If we return to pre-modernity, probably not by conscious planning :-), the
pets that could would revert to a wild state and eat by hunting/browsing.
Those that were unsuccessful in adaptation would be eaten by some other
life form, down to worms, insects and microbes. Humans would eat many of
course.
As to the US$17B in current situation, I agree that the statistic is nearly
meaningless except to point out that pet keeping is a voluntary
luxury/leisure activity that consumes resources. I suppose the judgement is
implied that pet keeping is immoral. Put those pets to "work" to provide
some "economic benefit" for the planet!
Steve Kurtz
Jock McCardell wrote:
> The second last
> statistic refers to the US + Europe expenditure on pet food and health.
> How would an economist figure it if pets were sudenly outlawed in the USA
> and Europe (ignoring the social cost but including the disposal cost!) and
> this US$17 billion might be redirected to provide basic health and
> nutrition for everyone in the world? how does the ledger look in the these
> affluent areas if this industry is dismantled? would there really be $17
> billion available?
> how do these UN people arrive at their estimates of costs for basic health
> and nutrition?
> would you feel better making a weekly contribution to a UN fund for this
> purpose rather than buying x-number cans of "biffo" or "quick cat" or packs
> of "super bird"
> maybe even some percentage of their ingredients comes from the LDCs?
> regards
> Jock McCardell
