The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On 5/17/2010 1:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 17, 6:50 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet.
They're not calling for a reduction in land use.
|