• Footer1998@crazypeople.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    the technology that has allowed for a life without livestock has failed

    That would be the ability to grow crops? So only wild plants would grow for some reason? Impossible to farm anything then really, only viable lifestyles are scavenging, foraging and hunting

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      I mean more some future where we have synthetic meats, vertical farms, and things like that. Presumably crops selected for a vertical farm wouldn’t do as well outside of one.

      Also, there is good reason farming animals has been done historically. Some crops aren’t available all year, and animals, like cows, can grow from just grass, which we can’t digest. They produce a product that’s available all year. Also, currently we don’t really need things like wools, as we’ve invented alternatives (mostly based on petroleum). If those alternatives are gone, we still need textiles.

      • Footer1998@crazypeople.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        So, even if we’re in a future form of humanity and all of our present farming methods failed, sowing seeds and harvesting crops would be the first kind of farming to be “restored” or “rediscovered” or whatever, because it’s vastly more efficient, and assuming you’re recovering from some sort of disaster scenario, feeding as many people as quickly as possible would probably be the goal. They’d probably grow rice and soy or something.

        Animal farming is really for luxury goods, except in very remote places where crops can’t be grown

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Not really. Rice, soy, wheat, and corn do not grow all year round, and that’s assuming those are retained. It took a long time to selectively breed the grains that we know as rice and corn to be as productive as they are. They started pretty similar to grasses. Farming will still be good, and they can be preserved with things like fermentation and pickling, but farming animals was not just done as a luxury.

          • Footer1998@crazypeople.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            The fact is that animals need to be fed, and they are inefficient. Most animals eat plants, so to create 1,000kcal of beef products, for example, it takes 25,000kcal of plant products. Most animal feeds are based on corn or soy, which otherwise could be turned into human food products directly with a 25x efficiency bonus.

            I suppose you could make an argument that grass-fed livestock might work, but then I guess an explanation for why grass is growing but other crops aren’t.

            My underlying point is that animal protein is inefficient compared to plant protein

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Animals can digest stuff we can’t. We can eat crops because we bred them for many thousands of years to be mostly edible by us. Early wheat, for example, is hardly different than grass. Animals are much more efficient at turning grass into energy than we are, and grass grows all over naturally without any effort. You don’t have to plant it, water it, or anything else.

              Yes, meat is much less efficient than, for example, eating the corn ourselves. It isn’t less efficient than us eating grass ourselves. In that state, we basically can’t survive. There are some native plants we can eat still, but usually they’re seasonal and not overly abundant. You have to move around to survive, hence hunter-gatherers.