is called a forest, and I won't underestimate the positive effects of that regrowth on the environment.
The idea that there are negative repercussions is begging the question.

Topsoil is depleting faster than it can be replenished and %70 of the worlds soil is degraded. Rebuilding soil quality with holistically managed ROTATIONAL grazing has a host of environmental benefits.

Pseudoscience again.
The only time grazing improves topsoil is when you "rob Peter to pay Paul", adding organic matter that wasn't originally in a location through feed supplementation.

I'm only adding to the discussion that there has been intriguing studies and positive vegetable production results due to the regeneration of degraded soil by use of PROPERLY MANAGED rotational grazing. I also have my own farming experience to further convince me of the role of angulates play in restoring microbial life in soil.

There's plenty of wild speculation based on debunked hypotheses and a few anecdotes, but the actual evidence so far says the opposite, so do the theoretical implications of what we've learned about soil and plant ecosystems.

May I ask where you get your information or are you speaking from your own agricultural experience?

"Agricultural experience" is called an anecdote, and it's not credible evidence. A single sample is subject to too many variables.
You need controlled studies, otherwise the default assumption comes not from Allan Savory's gut instinct but from what we know of plant physiology and ecosystem efficiency (mechanistic).

Exactly. Start thinking in terms of soil, not just plants. Only healthy soil has carbon capture ability. The presence of certain grasses or weeds isn't necessarily indicative OR conducive to crop yields.

When we're talking about eliminating animal agriculture, we're not worried about crop yields; we already produce plenty of soy, corn, etc. to feed the world (most wasted on livestock).

We want this land to return to nature to capture carbon without the need for human input. And for that we want a DEEP soil environment, and a thick foliage that can optimally capture and convert sunlight and precipitation. For that we need forests, not grasslands.

If grasslands had any real benefits to maintain (except for as a transitional state to build up a little soil from bare ground before a forest can grow), then there might be an argument for grazing animals because they prevent forest growth.

Either way, forests are much more productive than anything grasslands can offer.

In what sense? You've lost me.

In the only sense that really matters presently: they capture more carbon.

Forests also host a greater biodiversity of plants and animals (although biodiversity alone isn't going to save us from catastrophic climate change).

Again, you are speaking from personal experience? I'm going to need a little more proof than that. Once again, I'm speaking of responsible rotational grazing or herd migratory pattern grazing.

I wouldn't speak from "personal experience" here, since that's not evidence unless my personal experience was a registered controlled experiment submitted to a peer reviewed journal.

I know the kind of grazing you're talking about, and it's pseudoscience. It's very appealing pseudoscience, because aesthetically we may like the idea of there being different biomes (like grassland) and different species (like horses) and them all having important roles in nature. It's a charming idea.
If we could have our pick of the truth, that truth would probably be that "grasslands are important for the world's ecosystem and wild grazing animals promote those lands as long as you don't interfere with them and steal nutrients from the system by killing them for meat, etc."
But what we want to be true isn't always the truth. It's pseudoscience, very beautiful and idyllic pseudoscience but pseudoscience none the less.

This is fact. After exposing barren pastureland to managed grazing herds you can increase the biodiversity of plant life. This is worth exploring, instead of so vehemently attempting to debunk.

Can you provide some credible evidence of this?

If you just wait, the same thing will happen as grasses move in by wind and wild animals. If you're talking about really barren land, it has nothing to do with the stomping or "fertilizing" of existing seeds and everything to do with the seeds in the feces.

Little doubt that cows could make it happen faster by spreading seeds in their feces, but you could also just seed the land if you wanted to accelerate the process and not have to rely on cows to do it (coated seeds would be even better).
The presence of viable seeds in manure is a well known problem (with respect to "weeds").

You can either wait a little while for the land to grow by itself, or you can seed it (and even fertilize if you want it immediately). No need for cows. And once the plants are established cows are only harmful.

Not only would we would die off while waiting for that process

It doesn't take that long for fallow land to become fertile again. You need to let deeper rooted plants grow in, though, because pulling up nutrients from deep in the soil is essential.

but it offers no solution to desertification.

Grazing promotes, and does not prevent, desertification.
It prevents forest regrowth, which is the only reliable way to stave off and reverse desertification.

Prevention is more obtainable than rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is pretty easy if you stop grazing and taxing the land and preventing forests from regrowing and drawing up nutrients from deep in the soil and retaining precipitation.

You don't believe a multi-species herd is possible?

In terms of mating no,

They don't need to mate. They can have sex but they don't need to bear offspring. They just NEED companionship and mutual protection.

If your assertion is that an animal's life is only fulfilled if she is able to procreate, then that's a very different conversation.
Is that your assertion?

a species instinctively prefers its own kind.

If available of course, but they aren't outright bigots. And if not available, there's no reason to believe they'd notice if that's what they've always known, and no reason to believe they wouldn't adapt to it otherwise unless they were very old. Muti-species herds can be perfectly suitable for a content and even happy life.

[Plantbasedlife]

Ooohkay, so you basically believe in literal magic?
I did not expect this.

If evolution has supernatural attributes to you, I don't think there's much I can do to talk you out of that belief.

Are you messing with me?


A species doesn't predict environmental change but it morphs to better exploit it's immediate habitat. Giraffes, long necks just because? Moles don't have eyes. Wingless birds, etc. The Florida green lizard has adapted to an environmental shift by growing bigger toe pads and in just 15 years and 20 generations. Limited resources and extra competition forced these animals higher into the treetops and they evolved to survive.
Nothing magical or supernatural but it is fascinating for sure.

Mutations are random: species are not predicting environmental change, some organisms (and even a whole gene pool due to genetic drift) just accidentally happen to be prepared for those changes through lucky mutations while others aren't. Some species or subspecies go extinct due to bad luck and non-conducive changes while others thrive due to that good luck.
In only looking at the survivors, you have a selection bias. Like imagining that big winners at a casino have precognitive abilities -- they don't, they got lucky and as evidence of that there are far many more losers.

Lucky mutations? No I don't believe that. Far more proof exists to support that species evolve to suit their environment.


http://www.pubs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

"Undergrazing" is like "under-raping"; it's an oxymoron, it doesn't exist, there's no ideal amount of those things such that we'd be put out if we fell short and didn't have a little more. And in the wild the only outcome of not grazing is called a forest, and I won't underestimate the positive effects of that regrowth on the environment.
The idea that there are negative repercussions is begging the question.

Reforestation helps with climate change but not farmland soil regeneration.

There's plenty of wild speculation based on debunked hypotheses and a few anecdotes, but the actual evidence so far says the opposite, so do the theoretical implications of what we've learned about soil and plant ecosystems.

So let's hear it? This forum boasts fact based arguments but I'm not seeing this.

[Plantbasedlife]

"They don't need to mate. They can have sex but they don't need to bear offspring. They just NEED companionship and mutual protection.

If your assertion is that an animal's life is only fulfilled if she is able to procreate, then that's a very different conversation.
Is that your assertion?"


Animals don't actually have sex for pleasure they do it strictly for procreation. There's a reason why male will only mate with a female well she is in oestrus. It is indeed a need. Humans are the only animal that mate for pleasure and ignore the female heat cycles.

An animal will not mate if it's 'very old'. When a female is no longer fertile she will not allow a male to mount her and without her pheromones he likely won't even try.

[brimstoneSalad]

Are you messing with me?

I think you misunderstood. Precognition means knowing something before it happens. Animals evolve based on selective pressure only for the environment they are currently in, not in advance for environmental changes to come.

Far more proof exists to support that species evolve to suit their environment.

Obviously selective pressures act to make them more suited to their current environments.
My point is they don't evolve ahead of time to prepare for future environmental changes they have not been exposed to.

Reforestation helps with climate change but not farmland soil regeneration.

Climate change is the pressing issue today.
Trees are useful for restoring farmland, though: ever heard of agroforestry? Alley cropping?

Beyond that, farmland soil "regeneration" can be accomplished by green manure and crop rotation, as well as waste stream recovery. Leaving land fallow is also potentially useful, but has economic costs.

Grazing is not a method to restore farmland soils.

If you want to let land lie fallow, just leave the cows off it and seed it with useful plant species.

So let's hear it? This forum boasts fact based arguments but I'm not seeing this.

You're the one who made the Savory-style assertions here. Remember that big quote without a link with all of the claims in it I debunked? I still don't know where that came from.

If you provide some credible sources (not Savory), I can probably look into them and debunk them with more sources.
Otherwise, I can't turn this into a research project, I have a lot of other things to do.

We might work on a Wiki article debunking this stuff, rich in sources, after the current projects are done.

Animals don't actually have sex for pleasure they do it strictly for procreation.

Nonsense. Animal behavior is absolutely pleasure driven, most species' sex drives are just more regulated than humans' are.
They have sex due to instinct, because of a virtually non-contemplative urge, much like human teenagers, they're just only horny at certain times and triggered by specific stimuli.

That sex includes cross-species sex (in certain cases) and homosexual sex; whatever triggers the behavior. To believe they're contemplating the utility of their actions for reproduction is absolutely absurd.

Are you claiming that they actually expect to get pregnant? And wouldn't do it if they knew somehow that wouldn't happen?

There's a reason why male will only mate with a female well she is in oestrus.

Yes, there is a reason: pheromones. They make the male horny.
It's like if human females only had breasts and curves a few days out of the month and the other days they looked like men.

They aren't thinking, "Wow, if we have sex now we can have a BABY! I'm so excited, let's do it!"

There are evolutionary "reasons", but these are not conscious thoughts in the animals. The actual sentient animals do not know or care. And it doesn't matter what evolution "wants" because evolution is not a sentient being and it doesn't really want anything, that's just a turn of phrase we use.

Humans are the only animal that mate for pleasure and ignore the female heat cycles.

That is completely false. Bonobos and Dolphins are examples in common knowledge.
Have you done any research on any of this?
Where are you getting any of this stuff?

[Plantbasedlife]

I think you misunderstood. Precognition means knowing something before it happens. Animals evolve based on selective pressure only for the environment they are currently in, not in advance for environmental changes to come.
[\quote]
I never once once stated that a species will predict environmental change. Environmental shift or significant change in food source will influence species evolution.

Obviously selective pressures act to make them more suited to their current environments.
My point is they don't evolve ahead of time to prepare for future environmental changes they have not been exposed to.
[\quote]
Not once did I mention any abilities to predict the future.
My claim was that a species can adapt to a changing environment to survive. They are currently doing so. I have no clue what you were arguing here.

Trees are useful for restoring farmland, though: ever heard of agroforestry? Alley cropping?
[\quote]

Yes, " in simple terms agroforestry is intensive land-use management combining trees and or shrubs with crops and or LIVESTOCK It is an ancient practice developing countries around the globe have relied on these integrated management strategies for diversifying production and conservation for centuries "

Planting grasses and trees even when you combine it with fertilizer isn't always enough to restore microbial balance, mychorrizal fungi to depleted soils.
If this were merely enough we would'nt be experiencing the rapid loss of healthy, fertile soil.


No clearly this is not effective enough. If this were working we wouldn't have lost 83 billion tons of topsoil last year!

[Plantbasedlife]

Trust me on this fact, a male would not breed with a female unless she is in full oestrus. If they have sex for pleasure like you believe they do, why do you think it is that they only breed when reproduction is possible?? If a horse tried to mate with mare that is not in heat she would try to kill him literally.
I don't know about dolphins and apes I'm going to stick with the species that is relevant here and that is the angulates. I have heard that dolphins are one of the most intelligent species and that is fascinating.
If animals breed for pleasure then I should be able to arouse the stallion with my hand because he just enjoys the sensation right? Wrong. To collect semen you can only stimulate the stallion or bull by having them in contact with a female that is dead in the middle of her heat cycle. If what you are suggesting is the case, a herd would just be one big orgy.
Physical attributes don't mean anything in the animal kingdom with the exception of some male birds ( use bright plumage to attract a female. )
The male is instinctively attracted to the female that is most in her most reproductive phase. If there are no pheromones present there won't be breeding within the herd.

Your ignorance on the subject is blatantly apparent. I'm relieved you have other things to do than this 'research project'. However it might be beneficial to broaden your resources...can only get so much from Wikipedia.

[Plantbasedlife]

"They aren't thinking, "Wow, if we have sex now we can have a BABY! I'm so excited, let's do it!"

Lol! Well that's anthropomorphism and implies cognitive thinking. Another topic entirely and we could open another thread as I believe this a very relevant subject to veganism.
Point being, copulation in the animal kingdom is a primal instinct to reproduce period.
There is much more to be said about animal cognitive ethology and I would engage in a thread of that topic. Hopefully encourage a few other contributors?

[brimstoneSalad]

FYI you're making the slashes in the wrong direction in some quote tags:

Code: Select all

You want [/quote] not [\quote]

I never once once stated that a species will predict environmental change.

I asked you if you thought evolution was precognitive, and you seemed to say yes. I asked because of the way you talked about the value of subspecies with respect to the future; as if they have evolved in advance.

A species benefits from diversity of genes so animals have a large enough pool to draw from to adapt more quickly when change does occur, but that only goes so far within a single species. The genes don't need to be neatly sorted into different herds.

Trust me on this fact, a male would not breed with a female unless she is in full oestrus.

It's because the hormones make them horny. I explained this.

If they're really after reproduction, then why do they attempt to mate with other males sometimes? (Or females with females)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

If they have sex for pleasure like you believe they do, why do you think it is that they only breed when reproduction is possible??

It's because when they smell the hormones is makes them horny, and then they have sex.

That's like asking "If humans have sex for pleasure, when why don't all men have sex with other men, since anal sex stimulates pleasure all the same?"

It's incredibly naive about the dynamics of sexual attraction.
For humans, it's primarily visual, for other animals hormones and pheromones rule and they are not as easily "turned on" otherwise (but still can be, it's a spectrum and it depends on the individual).

If a horse tried to mate with mare that is not in heat she would try to kill him literally.

I'm aware of this, it's because she isn't horny at that time. Hormones drive cycles of sexual arousal. Humans are subject to this as well, but to a lesser extent.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201503/how-the-menstrual-cycle-affects-womens-libido

Most female mammals experience “heat,” occasional periods when they can get pregnant—and as a result, become eager for sex. But human women don’t go into heat. They can become pregnant and feel receptive to sex year-round. Nonetheless, a good deal of research shows that in reproductive-age women, libido is to some extent cyclical across the menstrual cycle, with peak erotic motivation occurring around the time of ovulation midway between menstrual periods. It’s evolution’s way of spurring procreation.

How is it that you think humans are so different from all other animals?

If animals breed for pleasure then I should be able to arouse the stallion with my hand because he just enjoys the sensation right?

First, I have no idea how you don't know this, but humans can and do have sex with horses. Search "Mr Hands" (actually, don't search it, you'll regret it).

Second, manual stimulation is a perfectly viable semen collection method used for artificial insemination where special apartus are lacking:
http://equine-reproduction.com/articles/crump.htm
It depends on the horse, but many can be aroused by just touching/rubbing in various ways (even without a mare or olfactory cues).

Third and finally, have you even considered how these claims would apply to human beings?

"If humans have sex for pleasure, you should be able to jam your finger into any random man's ass and he'll enjoy it, right?"

Are you seriously making this kind argument? It obviously can work in some cases, but it depends on the person and he should be aroused and "in to it" first. Just as there exists human variation in sexual arousal, the same is true of non-human animals.

Before you try to make an argument like this, try to test it by analogy to see if it actually makes any sense whatsoever first.

Wrong.

It's ridiculous how confident you are in your assertions. Do you just go by whatever you heard, and never look anything up?

To collect semen you can only stimulate the stallion or bull by having them in contact with a female that is dead in the middle of her heat cycle.

So wrong. That is a very reliable method, but it depends on the horse.
Like some men can only get hard if there are high heeled shoes around (obviously more arousal by pheromones is common than that, it's just an example to demonstrate variation).

If what you are suggesting is the case, a herd would just be one big orgy.

Is human society one big orgy?

Physical attributes don't mean anything in the animal kingdom with the exception of some male birds ( use bright plumage to attract a female. )

No... so wrong. Pheromones mean a lot, but there are other cues too that inform attraction in most intelligent species.

Your ignorance on the subject is blatantly apparent.

I would say the same to you. Dunning-Kruger is knocking. You know a little from limited personal experience, so you've decided you're an expert.

How about you question your conventional dogma and do some research for once, and cite sources proving what you say?
Farmers and breeders are full of conventional folk "wisdom"/superstition that isn't remotely true, but gets them by day to day.

You can trash Wikipedia all you want in favor of superstitious folk knowledge that sounds like it came right out of a Sunday school, but you might as well have said "Animals are pure unlike humans don'tchaknow and they don't have sex for pleasure because they didn't eat the forbidden fruit, they only have sex for reproduction like God said to."
And you can imply that I get all of my information from there if you think that's a good debate tactic (I don't, I have linked a number of sources, but Wiki is convenient).
But at the end of the day, Wikipedia it's a fairly reliable source that has a better track record than you do.

"Trust you" Seriously?
I already explained why anecdotes are not reliable evidence. I'll trust you if you show me a registered and peer reviewed controlled study you conducted. Otherwise it's all folk wisdom backed up by nothing but confirmation bias.

You've been wrong on virtually every point you have made in this thread, with the exception of our miscommunication where you tried to explain evolution 101 to me as if I don't understand better than you do how evolution works (I'd put good odds on that too).

Your numerous unsubstantiated Savory style claims from "personal experience" about holistic grazing being good for the soil/environment? False.
Your claims that "animals" are fundamentally different from humans regarding sexual arousal and intercourse, again from personal experience? False.

Whether in non-human animals or humans, arousal and sexual intercourse is a combination of instinct and learned behavior, and at the base level that is pleasure-driven.
The primary difference between humans and most other animals is that humans have learned to engage in things like "foreplay" to stimulate arousal on their own outside of natural hormonal cycles rather than waiting; we learned to game the system, in a sense, and we also have longer stronger periods of increased sexual drive.
None of that is particularly relevant, though.

The bottom line, relevant to animal ethics, is that animals do not particularly WANT to have children in the way that humans meta-cognitively plan for it. Humans have sex based on instinctual sex drive to get off, and so do animals, but humans also have sex with birth control to prevent pregnancy and with the explicit intent of having a child, and there's no reason to believe that non-human animals know sexual intercourse has anything to do with pregnancy and birth.

If they are not trying with conscious intent to have babies, then there is not necessarily any inherent violation of their interests by sabotaging procreation.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm sorry if I'm coming off too abrasive here, I don't mean to just hammer you on every little thing, but these are important issues and I feel like your beliefs are propping up some pseudoscience.

The certitude with which you seemed to hold them, combined with the lack of references and the "trust me" attitude with respect to personal anecdotes kind of rubs me the wrong way.
I'd just like to see some flexibility here and an acknowledgement that you may indeed be wrong about all of this pro-grazing and pro-subspecies purity/indefinite propagation stuff, and a lot of that comes down to fundamentally incorrect epistemological assumptions about what you deem to be credible knowledge.

[Plantbasedlife]

In not offended in the least. My knowledge of certain animal reproduction is extensive. I don't feel the need to get into my personal history other than I have a background in animal science, veterinary and reproductive. I also am a fifth generation produce farmer. My personal experience with rotational grazing and soil quality doesn't make me an expert, agreed but it does strongly influence my opinions. Up until this discussion I was not familiar with Alan Savorys studies but I am familiar with Judith D Schwartz's research. She has a book 'how cows save the planet'. I'll admit that's a horrible title but I can appreciate the emphasis on soil and whole ecosystem biochemistry. I'm going to say the word again
ROTATIONAL. Holistic grazing has its place, you just aren't understanding the process.

How do I know that a stallion wouldn't enjoy a handjob? Having had to collect semen provides me with some pretty first 'hand' knowledge. If it were just that easy! Lol. Go ahead and look it up, they will only be sexually aroused enough for successful cover (copulation)for a mare in full oestrus. This will explain the horsey porn & how it's achieved. Unfortunately. Read sections 2 'materials & methods'

http://research.vet.upenn.edu/Portals/49/Ground%20Collection.pdf


Some stallions (usually the young inexperienced lads) have a higher libido and if they are smelling mares in heat on the property, can occasionally attempt to mount another male. This does not happen in the wild or free range environments when horses have the ability to roam. I've also witnessed young nursing stud colts attempt to mount their mothers. They have not reach sexual maturity, this is a purely instinctive act and many times horses at play will attempt to mount each other.

Homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom has more to do with dominance than sex. There is a distinct difference between a sexual behaviour and the act of copulation. For the love of all things holy please stop posting wiki links. The link you posted actually supports my claim!
Anthromorphism is common, but it isn't helpful when studying animal behaviour.

I entered into this discussion because I enjoy a healthy debate. You claim you have disproven and debunked my views but not once have you succeeded.
You claim that my views and experiences are pseudoscience, that's your right based on what you've read and your personal convictions.
You stated you'd like to see some flexibility from me and acknowledgement that I might be wrong. I never claimed what I say is gospel but my beliefs are based on empirical research.