On May 15, 7:23*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/14/2010 1:34 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > 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 the claim, and it's true, and some people reasonably
> > see it as a good reason for going vegan.
> > ------>
>
> > I would dispute all of the claims in that response.
>
> > Vegan diets are not just as tasty, not to me. Meat and dairy introduces
> > irreplaceable tastes and variety to any diet.
>
> > Vegan diets are not just as nutritious in many cases. I have personally
> > experienced failure to thrive on vegetarian diets and I know many people
> > have. There was a recent study to this effect posted to aaev, and the
> > issue is well documented at beyondveg.com.
>
> > Vegan diets are not always associated with a smaller environmental
> > footprint. They CAN BE, but Steven Davis's study, the Polyface Farm, and
> > the experience of many small farmers illustrate that it is quite
> > possible to use meat in a diet and have a small environmental footprint..
>
> > These claims should be modified and placed in context.
>
> > I also don't agree that veganism is reasonable, *vegetarianism* is
> > reasonable, veganism is extreme and unreasonable.
>
> > The vegan argument in reality is the AR argument, it is based on the
> > notion that it is *unjust* to use animals as products.
>
> That's right. *The blabber about "efficiency" is merely a flabby attempt
> at buttressing their lame "ar" argument - sort of saying "...and
> /another/ thing..."
>
> Rupie is flatly wrong about what they're "really" saying with this phony
> "efficiency" argument. *They're not *really* saying that the additional
> land (used to grow fodder) shouldn't be used - they're saying that it
> should be used for something else, including agriculture. *You can see
> this when many of them say that what it "ought" to be used for is to
> grow food for starving people around the world.

You wouldn't be able to use all of the land for that purpose.

This is one argument that is sometimes made, yes. When someone talks
about "inefficiency" without specifying further what they are worried
about then I would usually assume that they are making an argument
based on environmental concerns. That seems to be the most reasonable
interpretation. But sometimes they are concerned about global food
distribution as well, yes. They believe that the quantity of resources
used to provide rich people with food and the quantity of resources
used to provide poor people with food somehow constitute a
"misallocation". That is a moral position which economists don't
really have any special competence to comment about, but economists
could comment about what the likely effect of a particular course of
action would be. I thought that you were making a purely economic
argument, trying to say that the argument was all based on a
fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of efficiency of resource
allocation.

>*If they /really/ were
> making an environmental protection argument, then they'd be saying it
> shouldn't be used at all and those poor starving people should just be
> allowed to die.

Not really. That does not follow. That would be another example of a
budget allocation problem. It would be possible to feed the entire
population of the world at considerably less environmental cost than
we now do if everyone voluntarily made the appropriate choices.
However, that is not very likely to happen by voluntary means, and
trying to make it happen by non-voluntary means is not necessarily
going to be very productive. It would need to be clarified whether one
more person deciding to go vegan is likely to do much to help starving
people. But the claim that your environmental footprint would be
reduced is on solid ground. And I believe that this is usually what is
in mind when someone talks about "inefficiency". The principle of
charity requires you to interpret it that way. If there is some reason
why the environmental argument is flawed, let's hear it. If you can't
come up with a reason why it's flawed, then you're not entitled to
just say it's not the argument being advanced. The principle of
charity requires you to interpret your opponent's argument so that it
is as strong as possible.