Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T21:10:30.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The future of livestock production: planning for the unknown

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

A.J.F. Webster*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
Get access

Extract

Forecasting the future is fun but futile since most forecasts are wrong. The only constructive strategy is to plan for the unknown. Therefore this talk will contain (almost) no predictions. It will simply consider how we may best cope with the shock of the new; the information explosion, the accelerating pace of change and its bewildering changes of direction. To do this we need to hold fast to a small number of big, lasting truths. I can survive on four, two of which are humanistic, two simply biological. These are:

  • Biological systems evolve through modification by natural selection. The word ‘modification’ does not imply new creation but redesign from a relatively small range of standard parts and processes to meet changing needs.

  • The application of reason is an effective and honest approach to the process of discovery and understanding. Almost all issues can benefit from application of the scientific method (reason challenged by experiment). However, almost all issues also contain elements that transcend science but these too are amenable to reason.

  • Humans are sentient animals. In common with other sentient animals, we are powerfully motivated by how we feel (as distinct from what we think) and most powerfully motivated by the need to feel good. This need may be physical or spiritual. The physical need to enjoy comfort, the satisfaction of a good meal, or sex, ensures our genetic survival. The emotional need for security, or spiritual satisfaction ensures the stability of our communities, since in a stable community, discretion and goodness have survival value.

  • All life forms have value. Moral philosophy argues that a life form such as a tree has an intrinsic value independent of its extrinsic value to us (e.g. for its beauty, utility or as a carbon sink). While I accept the concept of intrinsic value, I suggest that it is more useful to redefine the concept of extrinsic value in a less anthropocentric way (e.g. a tree has extrinsic value to a squirrel).

Type
Offered Papers
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

De Soto, H. (2000) Why Capitalism triumphs in the West but fails everywhere else. Basic Books Ltd. New York, USA Google Scholar
Food Ethics Council (1999) Drug use in farm animals. Food Ethics Council, Southwell, Notts.Google Scholar
McInerney, J.P., (1998) The economics of welfare. In Ethics, welfare, law and market forces: the veterinary interface. Ed. Michell, A.R. and Ewbank, R., UFAW, Wheathampstead, Herts.Google Scholar
Mepham, B. (1996) Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: an evaluative framework. In Food Ethics ed. Ben Mepham, London, Routledge, 101119.Google Scholar
Pryce, J.E., Veerkamp, R.F. and Simm, G. 1998. Expected correlated responses in health and fertility traits to selection on production in dairy cattle. Proceedings on the 6th World Congress on Genetics applied to Livestock Production, Australia. Vol 23: 383386 Google Scholar
Webster, A.J.F. (2001) Farm Animal Welfare: The Five Freedoms and the Free Market. The Veterinary Journal. 161, 229237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed