Renewable Revolution

Thanks, AG, for explaining your position.  Yes, we have had our difficulties in communications, which is kind of ironic, because I think of all the regular Diners, you are the one who I agree with the most.  That seems to really accentuate the differences, though.  I think it's partially because I leave a lot of stuff out, and we have different ways of connecting the dots.

One thing I definitely do disagree with you on is what is "artificial".  It's not just a matter of origin.  Oxytocin and insulin may be chemically identical to what is produced by the body, but introducing them into the body is still what I consider "artificial stimulation".  Not that I am necessarily opposed to it, mind you; my wife was on insulin during her last trimester, and I had no problem with that.  But I am wary of designing systems that use them on a routine basis.

What I didn't understand until you explained it in your last post was how you were thinking of this as a substitute for getting dairy animals pregnant to produce milk.  Now, I'm pretty sure that oxytocin by itself will be insufficient to induce lactation, but with a careful mix of other hormones like progesterone, it might be possible, and it is an intriguing idea.

One thing I was unclear in explaining is that I was not talking about ecosystem calories, which can vary widely, I was talking about metabolic calories for the individual animal, which, when food is not limited, depend on its ability to process its food, which is fairly strictly limited if it is to remain in a healthy range.  However, this actually works for the idea of getting an animal to produce milk without getting pregnant, because all the calories that are not put into growing the new baby can go into producing milk.

I'm sorry about the comments where I seem to be talking down to you, AG, but in an open forum, unless I name someone specifically, I try not to address my comments just to one person, I do try to explain things to the lowest level that would likely be reading a post.

JD,
Thank you for your kind reply. I understand your concerns and agree with all of them.

I go off on a rant from time to time because of this whole mindset that we have been saddled with by "science" (see milk production and cow slaughter system rant below) because it is such a logical strait jacket. 
As you will agree, there is far more (not just a little bit more) to nutrition and health in all life forms than energy capturing cause and effect. The joy of a free range animal that can raise its young without separation, less chemicals of all sorts and a healthier soil underfoot as a result, is something SPIRITUAL, not something that can be measured in calories.

Science refuses to go there. All they can do is come up with "observations" like "music makes cows produce more milk". This is so pitifully limited in thought and logic as to be laughable if it wasn't so overtly cold blooded and cruel.     

This rant is NOT addressed to you, JD.; It is addressed to ALL humanity, including myself. I post it as a warning that our proper path REQUIRES an ethical posture on absolutely every industry we engage in BECAUSE, not doing so DESTROYS empathy in Homo SAPS. We will destroy ourselves, along with a large part of the biosphere, if we do not make ethical behavior MANDATORY in everything we do. We MUST always look at the WHOLE PICTURE.

That picture has a portion that science CANNOT EVER MEASURE. Ethical behavior is far more important than the mechanistic reductionist bean counting so favored by scientists.

They have it exactly backwards. I have fought (mostly myself) on this most of my life. I LIKE to reduce "systems" to a nice manageable bit of addition and subtraction. That is WRONG. And it is wrong because it always excludes the main issue of the overall cause and effect of what we do and don't do in regard to vital intangibles that science has never been able to measure. The Native Americans have it right with the 7th Generation cause and effect decision making calculus. We do not.

Domestic cows can live to 20 years, however those raised for dairy rarely live that long, as the average cow is removed from the dairy herd around age four and marketed for beef.[9][11] In 2009, approximately 19% of the US beef supply came from cull dairy cows: cows that can no longer be seen as an economic asset to the dairy farm.[12] These animals may be sold due to reproductive problems or common diseases of milk cows such as mastitis and lameness.[11]

PLEASE, note the word "May" in the above quote. The reason for using the word "may" in a sentence is to ensure one does not assume too much about the stated reasons for this or that. IOW, these animals are sold for slaughter based on mechanistic reductionist BEAN COUNTING, period. And the next quote is the prize of cold blooded scientific doubletalk:

Cow longevity is strongly correlated with production levels.[17] Lower production cows live longer than high production cows, but may be less profitable. Cows no longer wanted for milk production are sent to slaughter.

So WTF does "increased longevity" mean when a Homo SAP dairy farmer will send you to SLAUGHTER SOONER if you put out "UNECONOMICAL" amounts of milk, HUH!!!?

But never fear, our mechanistic reductionist bean counting mother **** scientists have come up with a "natural" way to partially overcome "inefficiencies" in the "system".

Another factor affecting milk production is the stress to which the cow is faced to. Psychologists at the University of Leicester, UK, analyzed the musical preference of milk cows and found out that music actually influences the dairy cow's lactation. Calming music can improve milk yield, probably because it reduces stress and relaxes the cows in much the same way as it relaxes humans. [18]

You see, our wonderful dairy farmers must make those ECONOMICALLY SOUND decisions to slaughter a cow. There LOGIC is as follows:

Over 90% of all cows are slaughtered for 4 main reasons: Infertility, Mastitis, Lameness and "low" production (below around  below 12 to 15 litres of milk per day).

How long does dairy CASH cow live LAST? Let us ask our wonderful scientists who analyze the "system":

Dairy cows may continue to be economically productive for many lactations. In most cases, 10 lactations are possible. The chances of problems arising which may lead to a cow being culled are high, however; the average herd life of US Holstein is today fewer than 3 lactations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_cattle

Well then, BRING ON the Lutalyse, Cystorelin, Estrumate, Estroplan,Factrel, Prostamate, Fertagyl, Insynch, and Ovacyst and recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST)! Don't forget the pesticdes! Every manufacturer of these chemicals is MAKING A PROFIT TOO! That's all part of the study of the "system" of milk production. 

Do these human BRAIN FARTING BEAN COUNTERS EVER stop to add and **** subtract?
HELLO? Human females CAN lactate for SEVERAL YEARS with no loss in longevity. In fact, that's what they used to DO before we got "civilized". In fact, that KEPT human teeth from erupting, for YEARS. I have read of present day tribes where a child will lactate for almost a DECADE! Do you think that decreases momma's life span? I don't. I can give you chapter and verse about how human females have more diseases than ever from our "civilized" society.

But let's talk cash cow CFS.

1. Cows live on the LAND. Therefore, the LAND is part of the total financtial picture. It is a HUGE **** MISTAKE to exclude land and crop production from the "milk production" system.

2. Our so-called "profitable system" of cow milk production and routine slaughter of "inefficient" cows EXCLUDES the COST to society, the cows and the dairy farmer of manufacturing all the **** chemicals from hormones to pesticides NEEDED to keep this artificial clusterfuck going.

3. OUTbreeding all the cows to more genetically diverse and less specialized (for milk volume) will produce MUCH more long lived cows.

4. Longer lived cows with LESS milk production will be more profitable for society, the cows and the dairy/crop farmer because the entire biosphere math, which is NOT presently done, will be done.

5. This bean counting CRAP that refuses to address the pain, sorrow and empathy deadening, soul killing, mechanistic reductionist thinking that turns the farmer (and the rest of us) into accesories to biosphere destruction in the quest for "profit" is just one more path to our extinction.

6. The LAND NEEDS animals of all types. Ruminants are NOT destructive of land, as the mechanistic reductionist MORON SCIENTISTS believe. The biosphere is a system that REQUIRES animals to PRESERVE the soil that plants of all sizes live in. But the wisdom of that MATH can only be appreciated if the observer is bound by biosphere preserving ETHICS as the only real profit.


The issue here is NOT milk production, it is biosphere harmony for the perpetuation of LIFE. That includes measuring costs PROPERLY. Science is NOT doing that! Unethical treatment of animals for PROFIT, at the end of the day, is a justification for unethical treatment of Homo SAPS.

The **** who want to cubbyhole this "system" and that "system" so they can IGNORE ethical issues and reduce everything to a bean counting exercise are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Mechanistic reductionism isn't just unspiritual, evil and soul destroying, it's unprofitable to the only "system" that counts. That SYSTEM is the BIOSPHERE. It's high **** time we stopped playing fast and loose with logic so we can justify our greed.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for Homo SAPdom to get its head out of its mechanistic reductionist ass.