Englishmen eat meat at every dinner,noblivious to his immediately previous assertionnthat “the poor were virtually excludednfrom a beef-centered diet untilnwell into the last quarter of the nineteenthncentury, having to settle insteadnfor . . . cheese, milk, butter, and otherndairy products.”nRifkin considers the keeping of pedigreednanimals to be racist, and unfairlynaccuses Charles Darwin of racism. Henlinks the destruction of the Plains Indiansnto sinister British financial (meaningnbeef) interests. He creates nonexistentncommunities of farmers (on thenrare occasions that the settlers tried tongrow crops in the arid west, they madenfar graver ecological blunders than cattlemenndid) so that they may be extirpatednby the Evil Cattle Interests. Henvirtually ignores the buffalo, whose impactnupon the prairie soil was enormousnand is still not well understood, except tonlament the destruction of “the Indian’sncommissary.” He accepts uncriticallynthe neoromantic view of the Plainsntribes, ignoring buffalo jumps and paleolithicnextinctions. Finally, he predictsnthe imminent ecological collapse of thenAmerican West, and indicts the cattlenculture in—what else?—global warm-nRifkin makes, inevitably, a few goodnpoints. We might well eat leanernbeef; some of the feed additives routinelynfed to cattle on feedlots are horrifying.nBut it is hard to discern these isolatednfacts in Rifkin’s jumble ofnopinions, “factoids,” and sheer lunacy.nI have neither the time nor the inclinationnto refute every one of Rifkin’snassertions. But since one chapter—n”Hoofed Locusts”—deals with conservationnand biology on the Westernnrange, subjects which I know somethingnabout, I will examine it in detail in ordernto demonstrate his habitual method ofnargument.nRifkin begins with a debatable firstnstatement: “Desertification is caused bynthe overgrazing of livestock; overcultivationnof the land; deforestation; andnimproper irrigation techniques.” Therenis, to begin with, no such consensus regardingndesertification. Climate changes,nsome of them dating to prehistoricntimes, certainly play a role. An archaeologistnrecently told me that aerial photosnreveal ancient dunes, stabilized byndesert plant cover, in the lower RionGrande Valley that are five thousandnyears old; the lower Rio was even more andesert before the beginning of the agrariannera than it is today. Next, “livestock”nincludes goats, which climb and eatntrees, and sheep, not just cattle. Finally,nwhile deforestation is a real problem innthe Sahel and holy India, not even thenworst critics of grazing (or logging) considerndeforestation per se to be a problemnin the United States. We have morentrees now than at any time since Columbus.nYet Rifkin blithely proceedsn(through paragraphs blaming desertificationnfor urbanization) to advance tonhis primary thesis, which is that cattlenhave ruined the West. He states that,n”Parts of the Creat Plains and the Westernnrange are fast becoming a barrenndesert.” He might be interested to knownthat every biologist I have talked to (includingnsome that are antigrazing!) innthe course of researching a book on thesenissues thinks that the range has been improvingnfor forty years; some would saynfor longer than that. He complainsnabout rivers degraded by trampling cattlento the point where they only supportnchub and squawfish. Does he know thatnin many cases these species are the nativesnamong whom the trout have beennartificially introduced? He quotes a notoriousnanti-cow polemicist and nonscientistnon the decline of prairie chickens.nIs he aware that recent evidence suggestsnthat the chickens followed the buffalo,nneeding “edges” and grazed areas withinntheir habitat? He quotes statistics of animal-rightistsnon the “shriveling” numbersnof pronghorn, elk, and bighorn,nwhich he compares with the “guesstimated”npre-Columbian populations; yetnall three species are proliferating, elk almostnvisibly so. He whines about thenfate of feral burros and horses, aboutn”the misguided belief that these smallnnumbers of animals pose a competitiventhreat to the millions of cattle”; does henknow how much more destructive horsesnare than cattle of the native vegetation,nor that burros compete not withncattle but with threatened desertnbighorn sheep?nHis worries about predator control are,nsadly, more accurate. But the onlynspecies missing from the southern Plainsnecosystem are the wolf and the grizzlynbear, and steps are now being taken tonrestore both. The north kept its grizzly,nand there the wolf is coming back on hisnown. Despite the much-quoted antipredatornsentiments of stockmen, mostnranchers I know—especially those un­nnnder the age of fifty—would accept thenwolves’ return if they were guaranteednsome control over stock-killing individuals.nIronically, books like Rifkin’s onlynconfirm cattlemen’s feeling of being endangerednthemselves.nOnly a culture far removed from thensoil, from animals, farming, hunting,nbirth, and death could produce suchnwarped ideas, or those of the animalnrights movement with which they are innsympathy. In a sane world, Budiansky’snThe Covenant of the Wild would permanentlynsink People for the Ethical Treatmentnof Animals and their ilk. Budiansky,na reporter for U.S. News and WorldnReport and a part-time farmer, has nonpatience with animal rightists, but hisnpurpose in writing is not to argue withnthem. He wants to show us how domesticationnwas an evolutionary “strategy”nby which certain animals, includingncows and dogs, used their associationnwith humans to survive the Ice Age. Indo not want to slight his subtle and oftennwitty argument; obviously, then”choice” the creatures made was not anconscious one (though it may not havenbeen initially all that conscious on ournancestors’ side, either). One of Budiansky’snmost fascinating theses is that, bynsimply selecting for “tame” behavior,neariy man encouraged neoteny or retentionnof juvenile traits into adulthood,nwhich complex of characters immediatelyngave rise to the diversity that providesnthe basis for further selection.nThis particular theory has been tried onnRussian fur farms with foxes: simply bynselecting from among the tamest individuals,nthe breeders produced animalsnwith spots, lop ears, and doglike behaviornin only twenty years.nAs I say, this is a subtle book, and ansane one; it will not likely receive fullpagenreviews in Time, nor will farmersnand ranchers be likely to quote it in theirnnewsletters. I fear that our society needsnmore literacy and more connection tonthe land, while every year it has less ofneach. Rifkin actually applauds thensqueamishness that makes consumersnprefer their meat processed andnprewrapped as a step on the road to anhigher consciousness that finally eschewsnmeat-eating, although in fact it is merelynanother step toward abstraction, whatnRifkin ironically calls “cold evil.” Anhealthy society would laugh at Rifkin,naccept his few good ideas, and give himna pat on the head—just as English societynused to treat its cranks. nOCTOBER 1992/33n