View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.business.agriculture
Rudy Canoza[_4_] Rudy Canoza[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Curtain Cider wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, 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.
>>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>>>
>>>> but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>>>> footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>>>
>>>> You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>>>> aspect of their lives
>>>>
>>>> Jim Webster
>>> That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
>>> too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
>>> party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
>>> really struggling.
>>>
>>> The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
>>> industry and swapping over to the much more efficient

>> Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
>> know the correct meaning of the word.

>
> The meaning is clear and simple,


The meaning escapes you entirely.


>>> and planet
>>> friendly vegetarian diet. What car or other habits people have is
>>> irrelevant, although veggies will also usually be very conscientious
>>> in other areas of their lives.

>> No, they're not. What an absurd claim.

>
> Fact.


Not a fact.


> Most of us veggies care enough about sentient beings not to eat
> or abuse them.


No, you don't care about them at all. That's why you
commission their deaths in the course of farming fruits
and vegetables. All you care about is the disposition
of the corpses. Animals chopped to bits to produce the
vegetables and fruits you eat, and left to rot in
fields, are just fine with you. For some reason,
you're put off by people eating animals. But your
inconsistency is grotesque, and noted.


> Only an ignoramus would eat meat without a thought for
> the consequence.


Only an ignoramus would make a senseless comment like that.


>>> Go veggie and we
>>> instantly drop to around half the production levels with huge capacity
>>> in reserve.

>> And people don't get what they want.

>
> Getting what we want is what has placed the planet in dire straights.


You shouldn't get what you want, then.


>>> The maths are very simple.

>> Except they're based on fundamental misapprehension of
>> basic concepts. People want individual foods,
>> according to their preferences; they do not want
>> undifferentiated calories.

>
> People will get what they are given.


That's fascism. But thanks for coming out with it so
readily.