On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Ranma Al'Thor wrote:

I must with regret, launch a barrage of criticism at this story, with the 
understanding that I am not a specialist in any of the things I'm talking 
about, so I could be wrong...

Ok, before we get too far off the track, this is not criticism on the 
story style, which Richard has done (as always) a fine job on.

Rather, it is on the base premise, that of a virus affecting what seems to
be *only* edible livestock.  (edible as in that which humans grow for food
etc)

Oh, and I'm not a specialist in this area either (other than what I've 
picked up ;) )

I find it implausible that a virus could be created that would only slay 
livestock.  Most viruses are confined to single species.  Of course, they 
could also create multiple viruses for different species, which would be 
more plausible.

Actually, such a virus, or a virus *family* could be engineered which 
affects livestock and doesn't affect humans.  A *lot* of our herd animals 
do share common DNA which *doesn't* appear in human DNA.  Logically, a 
single virus *could* be engineered to have those effects... but, such 
tech is well beyong current levels, and I doubt (and hope we don't) that 
we'll see it for a few hundred years to come.

Personally, I think it would be a virus family, designed to kill off one 
or two species per virus type.

Also, AIDS isn't a very good analogy.  This virus kills very quickly, 

Actually, the way it was used it was.  AIDS, although it cannot be 
compared to the 'Kansas' virus in killing speed, still has the same aura 
of *fear* which the Kansas virus would evoke.

spreads at a rather humongously rapid rate, and is remarkably fatal as 
viruses go...Although a few weeks is too short a time to easily find a 
cure to a virus anyway...Also, if it spreads so quickly and is so 
unstoppable, I'm rather surprised it didn't escape their labs while they 
were still trying to develop it.  (A la the Stand...)  (I'd recommend 

Maybe it did, and thats why it affected so much (eg, the original aim was 
only to effect *certain*, very specific animals. - Basically, they 
screwed up. )

reading Plagues and Peoples by William McNeill for a historical 
perspective on this :))

Basically, this virus stretched the bounds of believability too far for 
me.  If nutcases could create that...why couldn't/haven't nutcases 
unleashed some super human slaying virus in this future?  Genetics 

Urrr...  Not relevant to the story ;)

research at this level is expensive and delicate, and I'd expect it to 
continue to be so, at least at the level of creating super-viruses...

And may it stay that way for some time.

Second level of comments:
The world eats vast amounts of meat, but we're not as economically 
dependent on it or as nutritionally dependent as this story depicts it.  
For one thing, much of the world's population doesn't eat much meat, 
because meat is expensive.  

Hmmm.  Nearly a year ago, some Australian livestock being exported to 
Saudi Arabia (I think), when they refused it because of a disease.  
Several other countries also stopped importing Australian meat/livestock 
because of this.  That put a dent in Australia's trading, and pushed 
up the price of meat in quite a few countries.

That was the effect of *one* ship being refused entry (I'm not sure what 
happened to the beasts).  I think Richard paints a fairly accurate 
picture of what would happen if such a virus hits.

The real problem would be the sudden loss of the economic value of the 
crops grown primarily to feed animals...and the loss of domestic animals 
involved in food production, rather than as food.  

Such crops would be used in the feeding of the billions who do eat meat.  
Their value would stay the same or increase (in times of famine/war, 
someone profits)

And Pigs would not be able to replace THOSE needs.  Pigs are good for one 
thing:  Eating.  Pigs don't pull plows, provide large quantities of milk, 
etc, etc.  They are the most efficient source of meat, but many of the 
animals slaughtered by this virus met other needs as well (Especially cattle)

I don't think it mentions pigs being used as anything else than a meat 
supply.  Perhaps you could enlighten us Richard?

Imagine a world without wool, leather, or draft animals?  Starvation 
wouldn't be a problem in the Us and rich countries...And the harvest 
already planted would be gatherable in in the poorer ones...it would be 
the next year when the ability of third world farmers to plant crops 
would be crippled by a lack of draft animals that all hell would truly 
break loose...

Correct.  But consider this... more attention would be placed on the 
farming industry, and the rich countries wwould be obligated to supply 
the poorer countries with equipment to help grow the food they need.

Of course, farming might be more universally mechanized by that point, 
but then the loss of these animals has less of an impact, as the animals 
dwindle in importance.

Doubt it.  Until something spectacular happens (like the loss of the 
animals they depend on), so-called third world countries will most 
probably still be using beasts-of-burden to assist them.

Also, if scientists could clone pigs in vast enough quantities to save 
the world from starvation, why couldn't they do the same with fish?  
Either they shouldn't be able to supply the pigs fast enough to make a 
difference (What about transportation for all these pigs, etc...), or 
there seems to be no reason they couldn't have  just started bulk cloning 
fish.

Dunno.  Thats another thing, whats feeding all of these clones before 
they pop out of the tanks?

Fish actually would be easier, eg whole harbours could be used as 
breeding grounds etc etc.

(As a piece of writing, this is good as always, but as an academic, it's 
my job to complain about these sorts of things :))

Feh.  You have to admit, given whats in there, its a pretty good portrayl ;)

                                      ~~~~~
                     The Chaotic Trickster - kergma@sv.net.au