Rabbit Stew – Moon of Alabama

August 2, 2004

Rabbit Stew

In Little Town people love to eat rabbit stew. Unfortunately rabbits are rare. In bad weather the hunters can not go hunting. In some years there are even hardly any rabbits to hunt. To eat rabbits is expensive. Only a few people can afford rabbit stew.

On Mellow Island people are poor, but some have great ideas. They fence off some land and start to foster rabbits on the new pasture. They butcher the grown up rabbits, freeze them and then scull them over the waters to Little Town.

People in Little Town are happy now. Some haul the rabbits off the boats, some cart them to town. New taverns open up and cater rabbits in tasty meals. Rabbits are cheaper now and can be bought all the year round.

Everybody is happy – the poor of Mellow Island, the people from Little Town – maybe even the rabbits. Only the hunters are grumbling. They walk in to the mayor and complain. “Those rabbits from Mellow Island are too cheap. We don´t want to go hunting for such low prices. They are cheating on us.” And they put a little oil on the mayor’s palm.

The mayor likes the hunters and understands. He issues a new decree:

“Rabbits from Mellow Island are too cheap! From now on, everyone who pays one shilling for a Mellow Island frozen rabbit also has to administer one shilling to our poor hunters. These are honest men like me and we have to promote their valuable trade.”

The price for rabbits doubles. Only a few people can afford rabbit stew now. The taverns stop serving rabbit meals, some close shop. No frozen rabbits are offloaded at the shore anymore. The cart pushers start looking for new occupations. People on Mellow Island are poor again. Only the hunters are happy. And the mayor washes his hands.

A young rabbit – Part of the storyline – The hunters – The tavern owners and cart pushers – The mayors findings one and two – The unhappy people from Mellow Island one, two and three – Who gets the extra money – Some (libertarian) economic background

Posted by b on August 2, 2004 at 16:17 UTC | Permalink

Comments

@Bernhard:
You ought to write children’s books. That was a good story . Actually, 1/4 way thru the story, without looking at the links, I was thinking of shrimp. I like shrimp very much.
Moral of the story is that people of Little Town be screwed again. Few of us can or would pay $10-12 a pound for something we have bought for the past 3 years for $5-6 a pound. Millions deprived of something nice to eat to protect a 1900 company Gulf Coast shrimping industry–that is dying and will die anyway.
But people of Little Town be resilient. Back to hunting rabbit, squirrel, and deer in the fall; sport fishing for herring, shad, and bluefish, when they run in spring and summer.
When the hunt or catch is not so good, fall back to hog jowls, hocks, cabbage, turnips, and grits.

Posted by: Jed Clampett | Aug 2 2004 18:48 utc | 1

Actually, this post inadvertently demonstrates one of the big problems with modern economic theory: The environmental consequences of pond-raised shrimp are completely left out of the equation.

The high profits have caused overproduction which has devastated the coastal environment.
Without proper measures to protect and irrigate the areas, the average life of the shrimp pond is only two to four years, destroying not only possibilities of further production but the mangroves as well. In this period, the ponds began to choke on their own wastes. Shrimp feed and excretement, sometimes combined with antibiotics and fertilizer, prove too much for the estuaries in which the ponds had been built. In some places, an explosion of plankton (shrimps natural food), use up the oxygen needed by shrimp and other sea life. In others, the ponds “enrichment” nurtured harmful bacteria and other viruses. It soon became clear that farmers were trying to raise too many shrimp in farms and that the farms were too close together.

The fact is, high-yield aquaculture has many of the same problems (disease countered by ever-higher doses of antibiotics, effluents that destroy the local watershed) as high-yield cattle, pig and poultry operations.
For example, you might also want to check out the problems they’re having in the Pacific Northwest with salmon farms.
The moral of the story is “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch”. So tell me: Who’s getting screwed, when the low prices are the result of unsustainable practices?

Posted by: prof fate | Aug 2 2004 20:58 utc | 2

@Professor Fate:
Lets engage a bit here;
I mean I guess I could afford $15 lb. shrimp, if my job paid commensurately.
What’s worse ecology wise:
Oil spills and coal -petroleum driven industry effects, or the effects of aquaculture and agriculture on the environment?
Just Questions?

Posted by: Jed Clampett | Aug 2 2004 21:09 utc | 3

prof & Jed,
I hate to juxtapose right here and now but…
One recipe for Rabbit Stew:
1. Rabbits.
2. Little Town’s desires/indulgences.
3. Hunters Livelihoods.
4. Primary productivity (sunlight, always renewable) inculcated by carrot & cabbage leaves.
5. Stored primary productivity (nonrenewable) powering transportation between Mellow Island and Little Town (actually skulling I think precludes this metaphor but, oh well.)
6. “Honest Hunters” and “Mayors” oiling (hopefully from sunlight based renewable resources but probably not) each other’s palms.
7. Community/inter-community based cooperative communication.
8. Interdependence due to forced dependance.
9. Libertarian (ego based) philosophical/ideological presumptions.
10. Any other ingredients I’ve left out or perhaps our senses desire.
A tasty morsel for some but ultimately not very satisfying for me or most I’d bet.
And really not even ultimately good for my or anybody’s physical well-being. No wonder we have to pay so much for the mayor’s remedy to our ills, i.e. health care.
I would like to add some ingredients from the commons, from each of our individual gardens as we struggle to make sense and find spiritual (as in a spirited gathering) satisfaction from our common experiences. I think I would be dancing up a storm if we attempt that tune.

Posted by: Juannie | Aug 2 2004 21:24 utc | 4

Jed and prof fate….
I think I may have the answer:
Soylent Green.
We are a hungry species.
I understand we taste like chicken.
Do you like dark or white meat?

Posted by: koreyel | Aug 2 2004 21:27 utc | 5

@koreyel
Just blue-skying here, but it seems to me that if you destroy or significantly hinder the capacity of the one-and-only life-support system in several light-years, the day when we’ll all be lining up for our Soylent Green ration gets that much closer. 😉
Another quote from that link:

Improper production methods have devastated the mangrove forests. According to [Thailand’s] National Economic and Social Development Board, 640,000 acres of the country’s 960,000 acres of mangrove forests have been destroyed by waste water from shrimp farms and about 24% of shrimp farms are abandoned after a period of two to four years because the soil has lost its fertility and cannot be used for other purposes. Conservative estimates claim that each 40,000 acres of deserted shrimp farms is translated into a $200,000,000 economic loss each year. The poisoning of the mangrove forests does not only affect the usage of the land it also has a major
impact on oceanlife as well. Many species of fish that inhabit tropical oceans spend some part of their lives in the mangroves and many depend on it for reproduction. Commercially, it also has an impact on seafood products as two-thirds of the fish caught for human consumption are dependent on coastal mangrove ecosystems.

@Jed
Are you saying that — regardless of the consequences — you have a right to cheap shrimp? That paying $15 a pound for something people used to regard as a rare treat (if you didn’t live on the coast) is a tragedy commensurate with the damage caused by the farming methods which allow you to indulge this passion for less?
You ask
What’s worse ecology wise:
Oil spills and coal-petroleum driven industry effects, or the effects of aquaculture and agriculture on the environment?
Sorry, but that one’s a non-starter: How do you think antibiotics, fertilizer and starter cultures for these farms are transported? Wind power? Ox-carts?
How do shrimp raised in Thailand get to your supermarket? (Hint: I doubt they swim all the way here.) I’d be willing to bet that at least as much — if not far more — oil is consumed getting the supplies to the farmers and transporting the shrimp halfway around the planet than is used in off-shore harvesting.
Of course, I could be wrong, but the main point I was trying to make still stands: Without assessing the environmental trade-offs, there’s no way to judge whether cheap shrimp really is better, except by virtue of cheapness.

Posted by: prof fate | Aug 2 2004 21:56 utc | 6

@Koreyel:
Re: 21st century America.
Been thinking about Soylent Green, Blade Runner,and Road Warrior too.
What I hate about turkey is all the white meat.
Chicken be much more balanced and flavorful.
But fried squirrel and rabbit be my all-time favorites.
Whee Doggies!

Posted by: Jed Clampett | Aug 2 2004 22:03 utc | 7

Are you saying that — regardless of the consequences — you have a right to cheap shrimp? That paying $15 a pound for something people used to regard as a rare treat (if you didn’t live on the coast) is a tragedy commensurate with the damage caused by the farming methods which allow you to indulge this passion for less?
OF COURSE NOT!
I’m simply saying that, priority-wise, the ecological damage caused by fossil fuels are much greater than the damages caused by farming and aquaculture.

Posted by: Jed Clampett | Aug 2 2004 22:15 utc | 8

And there’s another reason mangroves are particularly important: Mangrove swamps serve as buffers against the erosion caused by storms and hurricanes (typhoons in SE Asia). Shrimp farming in the Caribbean has already caused some real problems along these lines. (Sorry, but I don’t have the time right now to Google up some links. I’ll see if I can find some later.)

Posted by: prof fate | Aug 2 2004 22:16 utc | 9

@Jed
I’m simply saying that, priority-wise, the ecological damage caused by fossil fuels are much greater than the damages caused by farming and aquaculture.
It must be nice, to be so damned certain about a question as complex as this.
You’re talking about general categories, while I’m discussing specific practices.

Posted by: prof fate | Aug 2 2004 22:25 utc | 10

Re: Soylent Green
“They messed up the sea…”
Exactly. That wasn’t a movie, it was a warning.
And some fell on stony ground…

Posted by: Edward G. Robinson | Aug 2 2004 22:42 utc | 11

@Professor Fate:
I have read what you have posted, Re: shrimp and salmon. I understand fully what you are saying.
I leave my EMail address here. Need your help and advice on another matter. EMail me back so we can share thoughts.

Posted by: Jed | Aug 2 2004 22:51 utc | 12

Steamed Shrimp at $8.00–All you can Eat!
Hooters waitresses
Nice cheap brewskies
This is heaven.
I brought the whole gang.
We’re all eighteen. No need for carding.
Trust Me.

Posted by: Eric Cartman | Aug 2 2004 23:35 utc | 13

@ Eric
Eat as much shrimp as you like from the poisoned sea and when you start growing your own massive hooters you can stay home and eat take-outs and have even more fun with your buddies. Even if you get sick you’ll be feeling yourself in no time…

Posted by: Nature’s revenge. | Aug 2 2004 23:41 utc | 14

Nature’s revenge, of course Nature is retaliating on us…good point. Some are just not capable to apprehend the way it naturally goes. Some days I just unfaithfully start to think that this place (planet) is probably abandoned as a fail experiment by who ever “programmed” it …God help us all…

Posted by: vbo | Aug 3 2004 3:11 utc | 15

vbo,
The Happy Planet will continue without us. Our evolution is not hers. I feel as dark all the time, but I sense that humankind on Earth is not the “end all-be all”. It’s too bad that the rotten vermicious knids in the hallowed halls of power don’t have the same perspective.

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Aug 3 2004 4:13 utc | 16

Are their instruments to attack the problem in a different way – two ideas.
The rabbit hunters could probably market their rabbits as “original wild rabbits”, “grown up in the open fields” and “organic feeded rabbits” so they would differentiate their product and achieve the pricing they need.
The rabbit farmers could get incentives for a sustainable farming of rabbits by guaranteeing 10% higher prices if their farms fulfill certain criteria.
We should remember that the civilized west did go (and does in some cases) through the same environment eating production methods than the developing countries do now. I do see no “right” in hindering them but the need to propagte sustainability.

Posted by: b | Aug 3 2004 6:54 utc | 17

Another obvious idea: tax oil so that the shipping costs from cheap former luxury goods from Mellow Island aren’t as cheap as they were but are still not as luxurious as they used to be before.
Basically, the outlimate answer to all outsourcing troubles and to all these issues about how free-trade is detrimental to your own economy is to have a VERY HIGH oil price. This way, corporations don’t benefit that much from importing resources (or worse: manufactured goods!) from literally the other end of the world.
Ultimately, the key is a production of resources, food and goods as varied as possible in as many places as possible, and goddammned the apparent “economic competititvity”, which is of course just another word for BS.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 3 2004 11:21 utc | 18

Back to Main