PinBoard wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> livestock.
>>
>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>> can easily pay $3000 or more for large plasma TV
>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>
>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>> than others.
>>
>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>
>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>
>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>> devices.
>>
>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>
> This is a straw man argument.

No, it isn't. "vegans" make this bogus "inefficiency"
argument all the time. Here's an example of it in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian from just yesterday:

The truth can no longer be dodged. Livestock farming
gobbles up agricultural land, water and energy that
could far more efficiently be devoted to growing
food for people to eat directly. Meat, therefore,
is a rich person's food and those who consume it -
whether in India, Denmark or England - cause
malnourishment and death among the world's poorest
people.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...87ba15c70a9667


This vegetarian extremist site,
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/tomeat.html, is
one of dozens or even hundreds that belabor the same
*wrong* point. This claim of "inefficiency" reveals
massive ignorance of what "efficient" means.


>
> If you want something to play DVD's - you'd buy a DVD player. If you
> wanted to watch TV - you'd buy a TV. Two different items with two
> different functions. The choice is FUNCTIONAL.

If I were to argue as the people who wrongly make this
bogus "inefficiency" argument, I would say that DVD
players and television receivers both supply
undifferentiated "electronic entertainment". Your
point about different functionality applies equally
well to animal and vegetable sources of nutrition:
meat provides a different function to the consumer than
vegetables.


>
> If you want to eat - you eat food.

No, that's completely wrong. Different foods are not
the same in the personal utility calculations of
consumers. NO ONE thinks, "I just want basic calories
and protein, and I don't care what form they're in."


> Food has the same function; to
> nourish. The choice is NOT FUNCTIONAL. (In many cases, it's an aesthetic
> choice).

The choice *is* functional: the function of consuming
the thing you want.


>
> If there's a non-functional choice of the item being discussed (be it
> food or shirts) then it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of
> relative efficiency).

The functional choice is there. You just want to
ignore it for ideological reasons.