On 5/15/2010 6:21 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 16, 3:40 am, "Fred C. >
> 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,

They are typical.


>>>> 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's not obvious at all, liar. They think *more* land than is needed
to feed the people in the country should be farmed, and the food given
away to people.



--
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