On May 15, 6:26*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> 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.
>

The issue is not about environmental footprint *for whom*?

Do you claim that *no-one* who talks about the "inefficiency" of meat
production has this environmental argument in mind? That seems like a
pretty extraordinary claim to me.

You did persuade me that some people have some confused ideas about
resource allocation in mind but you have yet to persuade me that this
is usually the intended interpretation. When people talk about the
"inefficiency" of meat production they have in mind environmental
concerns, that seems to me to be just common sense. Sometimes they
have concerns about global food distribution in mind, too; when that
is the case they usually make it explicit.

Why would anyone regard "inefficiency" as a bad thing *apart* from
environmental externalities and aspects of the global food
distribution pattern among humans which are regarded as "a bad thing"?
Why would anyone regard inefficient consumption of resources as a bad
thing *in itself* except to the extent that the resources are not
replaceable (so that environmental externalities are taking place)?
When you claim that the usual intended interpretation has nothing to
do with environmental concerns, I really think you need to make it
clearer what interpretation you have in mind. I can't fathom why
anyone would be concerned about "inefficiency" in itself except to the
extent that they were worried about environmental imapct.