View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.gardening
Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 5/14/2010 1:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 15, 6:15 am, "Fred C. >
> 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?


I already explained it to you several times over the last couple of
years. The issue is *not* about environmental footprint, and you know
it. It's about a misconceived and ignorant belief regarding resource
allocation.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs