On 5/14/2010 3:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 15, 7:23 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2010 1:34 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > 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.

Not all, but some.


>
> This is one argument that is sometimes made, yes.

It's the one usually made. And it gets "efficiency" utterly wrong.

If there were zero environmental cost to growing fodder for livestock,
"vegans" would still be hawking this "environment" snake oil.


>
>> 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.

It absolutely does follow.


--
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