On 5/23/2010 11:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 23, 12:36 pm, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/22/2010 7:00 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On May 23, 2:52 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2010 3:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/18/2010 2:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:53 pm, "Fred C. >
>>>>>>> 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
>>
>>>>>> They're not, fool. They're calling for different food to be grown, and
>>>>>> given away to humans.
>>
>>>>> Different food to be grown which requires less land use in order to
>>>>> produce.
>>
>>>> Different food to be grown and given away to unproductive people, period.
>>
>>> Actually,
>>
>> Actually, the "inefficiency" argument is shit.
>
> What exactly *is* the "inefficiency" argument

The one made by virtually every "vegan" ****-for-brain who discusses it:
that calories are "lost" by growing grain and feeding it to livestock
rather than growing the same grain to feed to humans. That is the one
they all make.