The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On May 15, 6:15*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/14/2010 1:06 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 5:40 am, "Fred C. >
> > 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 a 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.
>
> > What the efficiency argument actually says, on any reasonably
> > intelligent reading, is that by going vegan you can have a diet which
> > is just as tasty and nutritious with a much smaller environmental
> > footprint.
>
> That's not what it's saying at all, as we already know.
>
How do you know?
|