# A world without cows



## Deleted member 4265 (Mar 6, 2016)

I want to make a world without cows and I'm trying to think of how that would impact their society. 

They still have milk and cheese from goats and sheep, as well as fermented mare's milk. Obviously they're not going to be eating beef so it will impact their diet and they won't have any butter. I've read it is technically possible to make butter from goat milk but it seems like it would be more work than its worth given that most milks don't separate as easily as cow milk.

I'm wondering if there are any other ramifications I need to think about for how this would alter society.


----------



## Vaporo (Mar 6, 2016)

I think that the ramifications would be as follows:

There are no cows.

Without bovine, people would just find the next best thing, which is probably goats and/or pigs if you're sticking with traditional western farm animals. There are multitudes of animals that could be domesticated and raised in their place.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 6, 2016)

You should check out the book Gun Germs and Steel.

They have a TV show version too.
Guns Germs and Steel - Out of Eden - 1/3 HD - YouTube

Here's a wiki entry for it. Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, having larger docile animals that can be domesticated like cows gives a people certain advantages and enables them to develop higher levels of technology. There are ancient populations where the biggest domesticated animals were pigs. Because of this they couldn't farm as efficiently as younger populations that had cattle. This resulted in them stagnating technologically while the younger civilization advanced.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Mar 6, 2016)

Horses and donkeys would be your big draft animals. Goats would be your dairy providers, and with sheep and pigs would be your primary sources of red meat.

On the subject of _Guns, Germs and Steel_, I would recommend against reading it without looking into the criticisms of said book. I say this because it is very popular among laypeople, who often see it as fact or very close to it, while experts have some serious issues with it.


----------



## johnsonjoshuak (Mar 7, 2016)

CGP Grey does a really good video of this on Youtube (ostensibly its about why Europe had some virulent and deadly diseases, but it also comments on draft animals; video 2 is more focused on draft animals)

Americapox: The Missing Plague - YouTube

Basically, he says that bovine are perfect because they're slow herbivores who have decent temperments. There weren't really any such creatures in the Americas.


----------



## Geo (Mar 7, 2016)

johnsonjoshuak said:


> Basically, he says that bovine are perfect because they're slow herbivores who have decent temperments. There weren't really any such creatures in the Americas.



That is the biggest advantage of cows, contrary to horses or even goats, are much more manageable. If you have had goats (or been around a petting zoo) you would know that they are always trying to escape (keeping goats requires a constant effort contrary to cows who like to stay where you put them. And because goats are much smaller, your effort/benefit balance is seriously changed). 

Horses don't produce as much milk, and a new-born horse needs more protein to thrive than a calf (meaning you can't start taking the milk from the mare intermediately or you'll starved the baby)... so there is a reason why cows are the preferred meat producer of the world. By the way, goat meat is also a good source of protein.


----------



## Jim Aikin (Mar 7, 2016)

If you're messing with history or the natural world, you could make up an alternative species (such as unusually large, placid goats). Or how about llamas? They're a species of camel -- maybe in your alternate history, llamas have been bred for milk production.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 7, 2016)

What are cows? Do you exclude oxen? Buffalo? Yaks? Muskox?

Be careful what you wish for. ;-)


----------



## AndrewLowe (Mar 7, 2016)

TheKillerBs said:


> Horses and donkeys would be your big draft animals. Goats would be your dairy providers, and with sheep and pigs would be your primary sources of red meat.
> 
> On the subject of _Guns, Germs and Steel_, I would recommend against reading it without looking into the criticisms of said book. I say this because it is very popular among laypeople, who often see it as fact or very close to it, while experts have some serious issues with it.



I strongly second this sentiment...  It's a good book, but certainly not without inaccuracies.
I approach it the same way I would approach Howard Zinn's work; there is some incongruousness, but for the most part, it proves to be an interesting concept.


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 7, 2016)

There's always sheep milk and sheep cheese, like feta and Roquefort. Not to mention wool, and meat from sheep.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Mar 8, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> What are cows? Do you exclude oxen? Buffalo? Yaks? Muskox?
> 
> Be careful what you wish for. ;-)



Pretty much all of the above. I just really don't like cows.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Mar 8, 2016)

Geo said:


> That is the biggest advantage of cows, contrary to horses or even goats, are much more manageable. If you have had goats (or been around a petting zoo) you would know that they are always trying to escape (keeping goats requires a constant effort contrary to cows who like to stay where you put them. And because goats are much smaller, your effort/benefit balance is seriously changed).
> 
> Horses don't produce as much milk, and a new-born horse needs more protein to thrive than a calf (meaning you can't start taking the milk from the mare intermediately or you'll starved the baby)... so there is a reason why cows are the preferred meat producer of the world. By the way, goat meat is also a good source of protein.



That's a good point, but I don't think there's any real reason people need to be drinking the milk of other animals. Meat eating,  sure, but I don't see why a society with a more plant-based diet can't thrive. The lack of oxen as draft animals as well as cows for meat would directly impact their ability to produce food and would slow population growth, but this might actually be an advantage to me since it would make my timeline more logical.


----------



## AndrewLowe (Mar 9, 2016)

I don't think that you need cows to make Kraft American cheese.


----------



## AndrewLowe (Mar 9, 2016)

Go Clockwork Orange style and have the characters all drink human milk.


----------



## Geo (Mar 9, 2016)

Devouring Wolf said:


> That's a good point, but I don't think there's any real reason people need to be drinking the milk of other animals. Meat eating,  sure, but I don't see why a society with a more plant-based diet can't thrive. The lack of oxen as draft animals as well as cows for meat would directly impact their ability to produce food and would slow population growth, but this might actually be an advantage to me since it would make my timeline more logical.



One of the main reasons why several societies did not develop technologically was the lack of protein in their diets (I'm not talking only of animal protein, but plant as well). When getting enough food to survive is difficult (protein is a concentrate source of energy, takes longer to digest but gives you more buck for your efforts) there's no chance you're getting creative enough to invent things. So, if you are going to remove cows but want a thriving society, make sure to give your people a good grain to survive (wheat, corn, oats). Otherwise they wouldn't have enough free time to do anything but produce food.

Something interesting fact you may also consider, in Africa, several tribes harvest blood from their animals as an additional source of protein. Not killing the animal, just a little cut, a cup of blood for breakfast, then patch the goat and ready to go.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 9, 2016)

There is an important difference between things that are in a story, or absent from it, because the story needs it, and things that are in or out because the author wants it. 

The difference usually shows.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Mar 9, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> There is an important difference between things that are in a story, or absent from it, because the story needs it, and things that are in or out because the author wants it.
> 
> The difference usually shows.



But everything is about what the author wants from my point of view. I created the world, the cultures, the story and there's no reason they are the way they are except that I want them that way. If I didn't I'd have created them differently.

What does show though, is laziness. You can't just add and subtract things from the story without an in-story explanation and without taking the ramifications of that change into consideration. Since I'm making those considerations, I don't think its going to affect the quality of my story.


----------



## Russ (Mar 10, 2016)

Devouring Wolf said:


> But everything is about what the author wants from my point of view. I created the world, the cultures, the story and there's no reason they are the way they are except that I want them that way. If I didn't I'd have created them differently.



Allow me to respectfully disagree.

It strikes me that the "the world is this way because I want it that way" approach misses two important factors.

The first is that fiction writing should be about the story and the world, to a greater or lessor extent should serve the story.  If the process of world building, cow eliminating or purple mountain making is simply an exercise is self pleasuring whimsy or a reflection of an author's odd bias then it doesn't help the process of building a story that means something or says something. I see many people get too wrapped up in world building or magic system creation and they end up neglecting the story and the characters the things readers really care about.

The second issue is that somewhere in the process the reader has to come into it.  Writing can be thought of as a partnership between the reader and the writer.  You need to respect your reader and  hopefully entertain them or make them think so they get some value out of the relationship.  As a potential reader, even if you absolutely cannot force yourself to put a bovine in your world, please don't waste my time with an in story explanation for that choice or bore me with the ramifications.  I don't need explanations for what is simply an expression of an odd author bias, it really just kind of wastes my time.


----------



## Ben (Mar 10, 2016)

Russ said:


> Allow me to respectfully disagree.
> 
> It strikes me that the "the world is this way because I want it that way" approach misses two important factors.
> 
> ...



This is really good advice and we should all remember it


----------



## Chilari (Mar 10, 2016)

If you don't want cows, rather than trying to imagine a world with sheep, goats, cheese and milk but no cows, why not draw upon a civilisation that never had cows in the first place to build your world around? There are plenty of civilisations that became powerful and well-developed without cows, cows' milk, leather, beef and so on. Various cultures in the Americas - the Aztecs, Maya, Inca and their predecessors, which grew potatoes, beans, corn, squashes, and kept llamas and alpacas. Those in the far east - the various Chinese dynasties, where the agricultural efforts produced rice, raised chickens, and so on. Pick one, do some research, and there you go.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 10, 2016)

An author is absolutely free to put in or keep out anything they please. An author is permitted to put world before story or do anything else that strikes their fancy.

That author should not be surprised if no agent shows an interest in the complete story, nor complain if beta or other readers are confused or put off by the author's choices. 

I am a teacher of medieval history at a university. As such, I'm free to follow my own preferences in what I teach and how I teach it. If I think peasants are smelly and stupid, and I don't want to talk about them, that's my choice. It's my class. I should not, however, be surprised if my teaching is criticized. I should be even less surprised to find that "it's my class" is not regarded as a viable defense of my methodology. Because in fact, my teaching should serve first the subject matter and second the student (I know others would reverse those priorities), and my own tastes come in somewhere around forty-fifth.

Your mileage may vary. But it shouldn't.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 10, 2016)

I think it's going a little far to suggest agents and readers won't like a story because the author chose to not include cows.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Mar 10, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> I am a teacher of medieval history at a university. As such, I'm free to follow my own preferences in what I teach and how I teach it. If I think peasants are smelly and stupid, and I don't want to talk about them, that's my choice. It's my class. I should not, however, be surprised if my teaching is criticized. I should be even less surprised to find that "it's my class" is not regarded as a viable defense of my methodology. Because in fact, my teaching should serve first the subject matter and second the student (I know others would reverse those priorities), and my own tastes come in somewhere around forty-fifth.



I don't understand this comparison at all. A teacher refusing to teach a subject matter according to the established curriculum is a completely different topic than an author choosing to put animal or not put an animal in their fictional world. One is negligence, the other is artistic choice.

Remember, everyone writes for different reasons, but your primary audience is always you. Write to please yourself first, because otherwise it becomes a chore and you will eventually hate it. So write what you want, and don't write what you don't want. Something as superficial as this is really not going to make or break a story anyway.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 10, 2016)

>the established curriculum

*chortle*
I've never worked at or attended a university with an established curriculum (in my discipline). But we now are wandering in the OT Woods.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Mar 11, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> I am a teacher of medieval history at a university. As such, I'm free to follow my own preferences in what I teach and how I teach it. If I think peasants are smelly and stupid, and I don't want to talk about them, that's my choice. It's my class. I should not, however, be surprised if my teaching is criticized. I should be even less surprised to find that "it's my class" is not regarded as a viable defense of my methodology. Because in fact, my teaching should serve first the subject matter and second the student (I know others would reverse those priorities), and my own tastes come in somewhere around forty-fifth.
> 
> Your mileage may vary. But it shouldn't.




Firstly, I don't find that to be a good analogy. You seem to think I just add and subtract things from my story arbitrarily. That is not the case, if I dislike something, I ask myself whether or not it is a necessary element and what would happen if I took it out. Its not me deciding peasants are smelly and gross and then deciding not to teach about them. Its me deciding peasants are smelly and gross and then asking myself whether or not they have contributed anything to history that makes them necessary to teach about. That is precisely why I started this thread, to figure out if removing cows from my story would alter the story in a way I wasn't happy with and I am satisfied that it will not thus I feel perfectly comfortable removing them.



> An author is absolutely free to put in or keep out anything they please. An author is permitted to put world before story or do anything else that strikes their fancy.
> 
> That author should not be surprised if no agent shows an interest in the complete story, nor complain if beta or other readers are confused or put off by the author's choices.



Secondly, I find the insinuation that I am an inferior author because of this to be minor insulting, but what it really shows me is that you believe your way is the better way of doing things and if I don't subscribe to your standards I have little chance of being published. Even if that's true, I find it more than a little presumptuous, especially since I don't write to publish and I welcome criticisms and rejections.

And so I thank you for your input. Your concerns were valid, your way of expressing them less so.


----------



## Ben (Mar 12, 2016)

I wonder how he reader would ever know there are no cows.
Unless the characters sit around discussing how weird it is that there are no cows.
Come to think of it I don't think I've heard cows mentioned in Song of Ice and Fires - there may be no cows in Westeros.


----------



## valiant12 (Mar 12, 2016)

Ben said:


> I wonder how he reader would ever know there are no cows.
> Unless the characters sit around discussing how weird it is that there are no cows.
> Come to think of it I don't think I've heard cows mentioned in Song of Ice and Fires - there may be no cows in Westeros.



There are cows in Planetos. Cows are depicted in the the world of ice and fire book.



> I'm wondering if there are any other ramifications I need to think about for how this would alter society.



I don't understand why you don't want cows in your world. Do you have some  fictional herbivore which is superior to cows , and you don't want it to be outshined by cows.


----------



## daydreamer (Mar 12, 2016)

I'm curious as to why you would want to omit cows from your world, but it really doesn't matter why; you have creative control. Also simply don't mention cows, writers don't mention even animal in their world.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 12, 2016)

@Devouring Wolf, that's a good reply. I think there's been some good feedback on your original question. I only want to add that I did not mean to imply that you are an inferior author, only that if someone writes only for themselves, they aren't likely to get commercially published. You've clarified that that's not your goal, so no worries. As to quality, I do not presume to judge because I've not read anything you've written.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Mar 16, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> @Devouring Wolf, that's a good reply. I think there's been some good feedback on your original question. I only want to add that I did not mean to imply that you are an inferior author, only that if someone writes only for themselves, they aren't likely to get commercially published. You've clarified that that's not your goal, so no worries. As to quality, I do not presume to judge because I've not read anything you've written.



Thank you. I feel as though I owe you an apology actually. Its no excuse but I've been having a rather bad time of late and I overreacted. Your comments were appreciated, though I don't completely agree, and you didn't deserve my anger.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 16, 2016)

np. Anger is only human. Even among wolves.


----------

