The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On May 18, 2:53*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> 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.
Of course they are, you fool.
|