The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On May 14, 2:26*pm, "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.
>
Which translates to environmental footprint, you useless fool.
|