On 5/14/2010 3:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 15, 8:23 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2010 3:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 15, 6:26 am, "Fred C. >
>>> 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*?
>>
>> The issue is not about environmental footprint at all.
>>
>
> An argument can be made for going vegan based on environmental
> footprint, right?

No, because you don't make the same commitment to minimize your
footprint in all other aspects of your life, *and* because that's not
why you're "going vegan", *and* because you'd "go vegan" *EVEN IF* it
had a higher environmental footprint than omnivory.


>>> 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.
>>
>> I mean that everyone who has blabbered about it here is not talking
>> about the environment.
>
> Thank you. It is helpful when you clarify for me whom you wish to
> address, obviously.
>
> Who has talked about it here?

Your good pal, Lesley R. Simon, the foot-rubbing whore of Aughalustia,
Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, Ireland. Many others whose names
escape me. One was a ****wit named 'sam', 03 Mar 2008. Another ****wit
named 'pinboard' on the same date.

It is the standard position in aaev.


>> They're *all* talking about some kind of
>> nonsensical absolute inefficiency. The overwhelming majority have also
>> repeatedly maintained that the land currently in use for livestock
>> fodder continue to be used for agriculture, but that it be used to grow
>> food for "starving people" around the world.
>
> You wouldn't be able to use all the land for that purpose.

Irrelevant.



>> *Clearly*, that means
>> those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.
>>
>
> It doesn't really mean that,

It does mean that.


--
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