On May 16, 3:40*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/15/2010 1:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:59 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > This isn't really about me personally. There are various
> > considerations that might motivate someone to go vegan. The fact that
> > it significantly reduces your environmental footprint is one of them.
> > Someone might be rationally motivated to go vegan on those grounds.
>
> > The environmental considerations are not the main consideration for
> > me, no, but they are a significant consideration, and I do make some
> > effort to reduce my environmental footprint in other aspects of my
> > life as well. But that is irrelevant.
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> > Well, those people aren't here at the moment, are they? So you can't
> > really have a conversation with them.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > It is highly relevant
>
> It is irrelevant. *The people advancing the bogus "efficiency" argument
> are doing so not because they think the land shouldn't be used for
> agriculture, but because they think it should be used for /different/
> output than it is currently used to produce.
>

They think that a smaller amount of land should be used, obviously.
That involves reducing the environmental cost.

It's not really rocket science.

> >>>> *Clearly*, that means
> >>>> those people, at least, are not advancing an environmental argument.
>
> >>> It doesn't really mean that,
>
> >> It does mean that.
>
> > You're
>
> Right. *Yes, I'm right.