View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.gardening
Mr.Smartypants[_2_] Mr.Smartypants[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On May 15, 7:21*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> 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.
>
>


It is as far as Goobs is concerned.