Some radical ecologists have suggested that the USA restore the grea prairies that existed before the white man-and allow the return of the great buffalo herds. This of course would necessitate ending the huge grain production of the great plains. I thought about it, and some aspects of the idea make sense:
-ending US grain production would allow small farmers in the 3rd world to grow grain profitably
-ending the huge US surpluses would end subsidy payments-which cost the US taxpayers hundreds of billions of $/year
-the longstanding row woith Europe over subsidies would end
Finally, removing the surpluses wouldmake meat production more expensive, and push the US population toward a healthier diet (no more Big Macs).
So, would it make sense to restore the vast prairies? Would this help the poor people of the 3rd world?
Would it work? It seems to me that ecologically, the prairies are more suited to growing grain than many third-world countries would be, given rain amounts and climate. I’d be afraid that many people who currently rely on the grain they import from the US would starve to death if things didn’t work out as ideally as proposed.
Its a neat idea, but do you have any idea of the practical problems associated with this plan? A modestly sized herd of cows can be a serious headache. I’m fairly sure that a modestly sized, free-ranging herd of buffalo would wreak holy havoc on the citizens and infrastructure of the plains states. Hitting a deer in a Geo Metro is ugly. Hitting a full grown buffalo would be practically unsurviveable. Perhaps all the farmers out of work could supplement their incomes by building “buffalo bars” for the front ends of semis.
Will the herds get special bridges to get over all the interstates?
What a nutty idea.
Sure, it’ll work. Just move everyone out of the great plains states.
I’ll get the U-Haul. Do you think its worth the extra money to get the ones with the over cab cargo bins?
Stupid people suggest a lot of things. That does not mean they are good ideas.
It might allow inefficient grain farmers in 3rd world countries to charge more with a net effect of pricing grain out of the reach of more people.
The result would be less grain and it would be more expensive. Not exactly helping the Third World.
A healthier diet made from what? Grain?
No and no.
No, the USA should just stop farm subsidies and leave free trade alone.
Well put, Sailor. Yes, let’s leave free trade alone. If Old McDonald grows wheat and wants to export it, it’s O. M. exporting, not the US. I’m part of the US, and you won’t ever find me exporting any wheat.
As for the bison, is it a mutually exclusive thing? We have bison in at least one of the Nat’l parks, and some ranchers are raising bison for food.
Guess I don’t see a problem.
Arguably, yes.
The US is so efficient in agriculture that it does destroy farming in the rest of the world. (In truth though we must note it is the EU who leads the world in gold-plated farm subsidies.)
In any case, the idea is called “Buffalo Commons.” (No site, I am still in my morning fog. Google turns up far too many hits to wade though without coffee.) A couple of authors came up with the idea a decade of two ago. They were attempting to describe the future of the Great Plains if current trends were to continue.
As farm subsidies go down, and grain farms get bigger and then finally fail, they think the area would become an American Serengetti. Thier books which described a natural economic process was mistakenly thought to be a prescription. Needless to say, Great Plainers have gone nuts.
It would be wrong (I guess) for the Government to force people off thier long-established farmsteads. But, how would we as a society handle the natural de-population of (say) South Dakota?
Good question. Buffalo Common is one vision.
Yeah, let’s stop countries and industries from being afficient! :rolleyes:
Both the USA and Europe should stop subsidising farming but this thread is about what the USA should do.
Isn’t this what the big argument at the current WTO round is? Developed nations want the 3rd World to open up their agriculture markets to them, while at the same time heavily subsidising their own producers. This is pretty worrying for my country because a huge chunk of the national GDP comes from agriculture. Cheap imports could ruin the local agricultural industry!
We have plenty of nutcases here advocating pulling out of the WTO!!
There’s a lot of evidence piling up that shows that prior to 1500, the American continent was much more populated than originally thought.
The vast herds of bison were a population disruption caused by the decimation of the native population starting in the early 1500’s due to the introduction of European diseases. They may well not be a natural phenomenon that should be recreated.
Citation: Charles C Mann. The Atlantic Monthly. Boston: Mar 2002. Vol. 289, Iss. 3; pg. 41, 12 pgs
Why is it always the fault of the USA and not anybody else? Why are we singled out to completely change our demographics without thought to what the change will produce? I know, we are evil and must be destroyed.
>> Why is it always the fault of the USA and not anybody else?
Can you point to me the post or posts where this was said?
>> Why are we singled out to completely change our demographics. . .
Demographics? huh? we are talking about American agricultural practices and policies and the effect they may or may not have on world markets. If you don’t like the topic feel free to go to other threads more to your liking.
>> without thought to what the change will produce?
You must have missed the point of the thread which is exactly and precisely the “thought to what the change will produce”.
>> I know, we are evil and must be destroyed.
Where the fuck did that come from? What the hell are you talking about?
Wouldn’t it be neat if we restored California to its natural condition, as it was before 1500. People? Well, they would have to go away. Economic dislocation? Just the price for restoration of the natural order. If its good for Nebraska-Kansas-North and South Dakota surely its good for California.
Suppose the US did wah I advocate, and the worldprice of grain rises. The prosperrity that 3rd world farmers would experience would enable them to become customers for manufactured goods. So, my idea hassome merit-a transfer of wealth to the 3rd world (by this means) wouldbe better than all the foreign aid ever sent. Plus, the Graet Plains of the USA are not a good place for human habitation-the flatness and extremes of climate are too stressful.
Lastly, this would enable the small farmers in the East coast to regain profitability, and having farms closer to the urban centers of the east coast would lower our energy consumption. I think there is much merit in this proposal!
I don’t know if I should bother responding; obviously you don’t think your own ideas are worth even a minimal effort to proofread.
That you assume they will experience. Agriculture could just as easily become dominated by multinationals in 3rd world countries as in the US.
**
Stressful? I’d think boring, if anything. In any event I suspect that millions of Kansans, Iowans, and the rest disagree with you.
**
And where do you want to put the suburbs?
Apropos of nothing in particular, but can anybody here tell me whether or not the syllabus of any one of the 50 States in the USA educational systems includes Economics as a course option in at least one of the last two years of high school?
I studied a economics course in the American School in London during my high school… 
Not 50 states thou.